Storm clouds gather

The United Nations Climate Change summit in Bali packed up shop yesterday as news networks announced a positive deal had finally been reached. But with heavy criticism directed at the blocking delegations and some environmentalists labelling the deal a "suicide pact", are we really any closer to solving one of the biggest problems of our time?

It took a last-minute intervention from the United Nations Secretary General to salvage something significant from the two week-long meeting of 189 nations in Indonesia. Despite European Union efforts to secure a textual pledge of 25 to 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 for developed nations, countries such as Japan, Canada and of course the United States ultimately frustrated the wording in the final document. Achieving any consensus at all seemed unlikely at one point, and it took an eleventh-hour intervention from the UN chief to break the impasse. Ban-Ki moon promptly flew in to deliver a surprisingly gentle rebuke given the circumstances:

"I come before you with great reluctance. Frankly I am disappointed. With a spirit of compromise and flexibility I think you have made much progress over the last week."

But it seemed to work. Finally the United States cast aside ruthless brinkmanship and agreed to consensus on the heavily watered down document which finally emerged from the negotiations. Perhaps the US delegation realized at the last just how much enmity their implacability would provoke around the world. Or perhaps they recognized just how much they had got away with, as the agreement itself obliges no nation to cut emissions and is certainly no successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Much similar to the recent meeting of Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Annapolis, the product of Bali 2007 is only a roadmap - these were talks about talks. The next climate change summit of substance will take place two years down the line, in Denmark in 2009.

Upon inspection, the main points of the Bali agreement seem positive. In it, nations acknowledge that planetary warming is "unequivocal" and that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective" of the UN climate convention, namely "avoiding dangerous climate change". There are promises to review forestry policy, support poorer nations suffering from some of the most pronounced impacts of climate change and to remove obstacles to the development of cleaner energies.

But crucially, there are no binding targets on carbon emissions and while UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the agreement as "a historic breakthrough", the masses of environmental campaigners camped outside the meetings had evidently hoped for so much more. Bill Hare of Greenpeace remarked, "I've never seen such a flip-flop in an environmental treaty context ever", and Hans Verolme of the WWF commented, "The [ US] administration was out on a wrecking mission." International development agency Christian Aid stated that it welcomed "the last minute agreement... It is dismayed, however, that crucial target figures for cutting carbon emissions in rich countries were removed from the final agreement." Former US Vice President Al Gore, recent recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, accused his own country of putting progress on climate change back by a decade.

Aware of the significance of climate change in the news this week, UK newspapers have run with some interesting accompanying stories. At the beginning of the week the government announced its plan for 7,000 wind turbines to be installed off the British coast by 2020, providing about one third of UK energy needs. But only days later Sir Bob Geldof was quoted in the press describing renewable energy sources as "Mickey Mouse" solutions to climate change, calling instead for a "scramble for more nuclear power." The Guardian ran critical reports on the big oil companies: Shell, who recently sold off most of its solar power, and BP, who has recently started buying into the dirtiest and most polluting form of oil production in the form of Canada's oil sands. This week also saw planned protests over the rising costs of fuel in the UK failing to garner as much support as similar protests in 2000. Prices of petrol in this country now cost upwards of one pound a litre in places, with as much as 65% of the cost going straight to government.

In many ways, climate change and all things green have been the story of the year: from the Live Earth concerts to the summer flooding, from the melting polar regions to the Bangladesh cyclone and from the Bali conference to the debate on renewables. Measuring our carbon footprint has become a whip with which we like to punish ourselves in the UK as we hear constant moralistic reminders to switch off the lights, offset flights and recycle as much as possible.

It is interesting to note that in the US, by contrast, the Bali climate change conference has hardly been covered by news networks, and the green issue as a whole trails in terms of importance in the upcoming presidential elections. It lags behind Iraq, illegal immigration (always a winner) and the economy, stupid. Other developed countries around the world obviously have far bigger fish to fry and those poorer nations for the moment, and quite rightly, would rather focus on survival and somehow improving living standards in a harsh world.

