So, while our local authorities are cutting back trying to save millions to our detriment, the government is every year giving away many billions in excess of what many will consider to be our fair share. When your local library, play centre, or what have you, disappears to the cuts, you can take heart in knowing, as just one example, you have helped to provide hundreds of millions of pounds to India, a country which spends billions on defence and has an enviable space programme. Look up, sweethearts. That little light flashing across the night sky could be your library!

We are told to help develop democracies, £110m of taxpayers’ money will be allocated to Egypt, Tunisia and Middle Eastern countries. David Cameron has said, on record, that he reckons this money will protect Britain’s national security interests.

Really? What like giving the playground bully your sweets? Is that how it works? Personally, I always used to hit him in the goolies, and that stopped his bullying!

I see our Apache helicopters will be upping the ante in Libya, but before anyone shouts “Geronimo!”, they might want to remember what happened to him and the Apache nation. Adopting David Cameron’s philosophy, perhaps we should have given Colonel Gaddafi a few more of our sweets, and then we might not be there now. Unless we are prepared to put boots on the ground in Libya, we might very well be giving him a few more anyway, should a crew survive one of those helicopters coming down near his troops. Though they possess terrifying firepower, the Apache helicopters are notably vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles, especially in built-up areas, and Libya is known to have adequate supplies, enough to inflict some painful wounds.

Doubtless the allies will prevail in the end, or at least come out of the skirmish under the (some will say: compromising) flag of “honourably”, as has happened in Iraq, and is being led up to in Afghanistan today. But I really don’t understand the Western approach when dealing with these foreign threats. We go in like ballet dancers with one hand strapped behind our backs, both causing and sustaining suffering and huge losses of human life, often over many years, when all the time we have the power to end the conflict straightaway. Yes, it would be with a massive loss of life too, but what’s the difference, apart from that we wouldn’t lose any of our own? Such one hit solutions come cheaper too. In this dispute alone, we have already spent on missiles far in excess of the cost of a one hit solution.

Perhaps what we need is a United Nations that really works and has some guts? One where the democratic decision it arrives at in a dispute is final, and with no doubt left in anyone’s mind its solution WILL be imposed! Such would save untold human lives, and leave us all with the money to enjoy a better lifestyle.

Of course, anything like that is unlikely to come to fruition in the near future. Undoubtedly, it would curtail too many of the West’s unscrupulous actions around the world, where often we are seen as the bully.

We’re a funny lot, aren’t we? In the local council elections, in many places there wasn’t much local happening in people’s minds. As far as the overall control of councils goes, as I write this, the Conservatives look pretty much like holding their own. However, the enjoyment some voters gained through punishing their local Lib Dem councillors (for the actions of that party in the national government coalition) has put a huge smile on the face of Labour. Of course, only tomorrow will tell how many of these feeling satisfied voters will come to regret losing their local Lib Dem councillors, and whether that slap to Nick Clegg was really worth it. Ah, I love the funny season!

In Scotland, with the Scottish National Party on a roll, should Alex Salmond gain overall control, as looks likely, I foresee a referendum on independence for Scotland. And that reminds me: I must learn how to spell Sassenach. It’s a strange word; one that never quite sounds the same coming from a Scottish mouth. They frequently see the need to qualify it with a ripe adjective, running the words together, and you feel the spelling should start with an F – or maybe a B? Perhaps we should remind them, the Highlanders once used the word to describe other Scots, and start a civil war up there. That should keep them out of our hair for a while!  Only joking! We love you really! (We have to – you’ve got the oil!)

How about the Yes-No vote on AV? Did you bother? I suspect many did not; there seemed little interest in it. In my mind, the vote for or against AV was the weirdest thing ever. Fighting tooth and nail, it was a system not even desired by those who were advocating it – they really wanted PR. So why? If you are a vegetarian, would you enjoy a steak simply because you could vote for one? The mind boggles!

Moving on to other things: I see the death of Osama’s been laden (Ouch!) with controversy. It seems just about everybody is happy the man is dead, but will now spend months, if not years, arguing over how he died. Really, it’s all about how you like your eggs, isn’t it? Quite obviously, Osama Bin Laden enjoyed his scrambled, and perhaps we should remember that before criticising how those US troops served our breakfast.

The Bible makes not one reference to the disciples having children, and only one suggestion to any of them ever having married – Peter, with just one story of a mother-in-law, though it is open to debate that she was this to one of his siblings.

Because having a woman and a warren of kids in those times was considered the usual state of affairs, many – especially the church – have (conveniently) assumed they were all married and had been at it like rabbits. But as nobody who wrote about those times thought to mention any of these numerous people, not even those closely involved as in the gospels, that’s one mighty huge assumption, isn’t it?

We do know from the Bible that Paul was not attracted to women, though he says he understood that some needed to be for necessary procreation. John did little else than stay by Jesus’ side. The youngest, he was always to be found there, and there are many references to their closeness – five of them specifically saying that he was the disciple Jesus loved.

One of them: (John 13:23) “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.” is reproduced in many artistic works.

John was also the only disciple that remained with Jesus at the cross on Calvary, and we should never forget this is where: (John 19:26-27) “Jesus saw his own mother, and the disciple standing near whom he loved, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold your son’. Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother’. And from that hour, he took his mother into his family.”

If that isn’t in other words: “Meet my significant other, mum, he’ll look after you,” then I don’t know what it is! Of all the disciples, John was the least capable of looking after anybody, so this was undoubtedly a family commitment. It is taken for granted in the Bible that Jesus loved everybody, so when a specific love is mentioned it has to have a much greater importance.

