Politicians live in a parallel universe that is inexorably drifting away from the reality that the rest of us know. In their universe it is, apparently, acceptable to make promises that they do not intend to keep, for that is the implication of the quote above. I accept that circumstances may change and plans may have to be altered in response to them, but this politician was not prepared to say so. Perhaps this was from a simple fear that an unhelpful soundbite may result. So why did he have to say anything?

I’ve deliberately not named the politician responsible for this quote, or even the party concerned, because it seems to me that most (if not all) politicians, from all parties, exhibit this behaviour. Their media appearances are tightly focussed on saying what they want to say, regardless of the question posed, with the use of potential soundbites to the fore. Interviewers, meanwhile, are mainly concerned with tripping up the interviewee. So it becomes a battle of semantics, of word play.

The end result, for me at least, is that no real information is imparted and little or no respect earned. Is it any wonder that there is a universal lack of trust in the political classes?

The programme attempted to show the distinction between the Internet and the World Wide Web but then as the discussion went on the lines became very vague, the two terms used almost interchangeably. I would argue that the distinction is critical and a programme like this should have exercised some rigour in keeping a safe distance between them.

A running theme (contrary to the earlier explanation) was that the Internet/Web was created by a group of pseudo-anarchic libertarians based largely in San Francisco. This is simply not true. ARPANET, the network that was to become known as the Internet, was created to facilitate basic communication between different computer systems, some of which were geographically widespread. Subsequently it was seen as a way to provide some level of protection and redundancy of systems so that ‘the system’ would not fail in the event of a nuclear strike taking out one or more of it’s nodes. It never entered anyone’s mind that it could be a part of some “Great Levelling”.

Once it was in existence, groups of people emerged who used it as a tool for disseminating social, cultural and political information as well as news and opinion, such as The WELL.

The World Wide Web came about some twenty years after the birth of Internet. Despite the global linking of computer systems there was still a problem: (computer) language. There were so many different systems speaking different languages that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to share information in a format that was universally readable. Tim Berners-Lee came up with the idea of using a set of protocols and languages such that one tool – the web browser – could be used to read and link together information on all these disparate platforms. So again, no concept of human democracy, equality and freedom other than the freedom to share information anywhere.

This is where some confusion may arise. Berners-Lee had no intention of profiting from his invention and didn’t want anyone else to profit from it either. Hence he released his idea to the world, unconstrained by copyright, patent or licence. He had defined the rules of the game – and continued to develop them – but everyone was free to join in. Naturally, as his idea grew and became more popular, it was far too much work for one person so he founded the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to take charge of it. The W3C’s members are businesses, nonprofit organizations, universities, and governmental entities, but not individuals. The idea was to prevent any sector from dominating, although there are plenty of complaints about this happening in practice.

If this had been the target of The Virtual Revolution, I would have had no complaint, but it didn’t even warrant a mention. The programme seemed to focus on the notion that the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, The Huffington Post and others are so powerful on the Web that they prevent individuals from having a voice, behaving like the editorial departments of the traditional media. They ‘control’ what we see on the Web. They are the elites who have formed a hierarchy, a vertical control structure that is the antithesis of the Web’s (and the Internet’s) supposed desire for a horizontal or flat structure on equality.

Aside from the fallacy of the premise, it is surely clear to everyone that any field of human endeavour (I use the word broadly) needs a control structure. Utopian and anarchic structures cannot survive while humans are genetically programmed the way we are. As a race, we will always have the ambitious, the lazy, the bad, the evil members. Perhaps this is actually necessary for our survival. At any rate, it means there must be law, rules and control. The best we can hope for is that we can trust the control structures, that they don’t become corrupt. I would suggest that they way the Web works – and the Internet for that matter – is about as good as it gets.

How can we judge this? To start with, leaving aside issues of social inequality, anyone can use the Web. Anyone can have a weblog (or blog). Anyone can take part in ’social media’ networks. As for the resources available, search engines, social networks and web sites succeed or fail (in terms of audience) according to their popularity with users. Users are free to move between them when, and as much as, they like. Our movements around the Web are unrestricted. Yes I know there are exceptions. Some bad stuff is blocked. Some bad stuff is not blocked. There are problems in China, Iran etc. (I’m not playing down these problems but they are not created by the Web, they are created by humans). People, by and large, can vote with their mice (mouses?).