So it is that vast obstacles lie in the way of progress on climate change. The overriding consumerism juggernaut of free market capitalism has become more than a way of running our world, it has become an intoxicating and possibly fatal addiction which drives our policy and trade terms. Given this fact, few sane nations will willingly hobble themselves by being more prudent with resources in a rampantly competitive global economy.

All of which brings us to the crux of the matter. Approaches to global warming and climate change must be run in tandem with co-operative and binding agreements governing world trade and wider national and international cultures of prudence. Consumerism, unfettered spending and production will have to be tempered and nations will have to see the good of the greater whole above their own lofty ambitions. In short, things will have to be slowed down. History, however, shows us that nations have a poor record in acting together effectively when presented with a clear threat, preferring instead procrastination.

Out with the old?

A look at Australia, where despite a strong record in governance, Prime Minister of eleven years John Howard was voted out of office. His replacement is Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd, a former diplomat who has promised policy change on the environment and Iraq while pledging continued stability in the economy.

John Howard, such a familiar face and distinctive character among world leaders, has misjudged the Australian electorate for the final time and must now pack his bags for home. He lost not only the country, but also, rather pitifully, his own seat of Bennelong in Sydney in an election where his Liberal Party garnered only 36% of the votes to Labour’s 44%.

Hoping to seal his fifth consecutive election victory, Mr Howard was in fact trailing in a hard-fought election campaign when, at the last, fatal scandal engulfed his Liberal Party. In the days prior to voting, Liberal Party activists were discovered to have distributed leaflets in the marginal constituency of Lyndsay, Sydney, purportedly from an Islamic terrorist group thanking Mr Rudd’s Labour Party for its sympathy with the Bali bombers. Despite assertions from Mr Howard - “It was not authorised by the Liberal Party, it is no part of our campaign” - the move was perceived by many Australians as sleazy at a critical time in the election.

For the record, Mr Howard will be perceived as a strong Prime Minister who presided popularly over many notable successes. These include sustained economic growth, the phenomenal Sydney 2000 Olympics and the widely applauded intervention force sent to East Timor to stop widespread looting and violence by pro-Indonesian militias.

The former Prime Minister, famous for his love of cricket, endeared himself to many Australians with his common touch and conviction leadership. The man who stopped the Australian cricket team traveling to Zimbabwe, calling President Robert Mugabe “this grubby dictator,” openly weeped on television when speaking about the death of Australian TV personality and Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin earlier this year.

But John Howard’s vision was conservative, sometimes controversial and it is now clear that he outstayed his political welcome. Mr Howard had refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, arguing as does the United States, that the economy should not be sacrificed when major polluters such as China and India are not subject to the treaty. Like his political contemporary Tony Blair, John Howard provided staunch allegiance to the Americans when they requested it on the Iraq incursion, now considered so disastrous and morally bankrupt. On aboriginal rights Mr Howard showed little enthusiasm during his years in office, stating that a full apology for past treatment by white settlers would “only reinforce a culture of victimhood and take us backwards.”

His successor, newly sworn-in Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, seems to have wasted no time in breaking from the old. He has promised to withdraw the Australian contingent of 550 combat troops from Iraq by the middle of next year. He has also promised an apology to Aboriginal groups, and within days of his appointment, Australia agreed to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, leaving the Americans as the only developed nation outside of the pact.

Mr Rudd’s new cabinet includes Julia Gillard as first ever female deputy PM, and Penny Wong, Australia’s first Asian-born minister. Peter Garrett, former lead singer for rock group Midnight Oil becomes environment, heritage and arts minister. Mr Rudd has called this a rejuvenated government that will bring fresh ideas to the country.

In the wider world, the political landscape is on the brink of important change at the end of 2007. With conservative stalwarts such as John Howard and US President George W Bush ultimately rejected in the court of public opinion, people are now searching for new ideas on Iraq and climate change in particular. And whereas Tony Blair somehow managed to escape a very public downfall, his heir Gordon Brown may not. In many ways the British PM is seen as the architect of the Blair years, and currently finds himself knee deep in scandal with accusations of mismanagement seeming to stick. It entirely possible that Brown, like Howard and Bush, will be seen as a relic of the past and rejected by an electorate clamouring for a change in direction.

