SOME things never cease to amaze your humble scribe, mainly the depths of crass self-promotion and smugness that our politicians and so-called celebrities will sink to.

Just when you think they must have reached the pinnacle of bloated self-importance and pomposity, they raise the stakes even higher — normally in the name of “charidee.”

The current example is the frankly pathetic “ice-bucket challenge” whereby the great and not-so-good nominate one another to film themselves dunk a pail of freezing water over their heads with “hilarious” consequences.

What this has led to is a parade of insufferable imbeciles attempting to outdo each other in a desperate bid to increase their popularity.

The only positive is that that patronising wannabe pontiff Bono doesn’t seem to be involved — yet.

There is little more odious than sanctimonious rich people attempting to get other people to donate money to charity, without doing so themselves.

A wiser, if cantankerous, man of this column’s acquaintance was oft-times heard to opine that charity is bourgeois and counter-revolutionary. 

Charity fills the gap that the state should be financing and is essentially a form of double taxation while leaving the government free to spend our hard-earned cash on invading the next poor sods who wind them up and who have something they want.

Previously this sage assessment had struck me as slightly harsh, if logical. 

After all, the state patently ISN’T going to live up to its obligations and its disastrous policies leave millions in dire need. 

To add a caveat, individuals running marathons or completing some other arduous feat to raise money for worthy causes are to be applauded.

However, watching such luminaries of modern society as Alex Salmond and, er, Cheryl Cole engaging in this self-satisfied one-upmanship I can’t help but think my cynical friend had a point.

The procession of gurning idiots queuing up to show what “good sports” they are leaves a distinctly sour taste in the mouth.

This is Band Aid and Comic Relief all over again. Celebrities as rich as Croesus “donating” their time and having their already swollen egos massaged without the inconvenience of dipping their hands into their equally ludicrously swollen pockets.

If we really have to have a “bucket challenge” why not at least up the stakes a bit?

The excrement bucket challenge has a ring to it and it would certainly establish those who really cared about doing their bit for charity.

The most egregious example so far has been that well-known philanthropist George “Dubya” Bush.

This is the man who gleefully sanctioned the waterboarding of dozens, if not hundreds, of terror suspects.

And he thinks this is funny… That goes beyond taking the piss.

Now, when they strap him down and give him a taste of his own medicine this column will have its credit card out faster than you can say: “Breach of the Geneva convention” — and it won’t be particularly fussy who it donates to. 

Save the earthworm? How much do you need?

It would also have quite a lengthy list of nominations for the next in line.

Until then this was yet another sickening act of hypocrisy and callous arrogance from the brain-dead former chimp-in-chief.

And, speaking of egregious behaviour, some of you may have spotted a news item this week regarding a certain high street retailer with an — ahem — unfortunate track record in the field of fashion design.

Yes, Spanish clothier Zara has been forced to withdraw a line of children’s clothes after they sparked outrage around the world.

For those who missed the story, the Zara product in question, which the firm claims was “inspired by the classic Western films,” consisted of a striped pyjama top bearing — and I swear I’m not making this up — a yellow star on the breast…

Now Zara claimed this was a “sheriff’s outfit.” Yes, because I’m sure I recall that this was exactly what Gary Cooper wore in High Noon.

Some have argued that this must have been an unfortunate mistake, but this column is not convinced. 

You see, in 2007 Zara was forced to withdraw its new range of handbags from sale in Britain because they were adorned with swastikas.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to make one anti-semitic blunder could (perhaps) be seen as unfortunate. To make two is borderline fascistic.

One wonders what their autumn line will bring. Natty black uniforms adorned with silver skulls for that “pirate chic” look?