My point is that it is not the Web that is the problem, it is humans. The Web can never be immune to the effects and behaviour of people, in the same way that no other aspect of life is protected. The Web remains, as it started, a free*, open, egalitarian communications medium. The Virtual Revolution is shooting at the wrong target.

*When I say free, I don’t means there is no financial cost. Everyone has to pay their bills. If you want a computer, someone has to pay. Similarly if you want electricity, broadband, a web site, a blog or whatever. There are “free” services, but this just means they are paid for by advertising or some other mechanism over which you have little or no control. This is not unreasonable.

New Zealand, on the other hand, would not only have been expecting to win, but would have been hoping to get back to the sort of slick performance that has eluded them this year.

In terms of real world expectations, then, one could argue that it was a narrow victory for the men in white.

The Kiwis were frequently knocked back, Carter had a poor day by his standards and the win, while comfortable, was far from a try-fest.

England were way better than in their previous two games. Part of this was due to better selection – especially Cueto at fullback -  but there also seemed to be more energy and desire in the performance. Certainly, England were a lot sharper than they have been recently.

Unfortunately, this is as positive a spin as any England PR could put on events. An holistic analysis clearly shows that there was only ever going to be one winner.

Only one team looked capable of crossing the try line. Only one defence was constantly being tested. The stats said it all: England had to make nearly twice as many tackles as the All Blacks.

Despite the massive improvements in just about every part of their game, England still lack a cutting edge in the backs. There were some positive signs: running the ball from their own territory; the odd switch move; faster delivery from rucks and mauls. A breakthrough never looked likely but I guess credit should be given for some kind of positive intent.

Facing the New Zealand backline – who themselves are nowhere near their best form – highlighted the plodding naivety of the English attack. Where the Kiwis were flat, quick to form up and adept at switching plays to outflank the opposition, England were deep and predictable.

I’d be happy to put the English pack up against any other in the world – they’re not the best, but they are pretty good and provide a platform from which England should be able to win games. The backs, however, are just not up to scratch, ranking well below the Tri Nations, France, Ireland and Wales.

South African referee Jonathan Kaplan had a good game. I particularly appreciated the way he pounced at the first signs of nastiness, nipping it in the bud. I do think that Tim Payne, the English prop, deserved a yellow card for his punches, but that aside Kaplan is to be congratulated.

England squeeked home against Argentina yesterday for their first win of the season but there was little for them to be proud of.

Argentina are a force to be reckoned with these days. Their recent record against England is very good but away from home and with a number of first choice players injured it was reasonable to expect an England win.

On the day the teams were very evenly matched and were only separated on the scoreboard by one event – England’s first try of the season. It was a game dominated by the forwards, as one would expect from these two nations, neither having much proficiency in the backlines. Of the two, it was Argentina who looked as though they could provide excitement behind the pack; their efforts were a little naive, but at least they tried.

In comparison to last week England, however, have taken a big step backwards. Discipline was shocking in the first half and basic errors were legion. The gameplan, such as it was, appeared to be a cross between 10-man rugby and tennis. Of strategic back play there was, once again, no sign.

Fans should be concerned that England may be operating in a reality distortion field. After the game Matt Banahan, England’s try scorer, appeared to be pleased with his team’s performance and felt that they were getting better with each game. Steve Borthwick, the captain, seemed equally upbeat. This is deeply troubling; England are deluding themselves. Thankfully, England manager Martin Johnson admitted afterwards that the performance was unacceptable so at least someone was watching the what was happening on the pitch.

England were severely depleted due to injury, even more so than last week, so miracles were not expected. What we hoped to see, but did not, was any attempt to play fast, adventurous, attacking rugby. Johnson’s unwillingness to keep the ball in hand in England’s half of the pitch is clear, and a mistake. It made the backs look stupid and, as a result of the ensuing aerial ping-pong, exposed a major weakness at fullback.

This strategy was further exposed by Wilkinson’s lack of form when kicking from hand – Argentina comfortably ‘won’ the punting battle – though, as last week, Jonny had a good game overall.

I’d love to know what kind of plan Johnson has asked Brian Smith, the backs coach, to implement. We’ve seen the kicking and we’ve seen plenty of miss passes, but where are the effective dummy runners? Wings coming in from the blind side? Fullback crash balls? Switches? Passes out of the tackle to a runner on the shoulder? Again, as last week, we just had backs crashing into their opposite numbers with little support. No creativity, no imagination.