Week of Doom

This week really has been one to forget. Cold, rainy weather and ever darkening November nights have combined with some spectacularly depressing stories to leave an air of gloom hanging over the country.

On Tuesday, Chancellor Alistair Darling revealed to the House of Commons that two compact disks containing the personal details of 25 million UK citizens had been lost. The Child Benefit claimant’s data, which contained names, ages, addresses and bank account details, had been sent to the National Audit Office through the Revenues and Customs’ internal post system but had gone “missing.” The Chancellor himself blamed a junior officer for breaking security protocol and Prime Minister Gordon Brown apologised to the British public for the “inconvenience and worry” caused.

The Labour government, already under pressure over its handling of the recent collapse of bank Northern Rock, took another beating on Friday when it was revealed unencrypted discs containing similar data had been handed to and uploaded by accountancy firm KPMG. With the Information Commissioner now investigating whether any laws were broken, all week people across the UK have been expressing shock at the government’s perceived breach of trust. As speculation grows about the possibility of such valuable and personal information falling into the wrong hands, news networks have been offering advice on how to prevent identity and bank account fraud.

To compound the gloom in government, on Thursday evening five retired generals attacked Labour’s record on support and funding for the armed forces during a debate in the House of Lords. Among them was Admiral Lord Boyce, who stated that former Chancellor Gordon Brown had treated forces with “contempt” and “disinterest.” He further commented that the decision to give the jobs of both Secretary for Defence and Scottish Secretary to one person -Des Browne- was an “insult.”

While London Mayor Ken Livingstone made a visit to India, back home Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair survived a vote of no confidence in front of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The position of the UK’s most senior police officer has been under scrutiny since the mistaken shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in the wake of the London terrorist bombings in July 2005. On 1st November, a court had ruled that health and safety laws were broken by the Met during the botched operation, and in this subsequent meeting before the MPA, seven of the 23-member panel voted to issue a motion of no confidence in the Met Chief. Sir Ian Blair can hold onto his position, but may be feeling a little shaken.

The already weakened farming community received more bad news with reports of multiple cases of bird flu confirmed in Suffolk. The deadly strain H5N1, thought capable of transmitting to humans, led to the culling of birds on four suspected farms within a close area. And on Thursday Health Secretary Hilary Benn, in a written statement to the Commons, revealed there had been a ‘probable’ new leak of foot and mouth disease from the Merial Animal Health facility at Pirbright in Surrey. A leaking pipe was believed to be the cause of the latest breach in bio-security but both Mr Benn and Farming Minister Lord Rooker issued assurances that the disease had not escaped into the environment, as happened so disastrously in August.

Peter Tobin, the man convicted of raping and murdering Polish student Angelika Kluk in 2006, was in court again this week, charged with the murder of 15 year old Vicky Hamilton. Newspapers followed with grim fascination the searches carried out on Mr Tobin’s former residence in Margate where detectives uncovered the makeshift graves of Vicky and the remains of another missing girl, Dinah McNichol. At a preliminary hearing at Linlithgow Sheriff Court, police were required to hold back crowds containing relatives of victims who spat and cursed at Tobin as he was rushed by the police into the courtroom. Before appearing in court for a second time, inmates of Saughton Prison in Edinburgh seized their opportunity to attack, leaving Tobin requiring hospital treatment.

On Wednesday night, England, currently ranked 12th in the FIFA Coca Cola World Rankings, crashed out of the qualifying stages of the Euro 2008 football tournament. After a poor performance and subsequent defeat to Croatia 3-2 in the new Wembley Stadium, England qualified third in their group, after requiring only a draw at home. Next morning, head coach Steve McClaren and assistant Terry Venables both had their contracts terminated by the Football Association executive board after a meeting in Soho Square. The England squad, populated by world class players of experience had shown little spirit throughout the qualifying campaign under coach Steve McLaren, a man oft-criticised as clueless and out of his depth. The sporting disaster led the FA executive to begin what they have called a “root-and-branch” examination of the entire England senior team set-up. But while English fans will have to choose another team to cheer about in Austria and Switzerland next year, the FA board itself may do well to avoid closer critical scrutiny.

