I FIND I am in complete agreement with Keith Smith ("Staggered by the idea of a knighthood for Mick Jagger", Letters, June 12) albeit for different reasons. Even though Jagger was one of my music likes, I think the idea of giving him a knighthood is as obscene as it is for Paul McCartney and others who have in their lives been handsomely rewarded for their efforts.

Cries now to dub him Sir David Beckham are quite wrong. These people have already taken out enough in terms of money or pleasure doing something they like doing. Most folks don't get this choice.

It's time we stopped idolising celebrities and honouring them this way. If anyone should be honoured, let it be the likes of selfless individuals who foster child after child for many years and bring some hope and meaning into these children's lives, or serve local communities to their betterment.

It's time this country and the world in general got their priorities right and stopped heaping honour on already privileged individuals.

W Elliott,

Owton Manor, Hartlepool.

...KEITH Smith makes an informed and interesting point regarding Mick Jagger being nominated for a knighthood, but he accords the conferring of honours a dubious importance.

Honours should be granted for merit and achievement and they usually are. But the honours system is debased already.

Why? Because this is a country where an unelected head of state still exercises powerful patronage.

It is a country where people such as generals and judges and senior civil servants are automatically conferred a knighthood by virtue of their office not by ability or achievement.

Rock music is the preferred choice of many of us and has powerfully influenced modern culture. Or is artistic achievement to be limited to the classical musicians?

To take up Mr Smith's theme: how about a few knighthoods to those worthy folk who do clean toilets for half a life time, after all is theirs not real public service?

Simon Prout,

Towers Road,

Harrow, Middlesex.

Updated: 10:40 Monday, June 17, 2002