Actually, we did see some attempts at creativity in open play. Aside from individual runs from Cueto, Monye and Wilkinson, it was England’s forwards who showed glimmers of imaginative passing. Indeed, it was flanker Lewis Moody who created the space for Banahan to score his try, after some great work from No. 8 Haskell.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Johnson is upset and frustrated with the lack of progress. So he should be. But let’s not forget that the buck now stops with him. He proved that, on the pitch, he can lift a team and lead them to greatness, but does he have the ability to do it from the sidelines? English rugby needs a period of managerial stability so there is no question that Johnson must continue for at least the next few years, but I’d like to think that some of the older and more experienced heads in the RFU will be offering guidance and support – privately, not through the media – to help him become a great manager. Otherwise we may be doomed to a long period of mediocrity.

Australia had a poor Tri-Nations series this year, losing five out of six games, leading many to speculate that the game was England’s before it even started. The mistake here is a failure to factor in the abilities of the English side.

The team in gold today may have been a shadow of the Australian teams of previous years but, even with a lot of new faces, they were still far more proficient than the men in white.

As an England supporter I have suffered through six years, since the 2003 World Cup, of largely aimless performances. All sides suffer their poor periods so losses can be forgiven but it is necessary to see a trend of improvements in performance, technique, tactics and philosophy. England have failed, repeatedly, to achieve any of this.

After the game, co-commentator Stuart Barnes immediately started talking about the changes he would make in the pack. Obviously, Stuart was a back. England’s forwards won plenty of good possession, particularly in the first half, but the team could manage only nine points, from a dropped goal and two penalty goals. No, the problem was not in the forwards, Stuart, it was the backs who failed.

The English have never been known for exciting, incisive back play. That’s what the Welsh, French, Southern Hemisphere and, latterly, the Irish teams are good at. England do big, strong, fearsome forwards. There is plenty of desire – evidenced by the unexpected run in the 2007 World Cup – but that’s not enough any more. Long gone are the days when passionate 10-man rugby could dominate.

England can play a good 15-man game. Sir Clive Woodward struggled for years to change the culture of forward dominated thinking, eventually succeeding (to some extent at least) and winning the World Cup. He and his team were far from perfect but were light years ahead of what we’ve seen since.

Today echoed so many England performances of recent years. Possession was slow and the backs were able to do little more than charge at their opposite numbers. Mental agility was completely lacking, a try never seemed likely and a slightly sharper Australian team would have easily run in two or three more tries.

It wasn’t all bad. Wilkinson played well on his return to the fold – it’s ironic that he was fit when so many in the squad were not – and Moody stood out. Discipline was excellent, and for a short spell in the second half England managed to pick up the pace to an acceptable level for test rugby.

I have to wonder, however, if there is something wrong with the DNA of English rugby? Why is it so resistant to clever, creative back play? I don’t know the answer, and on the evidence of today (and the last year), neither does Martin Johnson.

Jenson Button takes 3rd place in Abu Dhabi. Photo © BBC

The 2009 F1 season has now ended, so how will we survive the 19 weeks until the start of the 2010 season? Thank goodness there will be plenty of rugby to keep me going over the winter!

Congratulations to Brawn GP and Jenson Button on their championships, to Rubens Barrichello, Lewis Hamilton and to the Red Bull team for their heroic efforts to keep the season spicy until the end.

Most of all, congratulations to the BBC for an excellent return to F1 broadcasting. To paraphrase Sebastian Vettel, there were some mistakes but overall it was a great season.

The finale in Abu Dhabi was quite a spectacle: a fabulous looking circuit, lots of glamour and the thrill of day turning into night as the race progressed.

One minor quibble about the BBC coverage: a noticeable feature of the season has been the huge amount of fawning (I was going to say a*se-l*cking, but that would be rude), particularly from Eddie Jordan. EJ seems to have two things to say: either HE was responsible for the success of driver X or team Y, or we must prostrate ourselves in worship before person Z  because of what they have brought to the sport.

It’s been a great season and I have enjoyed BBC’s role. It has been infinitely better than previous seasons, with no ad breaks and the red button, but I do hope that Auntie will, like the teams, strive to be even better next year. Jonathan Legard has been a weak commentator but, as long as Martin Brundle is alongside him, I can live with that. Eddie, however, must be consigned to the bin of failed experiments.

Jupiter and the Moon

For those who enjoy the study of celestial bodies it was quite a big night tonight. If the skies were clear above you, you would have been able to see a full moon and, just below and to the right, a very bright star. Except it wasn’t a star, it was Jupiter.

