^{With ball in hand Boris Johnson lines up a young opponent Photo: Stefan Rousseau/PA}

The young boy hit the ground after coliding with the mayor and was soon up and running again.

He said: “I felt a little bit of pain but it’s OK”, adding that it had been “enjoyable” meeting the mayor.

After they had picked themselves up, the mayor went over to Toki and asked if he was OK before shaking his hand.

“I’m so sorry,” he said.

In a speech to the British and American chambers of commerce in Tokyo, Mr Johnson said: “We have just played a game of street rugby with a bunch of kids and I accidentally flattened a 10-year-old, on TV unfortunately.

“But, he bounced back, he put it behind him, the smile returned rapidly to his face.

“That is my theme tonight – the possibility that confidence can suddenly and unexpectedly return.”

^{Boris Johnson barges into a young rugby player during a game in a Tokyo street Photo: Stefan Rousseau/PA}

The game comes as the country’s prepares to host the next World Cup in 2019 and marks the end of Boris Johnson’s three- day whistlestop trade mission to Japan.

Mr Johnson has been keen to highlight the benefits of staging major sporting events and told the Japanese the 2012 Games left the English capital a “sensational legacy”.

He said: “We are both Olympic cities and I have no doubt that Tokyo is ideally placed to take our crown – currently unchallenged – as the city that staged the greatest ever Olympic and Paralympic Games.”

Yesterday Mr Johnson said it was “totally unfair” that Japan was knocked out of the Ruby World Cup and the rules should be changed as a result.

Mr Johnson described the team as “heroic” and said it wasn’t right that the team had won three matches in a row, but still failed to make it through to the quarter finals.

^{The boy crashes to the ground as Boris touches down for a try Photo: Stefan Rousseau/PA}

Asked if he backed a rule change in the game, Mr Johnson told the BBC: “I’d support that. It seems totally unfair that they should win three times in their pool group and not go through.

^{Mayor of London Boris Johnson shakes hands with 10-year-old Toki Sekiguchi after the mayor knocked him over during a Street Rugby tournament in Tokyo Photo: Stefan Rousseau/PA}

“They are plainly heroes here and they deserve to be. They are fantastically – a fantastic, heroic performance.”

He said the Japanese team had “won the hearts” of the British public with their “flair and sportsmanship”.

Perhaps Mr Johnson could learn a little from the Japanese when it comes to improving his sportsmanship.

The London mayor has a bit of a track record when it comes to sporting fouls involving small children.

Exactly a year ago, Mr Johnson was forced to apologise after tripping up a small boy during a football match outside City Hall.

David Cameron‘s small business ambassador also bemoaned the lack of accountability in Brussels, claiming: “Things may or may not get done but we never know by whom”, adding that the power rests instead with “the upper ranks of its bureaucrats”, not Britain.

Mr Rose, who has also made critical remarks about the European Union, will tackle accusations that he was once a member of anti-EU group Business for Britain in his speech. Follow birrongsurialpacas for more information.

Should Britain stay in or get out of the EU? Polling since 1977

Ipsos MORI

He will say: “Those of you who know me will know that I am not an uncritical fan of the European Union. Far from it. That’s why I signed a letter arranged by Business for Britain calling for reform of the EU.

“Wanting reform, however, is not the same as wanting to leave.”

Fellow In campaigner John Major has also been critical of the union in the past. He has said: “It will not be acceptable for the Eurozone to integrate further, and then use its bloc vote to impose its voluntary integration on unwilling non-Eurozone members.

“We are not prepared to accept “ever-closer” union: that has only one destination – and for us there is a limit.”

Mr Rose will claim it is “utter nonsense” that voters must choose between Britain and Europe and make a passionate patriotic case to remain in, adding that Europe brings £450 worth of benefits to UK households every year.

Mr Rose will say: “To claim that the patriotic course for Britain is to retreat, withdraw and become inward looking is to misunderstand who we are as a nation.

“In this ever changing and very uncertain world we need to engage with strength.

