I AM grateful to Pete Bowler of Knutsford Methodist Church for illuminating your readers as to the meaning of my letter the previous week.

One niggle.

That wasn't what I meant at all.

For what it's worth, I was commenting that the Rev Cavanagh's definitions of 'rich people' and 'poor people', as reported in your first issue of 2002, were over-simplistic.

Not all 'rich people' are obsessed with climbing the corporate ladder, clinging on for dear life and ready to repel boarders with a well-aimed kick.

Some have achieved their wealth by sheer hard work, and built up businesses, which create jobs and keep the economy buoyant.

Others have a special skill or talent, which gives pleasure to thousands.

Some of our brilliant, world-renowned surgeons are extremely wealthy.

Does anyone begrudge them their Porsches and personalised number plates? Not their patients, I would guess.

Leaving aside the vast swathe of in-betweens who make up most of humanity we come to the 'poor people.'

There are no words to describe the horrific images we have all seen on our TV screens of conditions in some Third World or war-torn countries.

In our own prosperous country there are those to whom life has dealt dreadful blows, and whose lives are a constant struggle.

We are in the 21st century, but Cathy has still not come home.

And then there are layabouts who are happy to live off handouts.

No social class has a monopoly on worthiness.

That's all I meant, really.

But it was a nice story about the starfish!

GLYNIS LANG

Via e-mail