Pill at 13? It’s too much too young

FIRST a warning: parents of 13-year-old girls (and girls even younger than 13) should look away now.

Some bright spark, presumably a spark who does not have any daughters of 13 or under, has decided it is OK for pharmacists to prescribe contraceptive pills for 13-year-old girls after a quiet chat with the girl (not, note her parents) in the back office of the chemist shop.

Are the majority of mothers and fathers pleased with this innovative approach to sex education? Are mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers pleased with this forward thinking and happy in the knowledge that little Beyoncé or Adele is primed and ready for a sexual relationship at 13?

Putting to one side for a moment the thought that this prescription might be a welcome ticket for the predatory paedophiles in our midst, and the threat of sexually-transmitted diseases, what about the possibility of pregnancy? Are girls ready to be mums (almost certainly single mums) at 13?

Dr Virpi Lummaa from Sheffield University says a study shows humankind is still evolving.

Heaven knows what and who we are evolving into, although most of us will have fearful suspicions as we look around at elements all too evident in our society.

But wherever we are on the evolutionary ladder, I suspect that we are not on a rung where 13-year-old girls have the emotional and intellectual equipment needed to be mothers.

Sex education and advice, delivered in an age-appropriate way at home (essential), throughout infant and junior school and into secondary school (and beyond, where it is needed) won’t stop all 13 year old girls from becoming sexually active, but it will equip them with the self-knowledge and respect for their own bodies that will enable them to make (even now, in 2012) the choice that is right for them.



I SUSPECT the Ministry of Defence thought it was doing residents of those parts of London within sight or jogging distance of the Olympic Games arena a big favour when it notified them that they were to have missile sites on top of their blocks of posh apartments (flats to you and me).

There are doubtless those residents of mini palaces such as the Bow Quarter and Canary Wharf who thought that the missiles would be deployed to keep the riff-raff away.

But in fact the launch equipment is there to shoot down aircraft or incoming missiles from the dastardly terrorists who might seek to upstage our Olympic Games with a pyrotechnic display of their own.

I don’t know about you, but if I lived in one of the blocks with a missile launching system on its roof, I might just think that it would turn my apartment into a target. So, if you go to east London, assuming they will let you in, be sure to wear a tin hat.



FINAL WORD: There has been much talk lately of paying teachers according to their ability to teach. That probably sounds as fair to you as it does to me. Why should teachers who are, well, naff at teaching get paid the same as those who are actually good at it?

The argument for paying poor teachers less than good teachers is probably worth a C-minus, whereas an idea chalked on the board by Graham Stuart, the chairman of the Commons education select committee, is worthy of an A-plus. Stuart major, scourge of the lower third, says that poor teachers should be sacked.

An NUT spokesman, choking over his staff-room brew, said the changes would promote a “culture of mutual distrust”.

Presumably, upsetting teachers’ camaraderie is worse than turning out scores of kids who can’t read and write.