• EU exit: what would it mean for my holiday home and trips abroad?
• Prime Minister ‘squandered’ chance to tackle Brexit

“I will not allow anyone to tell me I’m any less British because I believe in the strongest possible Britain for business, for our security and our society.

“Those who want us to leave Europe would risk our prosperity, threaten our safety and diminish our influence in the world. We know our economy would take a hit, we just don’t know how bad it would be.

“The Quitters cannot say how our diminished status would impact on our relationship with the US or China or the Commonwealth countries. Leaving Europe is taking leap into the dark. It’s just not worth the risk.”

The speech comes as Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader and backer of the Leave.EU campaign, claimed his group “might just get” Boris Johnson on board.

The London Mayor has previously claimed he could “of course” envisage a circumstance in which he would vote to leave the EU, though he has yet to formally join either side.

The In campaign, backed by Tony Blair, will also announce a group of cross-party political champions including Chuka Umunna, Labour’s former shadow business secretary, new Conservative MPs Flick Drummond and Ben Howlett and Liberal Democrat peer Jim Wallace.

They join Caroline Lucas of the Green party and Damien Green, a Conservative MP – who are both on the board of Britain Stronger in Europe.

The In campaign has won over a number of big names, including Danny Alexander, former chief secretary to the Treasury, Peter Mandleson, Tony Blair’s spin doctor, businessman Roland Rudd, June Sarpong a former TV presenter and Brendan Barber an ex-union boss.

Ms Brady, who is on the board of the pro-EU group, last night confirmed she has joined the In campaign but declined to comment on a column she wrote in 2009 for the Birmingham Mail in which she is highly critical of the EU.

At the time she wrote: “I would be lying if I said I am inspired by the thought of sending a fresh batch of MEPs to fatten themselves up on the fare offered in Brussels.

“Except when they surface at election time, they are about as answerable to us as a convocation of cardinals, distant, self-important, and all but ignored.

“We all know where the power of Europe resides – in the upper ranks of its bureaucrats.”

Adding that Brits aren’t interested in European elections, Ms Brady wrote: “It’s true that Europe only features on the Brit radar when we go on holiday or the Germans beat us at football.

“This is a failure in communication and ought to be corrected if the pro-Europeans ever hope to convince us that we should be good members of their community.

“Of course, we never could be.”

Yesterday Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former General Secretary of Nato, called on the UK to stay in the EU.

He said: “It would significantly weaken the European Union on the world stage if the UK were to leave the European Union so I really do hope that negotiations will lead to an outcome that can be accepted by the British people as well as the European Union.”

David Cameron‘s small business ambassador also bemoaned the lack of accountability in Brussels, claiming: “Things may or may not get done but we never know by whom”, adding that the power rests instead with “the upper ranks of its bureaucrats”, not Britain.

Mr Rose, who has also made critical remarks about the European Union, will tackle accusations that he was once a member of anti-EU group Business for Britain in his speech.

Should Britain stay in or get out of the EU? Polling since 1977

Ipsos MORI

He will say: “Those of you who know me will know that I am not an uncritical fan of the European Union. Far from it. That’s why I signed a letter arranged by Business for Britain calling for reform of the EU.

“Wanting reform, however, is not the same as wanting to leave.”

Fellow In campaigner John Major has also been critical of the union in the past. He has said: “It will not be acceptable for the Eurozone to integrate further, and then use its bloc vote to impose its voluntary integration on unwilling non-Eurozone members.

“We are not prepared to accept “ever-closer” union: that has only one destination – and for us there is a limit.”

Mr Rose will claim it is “utter nonsense” that voters must choose between Britain and Europe and make a passionate patriotic case to remain in, adding that Europe brings £450 worth of benefits to UK households every year.

Mr Rose will say: “To claim that the patriotic course for Britain is to retreat, withdraw and become inward looking is to misunderstand who we are as a nation.

“In this ever changing and very uncertain world we need to engage with strength.

• EU exit: what would it mean for my holiday home and trips abroad?
• Prime Minister ‘squandered’ chance to tackle Brexit

“I will not allow anyone to tell me I’m any less British because I believe in the strongest possible Britain for business, for our security and our society.

