Schools and Vaccinations

The Guardian broke a story last week (link) about a small number of schools that deny their pupils access to the HPV vaccine on the grounds of religion:

"Some schools in England have opted out of the HPV vaccination programme because their pupils follow strict Christian principles and do not have sex outside marriage."

Childhood vaccinations aren't compulsory in the UK and although most schools allow the recommended programmes to be administered on their premises they are allowed to opt out. The voluntary nature of the programme makes sense in the context of a liberal, well-educated society that values reason, informed consent and patient involvement but the system is damaged when some pupils, for whatever reason, are denied vaccinations.

The schools argue that the vaccine is not in line with their Christian principles (presumably because the virus is transmitted through sexual intercourse) and that they are therefore unable to administer it on their premises. There are several problems:

• Vaccination at school is an excellent way to ensure that children get the protection they need. It is very likely that at least some (possibly most) of the children who aren't vaccinated at school will never be vaccinated so by opting out of the programme schools increase their pupils' risk of death from cervical cancer.
• Putting the schools' principles ahead of the wellbeing of pupils is immoral and unethical. Institutions that value their "Christian principles" more highly than the health of their pupils have failed in their duty of care and would be well advised to find some better principles to follow.
• Even if pupils never have sex outside marriage they are still at risk of catching HPV. What if their husband is a carrier? What if they re-marry and their second husband has been exposed? What if they are sexually assaulted by a carrier? What if pupils decide after leaving school that the Christian teachings about sex and marriage are complete rubbish and that they're just going to live life and have fun? 

It is right that schools have a set of defining principles and that they defend them against criticism. They should be allowed to draft their own constitutions and to set the rules they believe will benefit their pupils. But they should also accept and follow guidance on matters which are outside their expertise irrespective of their personal or institutional preferences - it is inconceivable that the schools refusing to offer HPV immunisation have a valid medical reason for their decision.

Society as a whole has a duty to ensure that our children receive the best treatment and education we can provide. Vaccination against life-threatening illnesses is a perfectly reasonable and sensible precaution, even if some people object to the nature of the illnesses being prevented. To allow religious extremists (can anyone argue that someone who puts their "Christian principles" ahead of their pupils health isn't an extremist?) to dictate health policy and act against the interests of their pupils is wrong and should not be tolerated.

The Red Carpet Experience

London premieres lots of big films. Throughout the summer producers bring their stars and publicity machines to Leicester Square, rent a cinema, slap down the red carpet and throw a big party to publicise their film. This week I was invited (by my friend Lucien) to one of the year's biggest premieres - The Dark Knight Rises.

It was a surreal experience. Leicester Square, newly reopened after years of renovation work, was transformed into a crowd control system focussed on the centre of the square, in which a three metre tall model of Batman's mask had been constructed. Security guards and fences held back several thousand cheerful fans who took photos and screamed happily at the actors and celebrities as they paraded past.

Large screens showed clips from the movie and interviews with the stars, shot in Leicester Square on a small stage next to an enormous burning bat symbol. A camouflaged Tumbler (apparently the military variant of Batman's car from The Dark Knight) stood guard on the south east corner of the square. Synchronised gas burners shot flames into the air every few seconds and security guards bellowed at film-goers to keep moving toward the cinema (people on the red carpet were taking photos of the scenery and the crowd).

As befits a film so eagerly anticipated by its adoring fans, the producers had hired two cinemas - the Odeon and the Empire - to ensure that every part of the launch was as big as possible (is it normal to hire two cinemas for a premiere?). Helpful chaps positioned next to the Tumbler checked tickets and directed people along the right branch of the red carpet.

Inside the cinema, after more ticket checks, the seats were pre-loaded with mineral water and chocolate treats (peanut M&Ms in my case). After a brief introduction from the Sky interviewer and the president of Warner Bros UK, the major cast members, the producers and the director trotted up on stage to show their faces. That was as close as we got to the talent, who trooped off after Christopher Nolan's speech to places unknown. Then they screened the film.

In all, a very entertaining evening. Walking down the red carpet through hordes of fans (they were strangely quiet as we passed by, almost as if they were waiting for someone else), some dressed as characters from the film, is a strange experience I shall long remember. I'm fairly sure, having watched the actors work their way through the crowds, that I wouldn't want their job.

And what of the film itself? I enjoyed it. It's maybe not as good as The Dark Knight (which, given Heath Ledger's exceptional performance, was always a risk) but it's entertaining and worth seeing if you like action or superhero movies. It carefully concludes the trilogy's outstanding storylines whilst simultaneously setting the stage for a fourth film (that's all I'm saying about it - you'll have to find out how they do this by watching the film). Recommended.

Athens, Greece

With everything that's going on in the Euro zone at the moment, and particularly in Greece, you might be forgiven for thinking that Athens would be depressed, downbeat and generally a bit quiet. Having just returned from a 24 hour visit to the Greek capital, I have a few observations to report that may, or may not, be of interest.

Firstly, the flights, both out and return, were full. I'm sure this was the case on previous visits as well but, either way, there are still reasonable numbers of people travelling to and from Athens. Packed flights should indicate higher-level economic activity, since leisure travel is likely to be the first thing that gets cut when times are hard (although fewer flights using smaller planes might also explain the appearance of high levels of traffic).

The advertising billboards, of which there are an impressively large number along the route from the airport to the centre of the city, are almost all unused. Many are in a state of disrepair, which suggests long disuse. Lack of advertising, especially in a downturn, is a very bad sign indeed; successful firms often advertise aggressively to squeeze rivals during a downturn and grow their customer. Maybe the billboard owners have gone bust.