The Fear Factor

Seeking to capitalise on Labour blunders and better poll ratings, Conservative leader David Cameron this week moved further into his social agenda pitch. Having dealt with immigration, he moved onto the subject of rape, again indicating disturbing statistics. But what is behind Cameron’s spectre of social meltdown, and is it just too much to believe?

Flushed with success after a positive reception to his speech on immigration, the Conservative leader this week spoke on another emotive social issue. At the Conservative Women’s Organisation, Mr Cameron indicated that on rape, England and Wales have the lowest conviction rates in leading European countries, 5.7%. He made a pledge for longer-term funding for rape crisis centres, also calling for a “widespread cultural change” in a society which in his view has become overly “sexualised” in the last decade.

Mr Cameron said: "Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it's okay to force a woman to have sex. ...To my mind, this is an example of moral collapse." During the speech, he called for better sex education in schools and announced a Tory review of spending.

Hot on the heels of this speech, news broke of yet another Home Office blunder. This time it emerged through documents leaked to a newspaper that 5,000 illegal immigrants had been cleared to work in security (including at airports and ports) with the full knowledge of the Home Secretary. Jacqui Smith, who had reportedly known of the situation since July, held an emergency briefing in the Commons defending the decision not to publicise the information and denying charges of cover-up.

Countering loud Conservative criticism, she said her priority had been to establish the "full nature and scale" of the problem and to take action to deal with it, "rather than immediately to put incomplete and potentially misleading information into the public domain." In reply, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis scoffed, “The response from the Home Office so far has been blunder, panic and cover-up.”

So, as it turned out for Mr Cameron, the illegal immigrants fiasco ultimately deprived him of any forthcoming praise and debate on the issue of rape and sentencing. The loss, however, was somewhat alleviated by points scored against the Home Office, and presumably the Conservative marketing machine will soon hit upon another example of “moral collapse” to throw at Labour. Perhaps next they will look again at antisocial behaviour, or even put Ian Duncan-Smith and the newly-returned Jonathan Aitken to work digging up frightful government failures and Tory initiatives on the prisons system.

The current Conservative strategy reminds us, sadly, of what politics is all about. Mr Cameron, like any ruthless newspaper editor, realises that instilling fear with information bestows power and demands approval. Identifying wide ranging threats and promoting the view of a society in meltdown, he hopes, will lead people to gather under his banner and reject Gordon Brown’s Labour Party. But being in opposition is a far cry from being in office, and although some people may accept Cameron’s social commentary to a degree, others will view it is as political opportunism and panic-mongering.

Winning, the Rose way

A look at the story so far of the highest ranked European golfer to November, Englishman Justin Rose, and the lessons to be learned from his sporting triumphs.

This week in Valderrama, Spain, Justin Rose clinched a three way play-off to claim victory at the Volvo Masters and, more importantly, his first PGA Tour Order of Merit title. Rose, who has struggled with consistency in the past, seems to have finally found a winning formula and is now hotly tipped for a future victory in the majors.

Rose burst onto the scene back in 1998 at The Open where as a 17-year-old amateur he holed the 18th from the fairway on the final round to finish tied for fourth. Turning professional shortly afterwards, he struggled initially, missing more than 20 cuts before going on to become an established regular on the European Tour. His first victory in a professional event came at The Dunhill Championships in South Africa (the country of his birth) in 2002.

But life in the top flight is not easy. Despite being ranked 33 in the Official World Golf Rankings in 2003, 2004 was not a good year and Rose slipped out of the top 50 at the start of a run of bad form. For the next few years he seemed to come tantalisingly close to winning tournaments only to slip behind at the crucial moment. In 2005 he lead the Buick Championship after three rounds only to finish in third. Similarly, at the Canadian Open in September 2006, he went into the final round leading only to score a final round of 74 which moved him down the leaderboard.