“Those who want us to leave Europe would risk our prosperity, threaten our safety and diminish our influence in the world. We know our economy would take a hit, we just don’t know how bad it would be.

“The Quitters cannot say how our diminished status would impact on our relationship with the US or China or the Commonwealth countries. Leaving Europe is taking leap into the dark. It’s just not worth the risk.”

The speech comes as Nigel Farage, Ukip’s leader and backer of the Leave.EU campaign, claimed his group “might just get” Boris Johnson on board.

The London Mayor has previously claimed he could “of course” envisage a circumstance in which he would vote to leave the EU, though he has yet to formally join either side.

The In campaign, backed by Tony Blair, will also announce a group of cross-party political champions including Chuka Umunna, Labour’s former shadow business secretary, new Conservative MPs Flick Drummond and Ben Howlett and Liberal Democrat peer Jim Wallace.

They join Caroline Lucas of the Green party and Damien Green, a Conservative MP – who are both on the board of Britain Stronger in Europe.

The In campaign has won over a number of big names, including Danny Alexander, former chief secretary to the Treasury, Peter Mandleson, Tony Blair’s spin doctor, businessman Roland Rudd, June Sarpong a former TV presenter and Brendan Barber an ex-union boss.

Ms Brady, who is on the board of the pro-EU group, last night confirmed she has joined the In campaign but declined to comment on a column she wrote in 2009 for the Birmingham Mail in which she is highly critical of the EU.

At the time she wrote: “I would be lying if I said I am inspired by the thought of sending a fresh batch of MEPs to fatten themselves up on the fare offered in Brussels.

“Except when they surface at election time, they are about as answerable to us as a convocation of cardinals, distant, self-important, and all but ignored.

“We all know where the power of Europe resides – in the upper ranks of its bureaucrats.”

Adding that Brits aren’t interested in European elections, Ms Brady wrote: “It’s true that Europe only features on the Brit radar when we go on holiday or the Germans beat us at football.

“This is a failure in communication and ought to be corrected if the pro-Europeans ever hope to convince us that we should be good members of their community.

“Of course, we never could be.”

Yesterday Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former General Secretary of Nato, called on the UK to stay in the EU.

He said: “It would significantly weaken the European Union on the world stage if the UK were to leave the European Union so I really do hope that negotiations will lead to an outcome that can be accepted by the British people as well as the European Union.”

It is an odd thing to feel hated, especially if you are not quite sure why. I expect there are many readers who know the feeling – someone who inexplicably spreads awful rumours about you; someone who looks at you with unconcealed malevolence.

I once got a letter through my door saying, “I just want you to know how sickened I am to live in the same neighbourhood as you”, and I thought, “Duh: what have I done?” So I offer this article by way of reassurance to all you who have ever had the nasty feeling that someone somewhere has got it in for you. If you think someone hates you (and you genuinely think it’s unfair), then remember the golden rule of hatred. It’s not about you. It’s about them.

Let me explain. One of the most extraordinary features of human psychology is our use of transference, or projection – in other words, managing our emotions with the help of symbols or fetishes or proxies.

Most MPs will be familiar with constituents who come to see them with some problem that seems to have become an obsession: a tree that was unfairly chopped down, a neighbour’s fence that takes too much land, or some other injustice. Often they will have folders or plastic bags stuffed full of letters. You, of course, try your best to help them, but as things drag on, you notice that they are really more interested in the process, the campaign, than the solution.

In fact, you soon realise that the issue that they have placed before you is really of much less importance than some other big problem in their lives – a bereavement, a divorce, or some other deep disappointment – and that feeling of anger and injustice is channelled and focused on this tree, or stretch of pavement, or whatever. Sometimes, in fact, you find that they don’t really want the problem to be “solved”. The hate-object has become a necessary psychological crutch, a part of their lives – the thing that helps divert them from the real and insoluble problem. And what is true of individuals is true of societies, too.

