before there is any crossness concerning my use of language I would like to refer you to this quote from wikipedia
“Never Mind The Bollocks was met by a hail of controversy in the UK upon its release. The first documented legal problems involved the allegedly ‘obscene’ name of the album, and the prosecution (under Section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, since replaced by the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981) of the manager of the Nottingham Virgin record shop (and label owner Richard Branson) for having displayed it in a window. However, at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court on 24 November 1977, defending Queen’s Counsel John Mortimer produced expert witnesses who were able to successfully demonstrate that the word “bollocks” was not obscene, and was actually a legitimate Old English term originally used to refer to a priest, and which, in the context of the title, meant “nonsense”. The chairman of the hearing was forced to conclude:
Much as my colleagues and I wholeheartedly deplore the vulgar exploitation of the worst instincts of human nature for the purchases of commercial profits by both you and your company, we must reluctantly find you not guilty of each of the four charges.”
There you have it, bollocks is the nonsense that priests speak. I too feel there is a need for a secular voice of bollocks. As for 2012, it has multiple meanings: the Mayan end of the fifth age, the nonsensical movie and the fear of everything falling apart.