Well here we are again. The Sunday Times has once again decided that we have to have our faces pushed into the fact that while the bulk of us struggle and fight to stay afloat in the face of inflation, rising unemployment and swinging austerity cuts, there is a small slice of the populace who are still managing to rake it in. Each year this Murdoch owned bastion of integrity gives us the lowdown on who is getting what at the top end of the table. We learn for example that in the last year the assets of the top 1000 richest people have swolen by 4.7% to a record £414 billion - I wonder if you started from the poorest and worked up how many people you would need to reach the same figure. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that so many of the people who are up there are so..........undeserving. How can you fail to judge a society as wanting that places higher value on the likes of Katie Price over say a man who makes a significant step forward in the fight against cancer, on Victoria Beckham over say our best classical composer. But in fairness this is the way it is and there ain much point in bitching about it. When it comes to the masses unfortunately the lowest common denominator will always win out - thats why East Enders is more popular than East of Eden and the bucks will always follow where the numbers go. I don't really care about the footballers and the cheap celebs who will generate more income in one year than a lifetime of hard work will provide for the rest of us - I just don't want my face shoved in it. I don't want to know that Tamara Ecclestone has spent £1 million on a marble bath with gold taps (her reason, the rather plaintif and even endearing "Well - I spend a lot of time in the bath don't I"). What purpose did the Mail on Sunday think it was serving when it published the story. What did it want us to do - rise up and lynch her from the nearest lampost, burn her in effigy in the streets. Why does the Financial Times publish a monthly supplement showcasing luxury goods and call it 'How To Spend It'. Does it not cross their minds that at this particular stage it might be more politic to demonstrate a little more reserve when it comes to ostentatious (and some would say vulgar) displays of wealth.

In the face of this type of coverage of this type of society, is it any wonder that it is nearly impossible to motivate our young people to place any effort into securing a future for themselves through hard work and dilligence. Every day it is demonstrated to them that this is not the way forward. The philosophy of 'Get rich - get famous, by good means if you can but by any means if you can't' is hammered into them via the press and media such that for them the only means to sucess is via reality TV, sport, becoming a popstar or if all else fails scratch cards and the Lottery. And the worst thing of all is that they may well be right! 21 year old Adele has been performing for two years and has earned £20 million. She has a modicum of talent and it has brought her in two years what it would take an average wage earner eighty or a minimum wage earner two hundred to equal. For most of us a lifetime of hard work will bring us a retirement of 'getting by', a future of dwindling opportunity and increasing hardship. Is it any wonder that the lure of 'fame and easy money' holds such sway when reality and game shows throw up new winners on a daily basis for public consumption and as models for them to emulate.

And so can I make this plea. If you're one of the fortunate ones who life has smiled on in the wealth stakes, well done - more power to your elbow. But do me a favour - keep a little bit schtum about it in deference to the rest of us who didn't quite hit the jackpot. As Jagger would have said "If you meet me show some courtesy, show some dignity, show some taste!"