Scarcely a day in which there wasn't another scare story about Britain's young women. Almost 4,000 11 to 15-year-olds were hospitalised last year by the effects of alcohol, and the amount of alcohol consumed by under-16s has doubled in the last 15 years. More than a fifth of young women claim to have had sex with three partners by the age of 14, according to one survey, two-thirds have unprotected sex and half admit to one-night stands. Children as young as 11 are buying cannabis in the playground, or so it is claimed. Believe it all and you'd tear out your hair. So is it true? The number hospitalised by drink is a Government statistic, so we have to believe it. But the magazine survey which made the claims about sexual behaviour has been challenged by the National Survey on Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles, which claims that only one in four have sex by 16 - and with fewer than three partners. Well, that's bad enough and it's sad that half of the respondents to the National Survey regretted their early sexual experience. Sadder still is the claim by 60pc that they were drunk when they lost their virginity. Okay. I'm sceptical about any surveys. Some people say anything to get away from the pollster, others fib and still others see it as a chance to give credence to their fantasies. The fact remains that sexual infections among the young are on the rise, teenage pregnancy is a worry and the number of children seeking help with depression and stress threatens to overwhelm available sources of help. We have some marvellous young people in Britain today, far more socially aware than previous generations, but too many of them are unhappy in spite of material possessions their parents and grandparents only dreamed of. If anyone had suggested I might have my own personal phone I'd have laughed out aloud, and yet the mobile phone is now commonplace and comes complete with all sorts of sophisticated extras. Designer trainers, professional hair-care, trips abroad - most of the children drowning their sorrows with booze and drugs have all these things and still they're fretting. No good blaming them, they inherited the world we made. The sooner we find out what we neglected to put in place the better. ******** Have a care for kids It must be hard for a judge to send a mother to prison, knowing that he is punishing her innocent children too. Of course it must be done sometimes. A situation in which motherhood gave you immunity from punishment would lead to anarchy. Nevertheless, I was disturbed to hear this week that there were 40 attempted suicides over Mother's Day weekend in one prison, Styal, in Cheshire, alone. If that was replicated across the country it's horrific. The prison service does what it can to mitigate the effects of prison on mothers. In 2003 there were six actual deaths in that same prison, so things are improving. All the same, we need to look hard at what is going on and why so many women wind up behind bars. The first thing is to establish that they are all guilty. The last few years have shown that verdicts can be wrong - Sally Clark and Angela Canning to name but two; women robbed of seeing their children grow up. We can't give them back those precious years. We seem unwilling even to pay them compensation. Secondly, is prison the appropriate punishment? I'm not suggesting being softer on women. We can be just as wicked as men and equality means just that, even when it comes to punishment. But if we could find ways of making men and women accountable without taking them out of the home we might all benefit. If prison is the only alternative surely we should try to make it as humane as possible and ensure bonds with their children are maintained, whether or not they have supportive partners as Clark and Canning did. That is the least a civilised society should do. ******** Why do it? I believe we should use advances in medical science to make the world a better place. So why not allow parents to select a second child whose cord blood could give life to a dying sibling? Why not allow parents to decide the sex of their child or screen to make sure their child will not carry a hereditary disease? Why not allow the creation of embryos in the laboratory if it will lead to cures for degenerative disease, as long as those embryos are treated with respect and not kept for only a short time? Feeling as I do I should be welcoming the report of the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee which recommends those things. In fact, one of their recommendations offends me mightily because I can't see what good will come of it. It's the proposal to produce chimera, a mix of animal and human cells. The committee says such artificial creations should not be implanted in a human womb, but why permit them at all? If there's some great advance for the human race in doing such a thing I wish someone would tell me what it is. If there's no noble advantage, why do it at all? ******** Short on faith This hasn't been a religious Easter as far as radio and TV were concerned. Once upon a time religion dominated the schedules at Easter, this time hardly anything. I suppose the excuse would be that most people no longer have a religious faith. I'm not sure that is true, but one thing would seem to support the theory. GK Chesterton said: "When people stop believing in God they don't believe in nothing
they believe in anything." If that's a valid statement then we have lost faith in God because nowadays people seem to believe in the craziest things. Regression, where you are taken back to your former lives, is a biggie at the moment. Personally I think it's a load of rubbish, but it's catching on. Crystals are another. Faith healing, reiki, feng shui, astrology - you name it, someone somewhere is paying good money for it and saying it has enhanced their lives. At least religion has a long track record. Some of these latest fads will be hard pressed to last the week. ******** A step too far in the case of Terry Schiavo I hate the human tragedy being played out in America as Terry Schiavo lies dying. Severely brain-damaged 15 years ago, she has been unable to communicate since. Experts say she does not experience pain or pleasure and has no awareness of her situation. Her husband says it is time to let her go and wants water and feeding withdrawn. Her family say she might recover and must be kept alive. Lawyers have fought over her inert body. President Bush interrupted his holiday to sign a decree meant to save her life, but the courts have overruled him. As I write this she is being starved to death. I would not want to live if I were her. I would not want to see anyone I loved linger in that state. But I feel for her parents and siblings. They believe she is being murdered and they are powerless to protect her. When she dies their grief will be much greater than if she had died a natural death. As far as I am concerned no-one has come up with a better formula than the old one - thou shalt not kill, but need not strive officiously to keep alive. So I dislike the idea of the ventilator and the feeding tube as a permanency where there is no hope of recovery, but denying a helpless human being a sip of water seems to go way too far for me. ******** It can't be done, David The pictures of David Beckham having a hissy fit because he was being photographed annoyed me. If he doesn't want to attract attention why does he constantly dress so bizarrely? The man makes his living out of being photographed - £10m for having his picture stuck on posters advertising everything from sports goods to sunglasses. His £73,000 Hummer H2 has special alloy wheels ornamented with his England number, seven. That's not a vehicle to get lost in a car park, is it? He courted publicity but now expects to turn it on and off like a tap. It can't be done, David. It simply can't be done. | 
