He described to me a recent problem with which he had to deal

He described to me a recent problem with which he had to deal. A 15-year-old girl, overweight and with very short hair, was the victim of a sustained bullying attack by a group of very pretty girls in her school. She was called: "lesbian", "dyke" and a whole raft of other offensive names.In this case, the taunts had no foundation Yet the pain for the girl was unbearable Her teachers needed to act They needed to protect her. They needed to deal with this bullying.In tackling her classmates, the teacher explained that every individual, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is entitled to be treated with decency and respect It is a simple fact that some people are gay.

The teacher rightly explained that people should not be bullied because of their sexuality; that this is a private choice and everyone should be valued with equal worth.But the teacher felt threatened in his task. Why? Because under the current law this responsible and caring man ran the risk of "promoting homosexuality".There is a sensible way forward. We should scrap Section 28 because it discriminates, it hurts, and it does not protect young people. In its place I would like to see a statutory requirement on every school - including private schools - to have not only sex education policies, but an anti- bullying policy which was specific for that school.Crucially, this policy would be drawn up by parents in consultation with the head and other teachers, and governors Surely this is simple common sense. It would allow the law to work to protect all our children from bullying, whatever the cause. It would be as tough against bullying arising from homophobia as it would be about racism.

The law would be used to require the school to recognise and deal with the problem effectively and responsibly.I came into politics to help promote decent values and build a better society. I cannot see how the present Section 28 contributes to either.Discrimination is abhorrent wherever we find it and we should be as tough on its causes as well as its effects. Understanding and compassion , as Robert Kennedy said, are the starting points for building a better society. A nation which is at ease with itself must be tolerant of and caring towards every individual.If we truly wish to create a society of opportunity, we will have to make brave choices, and seek to persuade those who sometimes wish to produce a morality based only on the views of a majority The repeal of Section 28 presents such a choice We should be brave.. UNIVERSAL free admission to the national galleries and museums was one of the few absolute commitments to the arts this Government made Now it is backing down It hasn't got the money More important, it hasn't got the will. Chris Smith, the Culture Secretary, is a good man with instincts many in the arts community applaud. But the signs are that he is not going to win the battle with his colleagues for the cash required to fulfil the pledge.

The seemingly simple egalitarian call for universal free admission from 2001 has come to look like an albatross round Mr Smith's neck Yet the principle was, and remains, a fine one. The campaign for "free admission for all" was based on the notion that the national collections of art and treasures are exactly that: national collections, which should be available for all the nation. And while free admission for children and pensioners is a good first step, in these days when life-long learning and access are the buzz words, 20- to 50-somethings should not be excluded. There are complications, not least VAT. Insanely, museums with free admission lose not only income from fees but also the business benefit of being allowed to reclaim the VAT on the costs of running, restoring or extending their institution. This was one of the reasons why some museum trustees were less than happy at having the free-admission principle imposed upon them But tax issues are not insurmountable The finest tax brains can and should be put to the task.

Far bigger problems - the Dome, for example - have been tackled with brainpower and cash The Government should apply both and honour its commitment.. A SECRETIVE organisation has taken control of huge swaths of the British countryside and is determined to keep the people out, using barbed-wire and armed patrols. It sounds like another fantastic mission for James Bond, but 007 would never go into battle against his own side. The villain of this real-life plot is the Ministry of Defence, which refuses to loosen its grip on some of our most beautiful landscapes. The public is banned from 238,500 hectares of land set aside for military manoeuvres, including a quarter of Northumberland and parts of nine National Parks.