Time flies when you're having fun. There you are, feeling justifiably pleased with yourself for having put together a blog and on the following day a column (it is the Beck of that genus to which I refer, more properly called "Quote Unquote") and there it is, suddenly Saturday and Beck is out and the weekend trundling on and you don't really feel like sitting down to bash out another few hundred words of wisdom to give the Lil'Elves some fun.

Then it's Monday, grey and forbidding, and what vestigial sense of humour one may possess is buried so deep you'd be better off trying to get to it from Australia.

Which is all my way of saying, yes, I know it's been a bit of a long time since I last blogged, and it took my editor to nudge me delicately into action, pointing out that I might not be in the mood after the match on Tuesday evening. My response by text was to devise an emoticon that summarised my sentiments, sentiments which are indelicate, an indelicacy inspired by the thought that Chelsea won't be taking down the Special One a peg or two.

There's no reason why Chelsea should lose: they play in the best league in the world, Inter play in the Italian League which when you take in a match from there looks as if they're playing in treacle with your telly set to slow-motion. Moreover, just to use a nice long word, they have some of the best players in the world, though I'm getting a bit worried that I'm going to have to dig out my plimsolls and gardening gloves and set off down the 'Bridge to pitch up between the posts, given the rate at which we're chopping down 'keepers.

Truth be told, I was ruminating on a blog, and the Man's text this morning at the crack of the unearthly hour of just poked me into overcoming the idea that listening to Five Live on the 'Net Radio was more enjoyable in the horizontal.

The wonders of the 'Net are not confined to being able to listen to the radio from all over the world, of course. You can access all manner of information in real time and instantaneously, thereby eliminating the need to wait to answer the momentous questions that plague polite society, such as "who as that in that movie with what's her name, was about 1986?". You can do this while sitting in a café' miles from a phone line if you happen to have a Blackberry, or other smartphone (such as GirlyPod) and a mobile connection.

There's pretty much no reason at all to be misinformed or ill-informed or, if you're a conscientious journalist, to pass on tripe to your readers. Of course, the 'Net is full of loonies - indeed, it's a veritable Petri dish for them, and anyone with a keyboard and an opinion can spout it - so you have to be a tad careful of the extent to which you rely on the information you glean from www.wherever.com.

Some judicious exercise of your critical faculties, therefore, is required before adopting any point of view put out into the modern ether. This is not a new requirement when taking into account news, of course, because before saying "it must be true it was in the papers/on the news" you have always had to cast an eye over the provenance of the information.

In this light, when reading an item from the political press (from whichever side of the spectrum it is) or listening to some commentator, it is obviously important to take note of who is saying it and why.

Here I digress to give a total and utter scoop to the intrepid journalists at maltastar.com, who are free to pass it on to their colleagues at KullHadd: I have not denied being involved in a plot to assassinate the Pope while he's here as part of a larger plot to take down the full Shadow Cabinet while they're shuffling forward to kiss his Episcopal Ring. The only concern of the CIA and Mossad, who I have not denied are involved with me in this nefarious scheme, is that the Leader of the Opposition will be late.

I repeat, I have not denied this and therefore it can be used as proof positive that a) the plot exists and b) I am involved it.

Just to set your minds at rest, as if you needed this, no such plot exists (duh) and I am not plotting with the CIA and/or Mossad.

This does not mean that maltastar.com or KullHadd won't say the exact opposite: last Sunday, an English bloke was accused of being a consultant to the PM (not that this is a crime - when I read the item, I just went "and your point is?" with a quizzical look on my face) simply because he did not deny this to Glenn Bedingfield.

The snag was that he wasn't asked. He wasn't asked whether he had stopped beating his wife or whether he was the guy who shot Kennedy or whether he had been involved in filming the pretend landing on the moon or whether he was Lord Lucan, either, so I suppose he should thank his stars that these crimes weren't laid at his door as well.

Who said the loonies only occupy the weirder regions of the 'Net?