In this article William M. Briggs tells about a British Judge who Rules Against Bayes’s Theorem.
Actually, the judge did not ban Bayes’s rule: he banned unwarranted precision. He “decided that Bayes’ theorem shouldn’t again be used unless the underlying statistics are ‘firm’.” To which I again say, Amen.
This is an unusually encouraging sign of sense from our judiciary.
Undoubtedly the EU Human Rights Judges will decide this is contrary to EU law and therefore the theorem will have to be admitted again.
Let's face it, a convicted criminal cannot be deported because of his attachment to a cat and separating them would violate his rights. (Can't they deport the cat as well or would that violate the cat's rights?), then I can't see them allowing this bit of common sense to stand.
But the fundamental reason this judgement will be overturned has nothing to do with the math but precisely because of the reasons alluded to in one of the comments; that politicians might have to apply the same criteria to statistics on any and all of their pet scams from climate change to drink driving laws to speed cameras.
This is about the only time a politician will be aware of the law of unintended consequences; when it could affect their own scams.