THE renowned sports journalist Ian Wooldridge gave up covering athletics some time ago such were his doubts about whether those he was writing about were powered by determination or drugs.

I find myself going through the same thought process when I see some of our top entertainment stars on TV - are they natural or the result of plastic surgery?

Of course, in a movie it is crucial that the stars appear too beautiful for words, the hero's braver and stronger than in real life, but it seems to me that some of these stars have lost touch with reality. The film set has become their real life.

Image is important, but far more important is substance. Many people underestimate how sophisticated members of the public are in their ability to distinguish between the make-believe world of films and the real world. In other words, the public knows how to judge the character of a person.

When stars like George Michael and Hugh Grant stray from the straight and narrow, it is world news - but they can always win back their fans with a bit of honesty.

I've always been suspicious of those who pretend to be something they are not. Invariably, a suspect who was lying about his past had something to hide, which is why I applaud actress Jamie Lee Curtis, who has dispensed with the usual 13-strong team of preeners and decided in future to tell it how it is.

Jamie, 43, has announced that she will now appear as nature intended and will be photographed in the future as she really is, and in truth, the natural Jamie is more attractive than the preened predecessor. Cherie Blair had the same effect on the nation's conscience when she was pictured on her Downing Street doorstep in dressing gown and slippers.

Beyond mere touch-ups, the stars now turn to plastic surgery to physically alter their looks. Even Cameron Diaz has apparently gone under the surgeon's knife in the quest for perceived perfection.

But you can often tell if someone's looks are the result of a surgeon's work - Michael Jackson and Elizabeth Taylor are the obvious examples.

I am pleased to hear there is now a backlash against such distortions, with top photographers preferring the natural look than plastic models.

Honesty is usually the best policy, though we are all guilty of somehow trying to enhance our appeal whether it is putting on a posh accent or pulling in at the midriff.

Image and substance are also important when promoting a new area. The image we want for Middlesbrough and elsewhere in the region is a clean safe environment - lots of things defeat us, but none more than chewing gum.

One of the most frustrating facts of life is that chewing gum shows up black on white paving stones and white on black tarmac - spawning pockmarks that blight every major town in Britain. I have come to the conclusion that chewing gum is a growth area that makes millions for the makers but causes damage to the tune of millions to the streets of the country. Yes, it would cost millions to clean up the mess it makes by people spitting it out on our footpaths.

I wonder whether the culprits would spit their chewing gum out on their own patios. I doubt it.

So, for anyone who wants to be a millionaire can I suggest you chew on this sticky problem. Invent a way of removing gum quickly and cheaply from our streets and you will be made - unless someone can convince the public to not deposit it so carelessly in the first place.

Published: 23/08/2002