There is another that Jesus is named in the Bible specifically to have  loved: Lazarus. Of the youth it is written:  (John 11: 3). “So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick.”

In a time when death came so easily, for Jesus to turn back, and at the risk of receiving a stoning, arrive there to raise the kid four days after he had died, in my book makes that some pretty damn meaningful love! Chances are, he would have passed close to other dead, dying, or sick people on his route there, but of all of them this was the one that just had to be saved.

Gay, and having a bad time correlating that to your religion? Don’t blame being gay; blame your religion!  It is that which needs saving!

In the King James Authorized Bible there are 783,137 words. It’s quite a lot, but you need only remember a few: LOVE RULES, OK!

Happy Easter!

Today I find little to distinguish the BBC News and Current Affairs programmes, both television and radio, from our national press. It loves to sensationalise, nitpick, appears to have a view on everything, and will often tell us what will happen as a result of some news – when nobody can be sure of that! When I watch news programmes, I want the facts, and the facts only. Anything else should appear completely separate, in another programme, where it is made abundantly clear it is someone’s view, and not a factual report.

I wouldn’t be so bold as to accuse the BBC of having a party-political bias, I don’t believe it does, but I do feel it has changed from being that once respected Auntie into a Mischievous Nephew. I cannot excuse the national press for its mischief-making, but I do understand it – when a newspaper can be up to a day late with the news, it needs something to attract reader interest. However, that is not the case with television and radio, where news is often up-to-the-minute, so here I can neither excuse nor understand it. Is it all about ratings? It is certainly not about the people!

Public complaints, as opposed to views, are sometimes aired on Points of View, and they may even be referred to on the Breakfast programme and Regional News, but is any notice taken of them? Sound quality is a common cause for complaint, from viewers’ feedback to becoming a topic in local pubs. Compared to yesteryear, when radio and television repair technicians throughout the land relied on the BBC standard – and I know; I was in the game – today the sound quality of some programmes is so abysmal it leads one to suspect they were hashed together as a project for a bunch of trainees.

Recently, Brian Cox’s Wonders of the Solar System came under fire, and to give the BBC due merit here, it did respond to the complaints this time, but only this time? Background music should be just that: in the background, and nothing should obscure what the commentator has to tell us. Nevertheless, in recent years, it seems it has become all about making the viewer dive for the remote control to sit through a programme with a finger constantly operating the volume control. I have nine sound modes on my television, and often there is not one of them, not even forced mono, where, if I cater for the background or introductory music to not awaken the household, I can hear the narrator satisfactorily. From what I’ve seen and heard, there must be millions like me. Try watching the BBC News channel some nights, or the Breakfast programme, without waking the neighbours. I am beginning to hate drums! When I wish to interact, I shall press the red button, thank you! Do not force it on me!

Many years ago, in the days of cinema newsreels, especially when there was favourable war footage, the practise of increasing the sound level on introductions and logos was referred to as the Word of God. It was employed to give an air of authority to what the public were about to see – often propaganda. You’ll need some long teeth to remember Gaumont British News, British Movietone News, and dear old Pathe with its cockerel in the triangle. How that bird could crow when it was needed! Do we still require the same system in place today?

Of course, ITV is frequently as bad, especially with playing commercials at an amplified level, and some of those obscure free movie channels can be an absolute nightmare, but then, I don’t expect the same standards from them. Bring back Auntie; she was a good old stick!

Yeah, right! Like I’m going to give up my mouthwash!

Nanny has already driven our children to buying their tobacco products cheaply on the black market with her scaremongering. In twelve years she has created a whole new underground criminal society with local barons and gangs to match only those supplying drugs. Not satisfied with that, this latest move, which because of her closeness to government I suspect is only another footstep to increasing the price of alcohol in an attempt to fill the coffers – like they have tried with tobacco, could be on course to creating yet another underground movement.

It is stupidity in the extreme! The more the prices rise, the more people will buy on the black market – and the less the government will collect. Meanwhile Nanny will strut around telling you what a good job she is doing. Get real, or get some spectacles!

The facts are: approximately one in four people will die from a cancer, most of them in old age – when you are going to die of something anyway, and by recent NHS treatment of some elderly, it may come as a relief! There are more than 200 different types of cancer. Of the 200 plus, just 4 account for over half of all new cases: breast, lung, large bowel (colorectal) and prostate.

The latest news that alcohol is a risk to about 8% of cases in males and about 3% of cases in females may or may not be intended to mislead. If the figures scare you, the word you need to see is “cases”. It is not those percentages (8% and 3%) of the population, but merely of those who will contract the disease. Nanny played with the statistics like this for smoking, and just look at the panic some people suffer now, so if you enjoy a tipple, watch out!

The 8% of males equates to 9,000 cases and the 3% of females 4,000 cases. That’s a total of 13,000 cases out of more than 61 million people. To my calculator, that makes this latest scare relevant to approximately 0.02% of the population.

You can play with those statistics at your will, but only if you are clever with words can you make them appear frightening. For example, if you read them another way, a woman may have 33 other things to fear more than a nip of alcohol. Why isn’t Nanny screaming about them?

What’s that? Oh, perhaps they’re not so easily taxable, I see!

If we REALLY want to save money, let’s cut Nanny out of the NHS and save a fortune!

Have a nice day! Hic!