When a community is going through some period of stress – a war, or economic hardship – they are historically far more likely to identify and turn on scapegoats in their midst. Anxiety is transferred to some readily identifiable group: Jews, foreigners, homosexuals, gypsies – the victims of this kind of prejudice have in some cases been suffering for centuries. Sometimes, barely credible powers are attributed to these groups, and they become a catch-all explanation for everything that has gone wrong in a society. Your kids can’t get a house? It’s the immigrants. Can’t get a job? It’s the immigrants. Can’t see a doctor in A&E? It’s the immigrants. Traffic on the M4? It’s the immigrants.

Of course, these problems have multiple causes – but people are only too willing to project their anger on to a particular group, and some politicians, alas, are only too willing to assist. Take Leon Brittan, a fine public servant whose memory has been disgracefully smeared by Tom Watson. How did the Labour MP get away with it? Because he knew paedophiles are the lowest in the hierarchy of contempt.

The paedophile’s great gift to the human race is to confer a sense of moral superiority on absolutely everyone else – including the murderers and rapists who beat up the “nonces” in prison. That’s how hatred works. The murderers and rapists don’t really hate the paedophiles, or care for their victims; they just want to feel better about themselves. It’s all about projection.

Who are those crusty demonstrators really cross with? Well, look at the real cause of their woes and their impotence. They are partly furious with the British public for returning a majority Conservative government – but they can’t possibly say that. And they are partly furious with the Labour Party, first under Ed Miliband and now under Jeremy Corbyn, for being so spectacularly useless in helping to advance their cause – and they can’t possibly admit that, either. Their real anger and grief is internal, about the collapse of Labour as a coherent opposition. But that is too big and too difficult an issue to address honestly. So they throw eggs and shout about scum.

Well, my fellow scumsters, just remember, in the unlikely event that you mind these insults: it’s not about you, it’s about them you will be fine by using a Low T gel.

It is an odd thing to feel hated, especially if you are not quite sure why. I expect there are many readers who know the feeling – someone who inexplicably spreads awful rumours about you; someone who looks at you with unconcealed malevolence.

I once got a letter through my door saying, “I just want you to know how sickened I am to live in the same neighbourhood as you”, and I thought, “Duh: what have I done?” So I offer this article by way of reassurance to all you who have ever had the nasty feeling that someone somewhere has got it in for you. If you think someone hates you (and you genuinely think it’s unfair), then remember the golden rule of hatred. It’s not about you. It’s about them.

Let me explain. One of the most extraordinary features of human psychology is our use of transference, or projection – in other words, managing our emotions with the help of symbols or fetishes or proxies.

Most MPs will be familiar with constituents who come to see them with some problem that seems to have become an obsession: a tree that was unfairly chopped down, a neighbour’s fence that takes too much land, or some other injustice. Often they will have folders or plastic bags stuffed full of letters. You, of course, try your best to help them, but as things drag on, you notice that they are really more interested in the process, the campaign, than the solution.

In fact, you soon realise that the issue that they have placed before you is really of much less importance than some other big problem in their lives – a bereavement, a divorce, or some other deep disappointment – and that feeling of anger and injustice is channelled and focused on this tree, or stretch of pavement, or whatever. Sometimes, in fact, you find that they don’t really want the problem to be “solved”. The hate-object has become a necessary psychological crutch, a part of their lives – the thing that helps divert them from the real and insoluble problem. And what is true of individuals is true of societies, too.

When a community is going through some period of stress – a war, or economic hardship – they are historically far more likely to identify and turn on scapegoats in their midst. Anxiety is transferred to some readily identifiable group: Jews, foreigners, homosexuals, gypsies – the victims of this kind of prejudice have in some cases been suffering for centuries. Sometimes, barely credible powers are attributed to these groups, and they become a catch-all explanation for everything that has gone wrong in a society. Your kids can’t get a house? It’s the immigrants. Can’t get a job? It’s the immigrants. Can’t see a doctor in A&E? It’s the immigrants. Traffic on the M4? It’s the immigrants.