However, the last 12 months has seen victory at the Australian Masters, a top five finish in the Masters at Augusta and of course the latest thrilling victory at Valderrama on Sunday which took Rose to ranked seventh in the Official World Golf Rankings. So, where has that crucial winning edge come from over the last 12 months, and how does Justin handle pressure at the top?

Ian Collins, Five Live Golf correspondent, attributes much of the new-found success to the team Justin has put in place this year. He split with previous management company IMG seeking a “personal touch in the handling of his affairs,” and replaced David Leadbetter with new coach Nick Bradley in a unique and exclusive one-on-one deal. Rose also married long time girlfriend Kate this year, and seems to have proved the old adage that marriage is good for you. So, it seems a calmer, happier and more settled competitor has emerged and we are beginning to see the results.

Team Rose aside, outstanding results have accompanied a crucial growth in mental belief and cumulative self-confidence - Justin Rose has trained himself to think properly. Speaking to the BBC about his fifth place finish at the Masters in 2007, he says:

“That is where my self-belief really started building. Although I finished fifth I felt like I finished a lot closer than maybe fifth represents. I got off to a terrible start in the final round but believed I could mount a comeback and I actually did do that. That was a really big learning experience for me. I felt comfortable being on the leader board, I enjoyed chasing down the stretch and living the dream, something I’d always dreamed about doing. To enjoy that experience and to trust myself and believe myself, that was a big week for me.”

Seeing obstacles as opportunities for growth and the value of dreaming positively plays a huge part in winning competitions, as we have seen this year in the case of Lewis Hamilton. But Rose has also made brave and conscious changes to his game at the time when it was most needed. On the secret of getting into the world’s top ten he says:

“I guess there has been a subtle change in my technique but really the key has been mentally, just simplifying my whole process and stripping it down and getting rid of the stuff I don’t need. Therefore when I come to a tournament I am in a very simple frame of mind. Therefore it is easy to repeat each week.
When you have got something easy to repeat, that is easy to trust under pressure and therefore my self-belief has been growing and growing.”

The future seems more exciting than ever for the 27-year-old as he sets his sights on the next logical step, winning a competition in America before looking for that first major victory. And on world number one, Tiger Woods, while Rose admits he would like to be the one snapping at his heels if the opportunity arose, he remains very much in the present and focussed:

“You have got to play your own game, and play the golf course and ultimately that is the only thing you can control. You can‘t think about what the other guys are doing. That is another thing I have done very well this year.”

Labouring hard

A few weeks ago Labour under Gordon Brown looked polished, efficient and scarcely troubled. Now, in the wake of cynical manoeuvring, revelations on bungled immigration figures, and a rejuvenated Conservative party, the government finds itself under considerable pressure. So, is it just politics as usual, or has David Cameron finally got something to work with?

Mr Brown's current headaches began around the time of the Conservative party conference. After apparently priming Britain for the polls, the Prime Minister suddenly found himself struggling as key Tories delivered charismatic performances and clever policy promise in Blackpool. The conference warm-up act, former Conservative leader William Hague, cannily picked apart Brown's own conference pitch to the people, labelling him "not a conviction politician but a calculation politician." This comment seemed to ring painfully true as observations made apparent Labour's shadowy reliance on electoral number crunchers.

Conservative leader David Cameron, himself under pressure as he took to the conference podium, used neither notes nor autocue to deliver a speech which impressed both conference and the wider press with its power and delivery. Shadow Chancellor George Osborne spoke out on inheritance tax at the event, pledging to raise the limits on Britain's "most hated tax", should the Conservatives gain office. Chancellor Alistair Darling's subsequent budget, aimed to steal the Tories' thunder, in fact earned him the unenviable nickname of "Mr Magpie" as he was accused of adopting as his own large parts of opposition policy. The Times of October 10th summed up the mood: "In an electioneering Autumn Budget that lacked only the election, the Chancellor adopted one Tory plan after another, including charging "nondomiciled" wealthy foreigners living in Britain and switching air travel duty from passengers to flights."

