Five State troopers members of the Governor's own protection detail in the State police made detailed allegations about the Governor's philandering

Five State troopers, members of the Governor's own protection detail in the State police, made detailed allegations about the Governor's philandering. They also said that they had, in effect, pimped for him.There were many things about the story that would give even the greenest reporter pause. The notoriously partisan Spectator was obviously out to "get" Clinton; and the troopers were clearly motivated by resentment that, as they saw it, the Governor had not kept promises of perks and promotions.Still, the case of Paula Corbin Jones rang differently. Her story, which she has stuck to, was that Clinton noticed her, a junior state employee, as she was sitting at the registration desk in the poshest hotel in Little Rock; that one of the troopers was told by Clinton to rent a suite and to bring Jones to it.

In the room, as she put it later, he "came on to her", and finally, his face "beet red", dropped his trousers and asked her, as she put it, to "perform a particular sexual act that did not require me to remove my clothes".They were the wrong trousers, or rather Paula Jones, a preacher's daughter, was the wrong person to drop them in front of. Her boyfriend, now her husband, was outraged, and she has pursued her civil action - for infringing her civil rights by asking her to perform the sex act - with great determination ever since. In particular, she maintains that she can prove her story if she can oblige the President to submit to inspection so that she can identify a distinctive mark on the presidential genitals.What the Supreme Court now has to decide is not whether she is telling the truth, but whether a sitting president can be brought to trial while in office, or whether the case must wait until he is a private citizen again, in this instance until 2001.The Court will not give its decision for some days or even weeks. If it decides that Paula Jones's case must go forward, it will test to the limit the American public's apparent new indifference to sexual scandal. It may be one thing for the voters to ignore rumours that their chief magistrate had an affair - another for them to respect a man convicted of sordid sexual harassment of an employee, aided by his own police. We shall not know that for certain until the Supreme Court has taken its decision, and the lower court reached its verdictn.

Tony Blair's decision to prescribe homework times adds another complication to the confusing world of the 13-year-old. On the one hand, teenagers are under pressure to earn money to eke out family finances or to buy the latest pair of designer trainers. On the other, they feel the need to work hard at school because jobs for 16-year-old school leavers are harder to come by than those for 18- year-olds, and most expect to stay on at school.And, the fin de siecle distractions of drugs, earlier sexual activity and television and video make the lives of teenagers 30 years ago seem comparatively simple.Yesterday, as a survey showed that one in four under-13s is working illegally, the furore continued over the Labour leader's intention to put recommended homework times in compulsory home-school contracts.If teenagers are into designer jeans, the nation's leaders are into homework by design. Whichever party wins the next election, home preparation will be on the agenda.Today the Government will release its own guidelines on homework. No times will be included but schools will be encouraged to copy the good practice of others.Not to be outdone, the Prince of Wales yesterday congratulated Scotland on leading the way in providing out-of-hours study centres for inner-city pupils. The Prince's Trust aims to develop 1,000 such centres by 2000.The ideas of both the Prince and the Government are more acceptable to teachers than those of Mr Blair. His efforts to impose homework times on schools face other problems besides the teenagers who are sitting behind the supermarket till when they should be grappling with Shakespeare.Labour sources explained yesterday that the set times of 30 minutes' homework for primary pupils and an hour and a half for secondary would not themselves be legally enforceable. Schools would be free to decide what they put in their contracts but the Office for Standards in Education would ensure through its inspections that home preparation was included.The aim is to raise the profile of homework.

A recent survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research found that 43 per cent of primary pupils received no regular work to take home.Teachers support the end but are scathing about the means. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, which strongly supports home-school contracts, said: "Labour needs to understand that we need more prescription like a hole in the head."It isn't sensible to try to prescribe even by means of inspection what should or should not be in a home-school contract."Nigel de Gruchy, general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, said: "Legislation will do nothing to solve the biggest problems which are television, videos and parents who aren't interested in homework."Most research evidence shows that carefully set and marked homework improves standards. American studies have shown that children who do regularly marked homework do better than those who do not.Yet Italian children who do more homework than British children do worse in international tests while Finns, who do less, score better.Inspectors emphasise that it is the quality of homework that counts. If the political initiatives mean ever-growing quantities of boring homework, they will fail to woo teenagers from their paper rounds.John Coleman, director of the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, said: "I'm not someone who looks back to a golden age but we do have hard evidence that there are more pressures on today's teenagers. They become sexually active earlier, there is more youth unemployment, more are living with single parents and the gap between those with plenty of money and those with little has widened."Leading article & Letters, page 11What they're saying on the classroom floorThe journalists at Children's Express, the press agency gave a full range of responses to Tony Blair's initiative on homework - and hope he will do more of his own if the Labour Party wins the next general election.Nine-year-old Anton Yavorsky, a year five pupil at St Mary of the Angels primary school in Notting Hill, west London, says it is hard to judge who would benefit from 30 minutes of homework a night "Some people take longer to do the same work. I got homework, but not every night - it usually takes about 15 to 20 minutes Mostly it's spelling and maths," he said. "Maybe I'll wish we had more homework when I go to secondary school."Increasing homework at primary school was seen as a good idea by the secondary school pupils who were interviewed.

Tara Glynn, 17, from Hackney, east London, said: "I never did homework in primary school until the last year. When I started secondary school it was part of growing up and gaining responsibility."Tara, who is in her final year of A- Levels at Our Lady's Convent School, in Stamford Hill, east London, says homework varies from day to day even at her level "Homework depends on what happened that day at school. I don't think I agree with the idea of parent-teacher contracts because the children will only get resentful."Senab Adekunie, 14, is in year 9 at Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Secondary School, in Tony Blair's Islington constituency. She does the homework her teacher assigns and extra work where possible "Not everyone has a stable environment at home.