MARY Magdelene singing the Buzzcocks' Ever Fallen In Love (With Someone You Shouldn't Have). Pontius Pilate warbling away to the Oasis hit Wonderwall. And Jesus rattling out The Smiths' Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now while being flayed by Roman soldiers.

Blasphemy? No. Pure genius.

The BBC plans to mark the crucifixion and resurrection this Easter with an hour-long live procession through the streets of Manchester featuring stars from the Stone Roses and Happy Mondays and featuring songs by The Smiths and New Order.

Manchester Passion, which will be aired on BBC3 on Good Friday, has been given the broad support of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, but it is bound to attract criticism from a narrow-minded minority - a minority that consistently and resolutely misses the point at every available opportunity.

If the BBC was hailing Shameless loser Frank Gallagher as its new Mancunian messiah, its motives could quite rightly be called into question. But it's not. Instead it's trying to bring the Easter message to a wider, noticeably younger audience by using musicians they recognise and humorously apt songs they can sing along with.

Religious programming usually sees me vaulting over the children to grab the remote control, and the mere mention of the words "Aled" and "Jones" makes me want to join a satanic cult, but I will be tuning in. And if a programme about the resurrection can bring a heathen like me into the fold, then surely it is doing its job.

If nothing else, I want to see what the newly-resurrected Jesus will sing when he appears on top of Manchester town hall. The organisers are not disclosing what his big number will be. My money is on New Order's Blue (Easter) Monday.

FATHERS are expected to be in the delivery room to witness every grunt, push and bodily explosion associated with the arrival of a new life into the world. If Joseph made it to the stable on time (to maintain an unusually religious theme), there's no reason for modern dads to miss the big event either.

But maybe it would be better if they did. Childbirth is never going to be a walk in the park, unless your walks in the park usually involve unbelievable pain, hours of screaming and numerous stitches in places that weren't meant to be darned, but it might be a little easier if mums didn't have dad to worry about on top of everything else.

I've often thought that while a stout fellow by your side is useful during the early stages of labour, they can become a bit of a burden later on.

My beloved was a great help when I was due to pop, but I have to admit I was glad when the midwife booted him out to grab some breakfast. His repetitive, football-like chants - I felt a resounding chorus of "you're fat and you know you are" was just around the corner - and insistence on listening to the radio (my son was eventually born during a god-awful, new age dirge on Desert Island Discs) were, quite frankly, starting to get on my already badly frayed nerves.

Other mums tell a similar story. They like their partners to be on hand for the grand finale, but their constant attention from start to finish is, to put it politely, a little wearing.

Are we being a bunch of contrary Marys? Maybe not. A new report by researchers at the University of Bath and Imperial College London claims that fathers attending the birth can actually make things worse.

Instead of reassuring their partner, many tend to pass on their fears that something might go wrong, affecting not only the woman's level of pain but also her chances of breastfeeding and bonding.

The only answer is to have a baby during the World Cup (pencil it in for 2010). While a new born does bear an uncanny resemblance to Wayne Rooney, it is less likely to put a hat-trick past the Germans. You won't see dad for dust.

Updated: 12:06 Monday, January 30, 2006