The hotel I stayed in, the Intercontinental, was busy (although not as busy as it was in May 2011 when I last visited). Anecdotal evidence suggests that a number of central 4 and 5 star hotels have closed in the last year so it may be that the strong international brands are benefitting from reduced local competition.

The restaurant we ate in, Travolta, has moved to larger premises since my last visit but it was very quiet. The food was again excellent but business seemed slow.

The trendy bars and restaurants in Gazi, like Dirty Ginger where I spent a few hours on a Thursday night, all appear to be busy. The streets were crowded and the bars were packed but not, from what I was told, as heavily as they had been a few months ago.

Another recent change, again anecdotally, is that restaurants are now issuing tax receipts, as they would in any other city in Europe. This doesn't sound like a big change but hopefully it signals that tax avoidance, once considered a national sport, is falling out of favour. Anything that helps the Government to gather its expected tax revenues is likely to be good for the country in the long-term.

I like Athens. It's warm, friendly and full of things to do. It has a few strange features (like the damn great motorway running through the middle of the city) but it's a great place to visit. I enjoyed my visit, brief though it was, and I really hope they can keep things together over the next few years. I'll be going back again as soon as I can to see the sights and to take advantage of the cheap hotels and restaurants. Highly recommended.

Living in London

Samuel Johnson famously said, in conversation with his friend Boswell:

"Why, Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave London. No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."

The short form is often quoted as part of an introduction to London:

"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life."

In either form the meaning is clear; in 1777 (September 20th, to be precise) London was considered, by a biased observer, to be about the most interesting place a man could choose to live.

What does that mean for the rest of us? Anything at all? I suppose 235 year-old quotes might sometimes be illuminating but this one, particularly in is shortened form, is merely witty. London in the 1770s was probably a great place to live if you had plenty of money, much as it still is, but a pretty lousy place to be if you were at the bottom of the pile.

So what is it that I like about this noisy, dirty, expensive, crowded, polluted and impersonal city? Most of my family live in small rural towns and villages in Hampshire, West Sussex, Lincolnshire and Surrey. They like the peace and quiet of the countryside with its tractors and birdsong and pesticides, the sense of space and lack of crowds and the almost total absence of community amenities. Strange.

All of these things are fairly obvious to a casual observer - they're simply the main differences between city and countryside living. What's less obvious is that we, living five miles from the centre of the biggest city in Europe, actually have easier access to green spaces than all of our rural relatives put together.

How can this be? Surely, out in the country, everyone can spend as much time as they like in green fields and woodland? Well, no, not really. If you live in the countryside you are basically surrounded by the agricultural equivalent of an industrial estate. Fields, meadows and coppiced woods might have paths through or around them but you can't roam freely across them - they're working lands, not pleasure gardens, and they're largely off limits. You can look, but don't touch.

In contrast, within a short walk (along tree-lined avenues) of our flat there are two large parks, Peckham Rye and Dulwich Park, and two fairly substantial woods, One Tree Hill and Nunhead Cemetery. They are all open and free. They have tennis courts, cafes, sports fields, bike hire shops, running tracks, exercise machines, Japanese gardens, bowling greens, woodland walks and boating lakes.

So why do people live in the country? I think it must be the sense of space and the silence. Which is great, if you like that sort of thing, but occasional doses are good enough for me; I'd rather live in a city with a decent collection of shops and a fast Internet connection.

The Long Slow Death of the Church

A thousand years ago everyone in Europe knew that the Earth had been made for man alone and that it sat at the centre of a universe created in seven days by a jealous, vengeful God who had made us in his form, sacrificed his only son to cleanse us of our sins and controlled the Heavens, the weather, the sea, disease, love, life and death according to an ineffable plan that only he could understand.

Five hundred years ago we knew that the Earth went round the sun and that the moon influenced the tides (somehow) but the Church (and God, of course) still ran everything else. Our knowledge of anatomy, physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, history, geography, geology and pretty much everything else was rudimentary and the big questions, like why did the world exist, could only be answered by the religious. The Church had all the answers, and the answer was always "God did it".

By the mid seventeenth century we understood the circulation of blood around the body, the mathematics that governs planetary orbits and the layout of the world's major land masses. The influence of the Church was still very strong but in some areas it no longer claimed to be the ultimate authority; it had started to cede knowledge to the scientific movement.

After 1859, when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, we finally had a good understanding of our origins and the development of life. Since then discoveries have come ever more quickly and the role of God in the natural world has shrunk further and further as science has pushed back the boundaries of knowledge. We now know what causes most diseases and how to prevent or cure them, why volcanoes erupt and the earth shakes, how the weather works, what the stars are made of; we have good answers to almost all the questions to which our ancestors might have answered "God did it" a thousand years ago.

The point of all this is that God, previously advertised as the all-powerful creator and dictator of the universe is now a bit of a joke, a relic reduced to listening to prayers and helping out a bit when people need an illusory crutch to lean on. As such, it is now most definitely time to stop treating God as anything other than the fictional character he clearly is. We don't need to worship, follow special dietary or dress rules, abstain from work on particular days or discriminate against people based on their gender or sexuality.

We need a comprehensive overhaul of our legal system to remove laws that are based solely on religious belief (like restricted Sunday trading) or that grant religious entities special privileges (like charitable status). We should dis-establish the Church of England and allow the monarch to choose their religion (or none). Completion of this project will mark the emergence of the UK as a secular and democratic state whose people are free from religious oppression.