WELL, that's half-term gone and now I've got Britney Spears's virginity to worry about. In case you missed this story, the American teen singer has been offered £7.5 million to be relieved of what once would have been called her maidenhood.

According to the showbiz gossips, a mysterious businessman approached Britney's record company late last week. Exactly what was said and by whom remains unknown, but it must have been quite a conversation.

Britney reacted with outrage, as well she might, declaring in one newspaper: "It's a disgusting offer. He should go and have a cold shower and leave me alone."

Now what remains interesting about this peculiar story, apart from the obvious echo with the film Indecent Proposal, is that Britney Spears gives out so many conflicting signals. This pneumatic 17-year-old is presented to us as a virgin tart. She apes the provocative moves and pretends to be sexually precocious, while also telling us she is a complete innocent who has never indulged in anything beyond a chaste kiss.

She struts on a video as every unimaginative man's idea of a school-girl, yet also presents herself as a moral Christian role model. She lies back on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine in skimpy underwear and breast-enhanc-ing bra, wearing not much more than what used to be called a 'come hither' look. But it's all acting and she doesn't really want anyone to come anywhere near her at all.

In playing the guileless flirt, the untouchable tease, the little goddess of saccharine sex, Britney Spears gives out some pretty odd messages to young people. For this singer is popular all over the world, admired even by six-year-old girls here in York (I have first-hand evidence of this).

One of the oddities of celebrity is that our children and teenagers can end up regarding such far-away teen stars almost as friends. They listen to the music, read the magazines, call up the web-sites - all of which brings them up close to the object of their affection. Yet in truth Britney and her ilk are false friends, poor role models who pretend to be what they are not, all in the name of commercialism.

One odd aspect of this £7.5 million indecent proposal is that Britney Spears has presumably generated an awful lot more than that by using her own hands-off sexuality to promote her music.

By the way, there are some weird Britney Spears web-sites around. Typing in the singer's name on a search engine, I felt a little like a dirty old man, especially when spotting sites claiming to offer Britney nude. And, no, I didn't look. But I did enter a strange place of boyish longing called 'The World Famous Society for Future Husbands Of Britney Spears'.

THREE cheers for York academic Christine Godfrey - though if you are a smoker, that third cheer might prove tricky. Professor Godfrey, of the Centre for Health Economics at York University, believes the Government should spend more on helping smokers to quit.

At present, £60 million has been set aside for this purpose over the next three years, set against £200 million to recover revenue lost on smuggled tobacco.

Caring for people whose health has been damaged by smoking costs the Health Service an estimated £1.5 billion a year. Now you could say that anyone who is daft enough to smoke has only themselves to blame, but that would be to skimp on the compassion.

Behind Professor Godfrey's sensible suggestion lies a statistic that might appeal to any passing cynic. For the Government earns £8 billion a year from taxing tobacco and pays out £1.5 billion in making people better. That's a healthy, or rather unhealthy, profit of £6.5 billion a year.