A RECENT issue of the Gazette & Herald was so full of controversial subjects that if I were to comment on them all I should need a whole page. It was the issue where the headlines were about farmer Andrew Wainwright and his problem with flying our flag. In a later issue, I see that he has continued to fly the white rose of Yorkshire. Good for him!

To quote a 'Yorkshireism', I am 'riled' about this, and the silly remarks which have surfaced. A Ryedale spokesman says: "This is a sensitive issue." And exactly why, may I ask? I am not that concerned about upsetting people who have come to settle in our country, whether legally or illegally. They must accept our ways and customs, as we would have to do if in their country. The remarks of a spokesman from the PM's office take the current legislation quite over the top. Controls are there to prevent the flying of offensive flags. That's sensible, but to have to have permission for one's own banner in one's own country surely cannot incite racial hatred. And what if it does? This is England, and we should do, and continue to do, what we have done for a thousand years without having to alter our ways for some outsiders. Do we have to re-write history as well? Time for common sense, and the courage of our conviction.

- Fylingdales health risk crops up yet again. Once again, it's been an early warning station for many years and I would ask the question: Have there been any health problems since its inception? None that I've heard of. If you think back to Day One, when the radomes went up, and scanning first started, the media was full of weary willies telling us that the area covered by the scan would be covered by distorted and strange vegetation, like some tropical forest. I didn't notice any of that either. I suspect that the objections relate more to the political aspect than anything else, and the health risk is just thrown in to try to confuse the public. Meanwhile, we have a fair and sensible reason to protect ourselves from some crank dictator taking a dislike to us, and fore-knowledge is vital. This is self-defence, and as part of a major system in this hemisphere, we must remain part of it.

- Surely a greater worry is not the isolated low-frequency scanning field of Fylingdales, but from every other radio signal in the world. There are lots of questions which must be asked. Like, apart from the adverse effect on eyesight, with folk staring at computer screens for hours and days on end, to radiation from microwave equipment everywhere. Remember the 'who-har' about working under fluorescent tubes some years ago? The masses complained bitterly, and I recall having to install tungsten lighting to keep staff happy. That died down, but there are still folk who don't like working under non-tungsten lighting.

With the prevalence of cancer these days, I am at a loss to understand why. Was it always so? Or was it that medical science just didn't know what it was? So. What about broadcasting, and radio waves? Long waves, short waves, and any other you can think of. All of them pass through our bodies. Every broadcast from wherever, be it radio or TV, can be picked up provided you have the right receiver. And most of us have. So stand in front of your radio or TV and you still get a signal. They don't bounce off the human body. They go through it. Thousands of them every day and night. We are, therefore, bombarded with radio waves of all sorts, all the time, and all our lives. So, what does this long-term attack mean to the human body? One isn't allowed to have long exposures of x-rays, which is why they are so carefully monitored, so that we may not have any worries or problems. Radio waves, obviously very much less lethal, don't seem to be a problem, but a lifetime of them may be a different thing. One thing. You can't avoid them, other than living in a lead-lined house. Scaremongering? No! Just asking questions.

- A small headline recently. As well it might be! "Councillors to receive pay rise". I'm one of those old-fashioned folk who think that to serve your community is an honour, and that to receive pay for it puts you in the same class as a paid servant. Which as far as I am concerned, a councillor (that is other than town and parish councillors, who don't get paid) becomes just that. Paying councillors just attracts the wrong sort. The kind who go and sit at a meeting, seldom speak, nod their heads now and again, and, as some do, make a lucrative living when mileage and subsistence allowance is added on. I read that one Ryedale councillor comments that £3,000 a year 'nowhere near' compensates for the time spent on council work. I consider this the wrong attitude to adopt when taking on the job as councillor, bearing in mind, especially, that one doesn't have to have any qualifications for the job. Popularity might get someone on to a council, but in no way does it mean they have the ability to do such a job. I've seen it all before, and as one newly-elected councillor once said to me: "The money will come in handy".

- Official line from a military performance appraisal: "He's so dense, light bends round him."

Updated: 13:12 Monday, December 29, 2003