Struggling to put this and the election fiasco behind them, in mid-October Labour soon faced the imminent question over the EU Treaty and Gordon Brown's so-called red lines. With the premier flying off to Lisbon to battle our corner, the Tories at home screamed for the referendum as pledged in the Labour election manifesto. On 19 th October David Cameron told BBC Breakfast that Brown's red lines were "complete red herrings" and said: "This is, once again, Gordon Brown and his government treating the British people like fools."

However, all of these setbacks and the criticism made must now seem minor compared to the latest government embarrassment. Newsnight of 31 October reported on the confusion in which the government found itself after it was revealed sizeable and significant errors had been made in government immigration statistics. Having first stated that 2.7 million jobs had been created since 1997, with around 30% going to foreign workers (a total of 800,000), Labour then seemed to back pedal, stating there were in fact 1.1 million foreign workers, meaning a far higher percentage of British jobs filled by non-Britons. The programme asked incredulously, "Is this what Gordon Brown means by British jobs for British workers?"

The Telegraph reported on the written parliamentary answer on the botch-up delivered by Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain, who insisted ministers had used earlier figures “in good faith”: "I apologise for having to make this revision. I am sure you will understand these calculations are not straightforward." In reply, shadow Work and Pensions spokesman Chris Grayling described Mr Hain's admission as "extraordinary": "The fact that the Government did not know the true number of overseas workers who have come to the UK in the past 10 years is profoundly worrying, and confirms fears that ministers have simply lost control of our systems for migrant workers."

To compound Labour's woes, this unfortunate episode came only hours after David Cameron's first real speech of substance on immigration policy since he became leader. In the speech given to the Policy Exchange the opposition leader put much emphasis on the growing stress under which British transport, infrastructure and public services currently operate. Making pointed reference to the recent report predicting a boost in population (set to increase by 4.4 million to 65 million by 2016 and 71 million by 2031), Mr Cameron talked dispassionately and intelligently about growing numbers of households and the so-called atomization of society as people increasingly leave family and community behind.

Mr Cameron's pledges, among them to reduce the level of net immigration into Britain from non-EU states and introduce transitional immigration controls for new EU entrants, seemed to have hit home with potential voters, with subsequent polls revealing the Conservatives gaining ground on Labour.

But not just smart policy and timing explains the rise of Mr Cameron's star. The Tory leader has grown considerably in stature of late with ideas finally coming forth on crucial issues, as he weaves policy and values together in a way that resonates with increasing numbers of Britons. Also, his relationship with the Prime Minister has developed much to his advantage. Where Tony Blair treated the opposition leader with wry good humour and almost brotherly indulgence in the Commons, Brown appears a figure less fluent and less likeable, quicker to anger and much more averse to criticism. Cameron has found a way to bait the bear, and in spite of the new aggression and unpleasantness to be felt hanging in the air at Prime Minister's Questions, the Tories often emerge with the upper hand.

So, with Brown sometimes struggling to maintain his composure and a fast-learning and disruptive Cameron gathering increasing momentum, the Conservatives could be forgiven for thinking their long-awaited opportunity may not be long in the waiting.

Drawing a line underneath it

Focussing in on sport this week, with a couple of big matches, a few questionable decisions and a whole lot of implications for our national sporting culture.

The Liverpool-Everton derby yesterday was a memorable one. The first red card for Everton came for a tackle by Tony Hibbert, whose collision with Steven Gerrard brought the Liverpool midfielder tumbling down as he raced clear on goal. The second was given in second half injury time when Phil Neville momentarily seemed to forget he was not the goalkeeper, cynically palming away Lucas' strike from the top right-hand corner of the Everton goal.