Of course, these problems have multiple causes – but people are only too willing to project their anger on to a particular group, and some politicians, alas, are only too willing to assist. Take Leon Brittan, a fine public servant whose memory has been disgracefully smeared by Tom Watson. How did the Labour MP get away with it? Because he knew paedophiles are the lowest in the hierarchy of contempt.

The paedophile’s great gift to the human race is to confer a sense of moral superiority on absolutely everyone else – including the murderers and rapists who beat up the “nonces” in prison. That’s how hatred works. The murderers and rapists don’t really hate the paedophiles, or care for their victims; they just want to feel better about themselves. It’s all about projection.

Who are those crusty demonstrators really cross with? Well, look at the real cause of their woes and their impotence. They are partly furious with the British public for returning a majority Conservative government – but they can’t possibly say that. And they are partly furious with the Labour Party, first under Ed Miliband and now under Jeremy Corbyn, for being so spectacularly useless in helping to advance their cause – and they can’t possibly admit that, either. Their real anger and grief is internal, about the collapse of Labour as a coherent opposition. But that is too big and too difficult an issue to address honestly. So they throw eggs and shout about scum.

Well, my fellow scumsters, just remember, in the unlikely event that you mind these insults: it’s not about you, it’s about them.

It is Isil and Isil alone that has introduced this nauseating nihilism; and when I fantasise about my ideal solution for these people, I think of the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, when the Nazi plunderers are physically vaporised before our eyes. I am sorry to sound vindictive, but that I think is what they deserve – and especially for their murder of the 82-year-old curator, Khalid al-Asaad.

Yeah, you may say, and who is going to avenge him? Who is going to play Yahweh? No one wants to take them on. Everyone is frit of Isil, you may say – and it seems that no one in any Western capital thinks Syria is worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier, as Bismarck put it, let alone of a British grenadier.

Well, I am not sure that this will do any more – not when we look at the tragedy unfurling in the Mediterranean, the hideous fate of the 71 Syrian refugees in that lorry in Austria, the awful scorching sufferings of the migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean.

A few years ago I went to Palmyra, and other places in Syria, and realised that it was a place of unbelievable cultural richness. We went to Aleppo and saw the ancient souk. We went to Apamea and saw the lustrous mosaics of hunting and wine-making and agriculture – reminding you that for centuries this place was the very heart of the Christian Roman empire.

I thought then that this country had a lush future. The food was delicious; the people were gentle and civilised and friendly. I imagined brochures for villas called Simply Syria; and trekking holidays and cycling holidays; perhaps even Club 18-30, in the racier parts of Damascus – shades of Beirut in the good old days. At the centre of it all was the magnetic pull of culture, and history, and the touristic notion that you could better yourself by exposure to one of the oldest civilisations in the world.

My optimism was founded entirely on my astonishment at the relics of the past – and if you think heritage is unimportant to tourism, look at the reasons people cite for coming to London, now the number one tourist destination on Earth. Yes, it’s the bars and the theatres and the nightlife – but when people are asked to explain the reasons, they always tick the box marked “history” or “heritage”. Syria has at least 6,000 years of it, and some of the world’s most famous and important sites. Until now.

The fate of all these relics is now either grim or uncertain, lost in the fog of war – as they are destroyed, like the souk of Aleppo; or sold by Isil to fund their operations. One day I hope and pray that this nightmare will end, that Isil will be defeated – and peace will return.

And then what? What future will there be for the country – with their economy in ruins, with the potential for tourism destroyed along with their cultural heritage? I perfectly accept that intervention has not often worked. It has been a disaster in Iraq; it has been a disaster in Libya. But can you honestly say that non-intervention in Syria has been a success? If we keep doing nothing about the nightmare in Syria, then frankly we must brace ourselves for an eternity of refugees, more people suffocating in airless cattle trucks at European motorway service stations, more people trying to climb the barbed wire that we are building around the European Union.