We’ve all been spoiled somewhat by the images sent back from various ’space probes’ over the years, and I guess we all have a pretty good idea what Jupiter looks like.

The bright dot in the sky tonight was, well, a bright dot in the sky (at least, that’s all I could see with the primitive technology available to me). So not very exciting really.

Except that I did find it just a little bit exciting. The thought that I was looking at something so massive, so important to our welfare, so far away and yet, relatively, so close. I’m not very romantic or prone to emotion, but for a fleeting moment the ‘joybringer’ did something for me.

Here in Mayo we should be grateful, however, as some parts of Ireland have been far wetter, with nearly 4 times the seasonal average falling at Johnstown Castle in July, and 2.5 times the mean at Valencia in August.

Interestingly, the temperature and sunshine figures for Belmullet have been slightly above average, 6% & 7% respectively. The summary, then, is warmer and wetter, which happens to be just what the climate change model is predicting.

Briefly, during a very important game last season, there was a deliberate, illegal substitution following use of a blood capsule and a scalpel. Cheating, plain and simple, and premeditated at that.

Investigations have been conducted, reports written and punishments handed down. Harsh punishments, some say draconian. 4 months ban for Williams, 3 years for Richards, and £250k fine for the club.

Much has been written about this, rational and otherwise. Will Carling, a Quins man to the core, has been paticularly vocal in his criticism of the punishments and of all the fuss. Carling, a former England Captain, appears to be arguing that cheating has always happened and will always happen, so we shouldn’t make such a fuss.

Sorry Will, but you couldn’t be more wrong. If cheating has always been part of the game (I’m not disputing this) but has been ignored, where has this led? Clearly, the cheating has got worse, has escalated, become increasingly premeditated and employs highly sophisticated techniques. That’s what happens when rule-breaking is ignored: we got away with this last time, so let’s go a bit further, push a bit harder. The logical conclusion: just forget the rules and have a free-for-all. Great idea.

I’m glad to see that rugby’s authorities claim to have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy where cheating is concerned, and these punishments tend to support that claim. The penalties are harsh, certainly, but I’m happy about that. A message is being sent, one of deterrence. It’s natural to want to win, but those who are prepared to cheat must realise the risk they are taking – in this case it’s career-threatening. What other sanction will make them think twice?

We have seen a number of punishments handed out to rugby players in recent months, many associated with the use of ‘recreational’ drugs or failure to comply with drug-testing regimes. Maybe this (along with cheating generally) is not a new phenomena, maybe it’s just that testing is more rigorous and reporting more comprehensive. Rugby is certainly a higher profile sport than 20 years ago. None of this is relevant. As a purist, I say that rugby must strive, at all times and with all possible resources, to be ‘clean’. Teach youngsters to play hard but fair; don’t teach them how to cheat. Insist that senior players set an example, and severely punish those who do not.

Will Carling says he would prefer to “play alongside guys that were willing to cross that line, who had the balls and the backbone to cross that line in the pursuit of success,” in short, people who are prepared to cheat to win. I say that it’s not war (Carling is a former serviceman), it’s sport. His attitude is immoral and represents all that is wrong in sport. He talks about “men who happen to fail every now and then, who happen to make mistakes,” and says that Richards “made a bad call” in this instance. It wasn’t a mistake or a bad call, it was deliberate, calculated cheating in the pursuit of victory. He knew it was wrong but he took the chance it would not be discovered.

It’s this attitude that made me stop playing – I loved the sport but hated the cheating and would have no part of it. I’m a Quins supporter and sad that they didn’t beat Leinster to reach the European Cup Final, but I’m more sad, much more, that they tried to win this way.

It transpires that the Rugby Football Union are investigating four other similar incidents in which Richards & Harlequins are implicated. If true, it makes the punishment seem very appropriate, perhaps even lenient. This kind of behaviour must be stamped out.

Perhaps the International Rugby Board should try to turn the poacher into a gamekeeper. Dean Richards was a great and successful player, shows similar abilities as a coach and commands great respect in the rugby community. He clearly knows the sort of tricks that are likely to be employed on the dark side. He’s unemployed. Why not put him in charge of a ‘clean-up’ squad whose aim would be to root out and punish all types of illegal behaviour and, at the same time, persuade clubs to stop teaching the dark arts.

But thenagain, perhaps he agrees with Carling and wouldn’t be interested.