Liverpool for their part escaped sendings off, albeit miraculously. Dirk Kuyt's flying two footed kick a la Eric Cantona aimed at Neville in the 64th minute was deemed deserving only of yellow. Even more outrageously, seconds before the final whistle Everton's unfortunate Jolean Lescott seemed to be judo-thrown by Jamie Carragher in the Liverpool box. No foul, no card this time and final whistle, 2-1 to Liverpool.

Premier League football matches now resemble unpleasant dogfights. Cheating as much as possible, accusing opponents of cheating in turn and treating match officials as contemptible is the order of the day. On various occasions in the match yesterday, the referee was pushed and intimidated by players who doubtlessly take their lead from characters such as John Terry. (In the recent Chelsea-Manchester United fixture, the England captain inexplicably avoided a massive post-match fine for grabbing the referee's arm which at the time contained a red card destined for John Obi Mikel.)

But as far away from the idea of 'sport' that football seems to be getting, such antics are not to be blamed for falling values. The real culprits are the football authorities and the sporting press. There seems to be no official willingness to bring footballers and managers to task for their deception, fakery and foul-mouthed intimidation tactics. It is commonplace for players to escape punishment for behaviour which in other sports would result in long bans and considerable financial penalties.

The press for their part largely lack integrity when it comes to constructive criticism on the way the game is conducted. Perhaps fearful of losing their jobs, acquiescent football commentators have been afraid to point out the ruthlessness of modern methods, washing their hands time and again of the frequent unpleasantness. While all of this goes on, the next generation watches, listens and takes note of the lesson: cheating is integral to sporting success.

London trains were packed even more than usual on Saturday night, as people streamed into the capital to watch England defend their title against the dangerous South Africans in the Rugby World Cup final. England, a side beleaguered and struggling with form in the build-up to the competition, had shown confidence, power and incredible intelligence to battle through to the final after initial defeat to their co-finalists in the group stages.

A competition which had shone with excitement, courage and upset sadly ended with defeat for Brian Ashton's men, with South Africa taking a 15-6 victory. The result, however, was controversial in light of some of the decisions made by match officials, and press coverage of the match so far has, in some quarters, fallen short of satisfactory.*

The cool goal kicking from Percy Montgomery, heroics from man-of-the-match Victor Matfield in the line out and unremitting pressure applied by the Springboks were all justly praised in the press. The BBC, Guardian and Sky sites, however, were notable in their thinness of coverage towards the key refereeing decisions which ultimately thwarted brave and brilliant English efforts.

The only try of the match seemed to have come just after the restart, with Matthew Tait picking up a bouncing pass in midfield and slicing through the Springbok defence. Tait, 21, offloaded in the tackle to the man brought in to replace the injured Josh Lewsy, Mark Cueto, who dramatically dived in at the corner flag for the score.

With questions over whether Cueto's foot had been in touch at the time of the try, Irish referee Alain Rolland called on the video referee to take an official second look. As the minutes ticked by in Paris, ITV replays clearly showed the offending foot over the touch line but, crucially, raised from the ground. In a decision hard to believe in a game so huge and so tightly fought, the try was disallowed by Referee Rolland and the Australian video official who had presumably seen footage similar to that broadcast all around the world.

After the match, Mark Cueto spoke about his disallowed effort: "From the front the grounding was fine, from the back you could clearly see my foot lifted up in the air before it went into touch. For me there was no question it was a try."

Cueto also commented on the curious penalties rather generously awarded to South Africa: "There was a couple of times that we got penalised for crossing [obstruction] and there were a couple of times when the South Africans did the same and didn't get penalised."

Sometimes it can be surprisingly different to watch something with your own eyes and then to read about it in the press as written by someone else. But one thing the press did get right was the fact that England can take much pride from their performance in the match, and in the tournament as whole. They have put the ghosts of failure well and truly behind them and risen to conquer some of the finest rugby teams in the world. It remains to be seen what reaction there may be, if any, to Referee Rolland’s performance.

* The Independent proves a notable exception. You can read the excellent match analysis at:

http://sport.independent.co.uk/rugby_union/world_cup_news/article3082034.ece