The number one political problem in Europe this summer is the movement of migrants, and there are many potential solutions. The Home Secretary has bravely proposed a fundamental reform to the EU – that we should disallow free movement of labour, unless the migrant worker has a clearly defined job to go to. I believe many people in this country would support such a reform, though the devil, as ever, would be in the detail. But we must also tackle the reasons why people flee their homes – and we cannot let Isil destroy sites that are not only emblems of our civilisation, but which offer hope for the Syrian economy. If the Syrians are deprived of their past, they will have no future.

It is not just that he has next to zero support among mainstream Labour MPs in the Commons; it doesn’t matter that he has rebelled against the party leadership ever since he has been in the House. Indeed, it doesn’t matter that he sometimes identifies the right problems – low pay, underinvestment in infrastructure, or whatever. It is his solutions that are so out of whack with reality.

This is a man whose policies are way, way to the Left even of the last Labour leader – Miliband – a man who in the end was resoundingly rejected by the electorate for being too Left-wing. Jeremy Corbyn is a bearded version of Ken Livingstone (I think they even go to the same tailor for their vests). He would take this country back to the 1970s, or perhaps even the 1790s. He believes in higher taxes and a bigger deficit, and kowtowing to the unions, and abandoning all attempts to introduce competition or academic rigour in schools – let alone reforming welfare.

Jeremy Corbyn takes 53% of support in new poll

He is a Sinn Fein-loving, monarchy-baiting, Israel-bashing believer in unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is nonsense to compare him to Michael Foot, who had been at least a Cabinet minister and before that a distinguished campaigner against the pre-war appeasers. This is a man who, for more than 30 years, has made a political career out of being explicitly and avowedly on the Spartist Left. He is a frondist, an inhabitant of the semi-Trot margin, an unrepentant lover of oppositionalism. Never in all his wildest dreams did he imagine that he might be leader of what has been – until this year – one of the major parties of government; and now he is having greatness thrust upon him.

How have the People’s party engineered this extraordinary horlicks? There are four groups of culprits. There is the Miliband regime, as mentioned, which not only came up with the deranged rules of the contest – by which, at one stage, the power to help choose the next Labour leader was handed to my old friend, the Conservative penseur Toby Young. Mili and co also shifted Labour so much to the Left that they managed to give a kind of spurious legitimacy to the Corbyn agenda. Miliband adopted wholesale the Livingstone playbook of state-enforced price freezes and rent controls and other attempts to buck the market.

There is a sense in which Corbyn is explicitly the heir of Miliband – and it is notable that Ed has kept a low profile lately, as if he realises the enormity of what he has done. The next group of culprits are all the New Labour old guard: Alastair Campbell, Mandelson, and above all Mr Tony himself – they have been cloth-eared in their response, hectoring Labour supporters who still haven’t forgiven them for the Iraq war; and as for Blair’s suggestion that Corbyn-backers “get a heart transplant”, it conjured an unfortunate image of our zillionaire former PM, jetting off to California for expensive organ-swapping procedures that are simply beyond the means of most people in this country.

The third set of villains is, of course, the other candidates, who have been so robotically dull that they have made Jeremy’s woolly ruminations seem positively electrifying. They are so torpid that it almost feels as if they want to lose. Come on, guys: where is the fire? Where are your plans to build a new Jerusalem? I cannot think of a single thing any of them has said – except to bash Corbyn, with the result that Corbyn is the story, Corbyn is the guy that everyone wants to see – and the loony Corbynmania grows, like a stock market bubble that will burst too late.

Which brings me to the group that bears final responsibility for what may – may, as I say – be about to happen: the armies of Labour rank and file who honestly seem to think that this might be the way forward. Yes, there really are a few hundred thousand people who seriously think that we should turn back the clock, take huge swathes of industry back into public ownership and massively expand the state.

The problem for Labour is that they do not represent the majority of people in this country. That is the real lesson of this campaign so far: that the mass of the Labour Party is totally out of touch with reality and common sense. How should we Tories react? Well, that is for another column; but in the meantime we watch with befuddlement and bewilderment that is turning all the time into a sense of exhilarating vindication: I told you they were loony.