IT should, of course, come as no surprise that a government so low on morality that it is prepared to legalise homosexual sex for schoolboys is also content to give contraceptives to schoolgirls under the age of consent without their parents' knowledge.

No doubt the argument for this proposal being put forward by the Social Exclusion Unit - the nannying agency set up by Tony Blair to do something about the tattooed, feckless dregs in our society who are on permanent drip-feeds from the DSS and, often, free needles from the NHS as well - is that this is the realistic approach.

They are going to do it anyway, the reasoning goes, so why not accept that and give them the Pill to stop them becoming benefit-drawing, no-hope single parents whose children are destined to become the same?

But does not practical support of this outlook actually encourage youngsters to do it anyway - and, moreover, at an age when the law this same government is sworn to uphold says they should not?

And is this not hypocrisy compounded by the fact that no end of sex education and the freely-available Pill for under-age girls has done damn all to stop the boom in teenage pregnancies?

No-one can convince me that this uncritical "realistic" attitude is not actually responsible for much of it.

Old-fashioned me remembers the days when condemnation and shame - as opposed to condonation, no-questions-asked contraception and the guarantee of a council house and extra state benefits for the promiscuous ones who still get pregnant in droves - meant that teenage mums and their illegitimate offspring were a minuscule problem. Just where is the morality or wisdom in telling their sort to do it - and providing the means and encouragement as well?

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.