I CAN assure Councillor Dave Smith (Letters, May 6), that I have not got the wrong end of the stick.

If he had understood my previous comments, he would be aware that I was questioning the priorities of both national and local government and the never-ending supply of what he describes as 'arts grants' while public and essential service funds seem at a premium.

That Coun Smith's reply centred on the funding of the metal trees rather than the plight of the elderly reinforces my view. The fact the money comes from a different pot is irrelevant.

He makes the point that I implied that the council had reduced funding for the elderly since it became a unitary authority. I stated a common known fact that it closed two of its homes for the elderly, along with other services, in order to save approximately £1 million from the social services budget and stated at the time that the savings would be used to improve services to the elderly.

But I believe around that time, department management was looking at the costs and scope for savings to complete the change to single status and raise the £1.5 million needed to fund the then new national pay award -- the bulk of which was to be funded by social services.

This agreement was to be implemented on April 1 1999, less than two months after the home closures. A lot of talk about savings, very little about spending.

I am not, as Coun Smith implies, one of those readers who needs telling over and over again, nor one who ignores the point, but one who chooses who and what I believe.

I think his tone shows ignorance and arrogance towards the public and their concerns. And it's also worth noting that when he talks about funding, the Government and councils allocate money, the taxpayer funds it. I thought he would have known that.

J ALCOCK (Mr), Cherry Close, Blackburn.