What a good idea - don't suppose anyone will take any ntice of it

This could be an opportunity for us to have a "favoured club" arrangement whereby we loan young talent to help them mature in the lower leagues and gain experience whilst still being part of the Ewood set-up only 5 miles away. Stanley as a feeder club in the way that Preston seem to be able to tap into Man United's youth team? It has some merits. As for the crowd issue - I believe this will have marginal impact - my mates in Accy (it is my home town) that occasionally go to the Stanley are, at best, very occasional visitors to other league grounds as they have other interests in life. These are not the guys who are going to permanently bolster our gates - they might go to the Arsenal game.

I read this recently and was a bit disappointed, to be honest - all secondhand and a bit superficial IMO. However, it did bring me out in a Nick Hornby "High Fidelity" moment as I studied the festive 50 playlists and noted that only The Fall appeared in every chart consecutively from their debut appearance!! I think I'd better get out more.

About ten years ago BC (before children) I could do a match on the cheap and, to an extent I still can - forget the pie, clubshop, half-time Coke and bring a butty box and cartons of juice. However, the point remains that even with all these peripherals gone, it costs me the best part of £100 to watch the Rovers if I bring the children. If I don't where are next decade's supporters coming from? The reasons I quote Andy are: 1. I happen to agree with what he says about beer, terraces and children - some people go to get away from their family for a while. The same should apply to pubs (not for children unless in specified areas). 2. The prices have also cast off the "family affair" - as Andy points out, I have to fork out half his income to go to a match and it is a pure affordability issue. Should the fruit of his loins follow in his father's footsteps, how can Andy afford to go - especially as he will still be paying his student debt off? 3. As a percentage of average income, what is the cost of a ticket for a bloke to take his children to see the Rovers compared to, say, 1991 - the last season before the Premiership began the systematic exploitation of the fanbase? I have been a hardcore fan since 1975 so if I am struggling to get to every game, what chance the more casual supporter or the more impoverished supporter? Believe me, ladies & gents, the bubble if not yet burst, is looking very taut indeed and I won't be surprised to see many disembark the gravy train. A final thought, how often does the city invest in a turkey more than once - and before you answer, count how many poor city traders you know. When was the last successful flotation of a football club? Which club, if any, has achieved sustained shareholder earnings growth? There you go, even in the terms with which the modern game is run, the current operating model makes no sense and, therefore will not last.

Couple of thoughts based on personal experience: My job demands are such that if a game is not on a Saturday afternoon/Sunday, it is unlikely I can go. Given the propensity for fixtures to be switched around by Sky, England, various other competitions why should I pay for a ticket that I am unlikely to make full use of? If the club had a saturday or weekend ticket scheme available, that would be a big help to people like me who are not prepared to fork out a few hundred quid only to be treated to the prospect of matches being rearranged at short notice - it only take two matches and the economic advantage of a season ticket is gone. Secondly, and far more pertinent, let me outline a typical day at the Rovers for me - a typical bloke with three children: Travel to Ewood: By car - cost of petrol and parking = c.£10.00 By train - 4 tickets = c.£12 Get there in good time, children want a bite or pop: Pop/pint/dog burger/pie for four = c.£16 (no prawn sandwiches in the DB household!) Go into the ground: Tickets, typically = c.£60 (depends on opponent etc.) Programme x 2 = £4 Half-time: Coke each = £10 Full-time - "please can we have a look in the club shop, promise we won't ask for anything" Irresistible bargain = c.£25 I accept that some of this is not necessary, but it is a day out for the family, the club wants as much of my money as it can extract whilst I am there (no problem, there, it is a business after all) and everybody wants to enjoy themselves. The quality of footie on display is only part of the deal - it is about the togetherness, the affiliation and the bond of a common desire to see Rovers win. Admittedly, if the boys play well all this is easier come by. So, all in all, a typical match day can be anything between £100 & £125 - now there are people earn more than me and people who earn less, but how many of us can find, assuming two matches a month, £250 disposable income on top of the demands of life in this day and age? At the same time, some over-privileged, immature, questionably behaved young man/boy/thug is receiving more a week than some members on this MB receive in a year for doing a job he claims to love - yet he can appear either indifferent, unprepared, not in the mood or more concerned with his next "golden hello" than helping the club we all love to win the match in question. I know I might seem to be totally "off message" here, but take a reality check guys - premiership football has lost touch with it's fanbase economically - it costs too much, the players don't care because they can't relate to the fans from the comfort of their air-conditioned supercar and the embrace of the vacuum-assisted ornament hanging off their arms. Given the above, we end up having to pick and choose our games as a matter of economics not whether it is raining or the team are playing well or are in a position to achieve something. - the recent FA Cup semi-final was a great example, the first time for forty years we get that far and it costs too much, the TV make it at the worst possible time of day and the economics demand it be played at Cardiff. As a result, how many went? That's right, the average Blackburn family exercised their choice to not have the p**s taken out of them by the assorted vultures and parasites that see the game as a cash generation machine for the few by exloitation of the committed. For those that did - I hope they enjoyed it, but would ask whether they got value for money or if they would have preferred different arrangements. As for the Fulham game, in this context, how many are saving their money for a more atractive fixture? Therefore, the whole event costs too much, we can't relate to the players and it is over-exposed and overmanaged by the TV channel(s). Apart from that, the season ticket is good value!! Oh, and by the way, I haven't included the damage inflicted by Mrs DB on her shopping trip whilst there are no kids around - truly awesome!!!

I've just upgraded to OS X 10.4 - anyone playing around with the beta version of Windows Vista should get a look at this superb OS as a benchmark - it really is very good indeed and seems much easier than the XP I have to use at work. Naturally, I shall come back in a week or so to report all the glitches and stuff I've found after the initial novelty has worn off but at the moment it is the greatest!

I think processor upgrades are also available as well as a number of other bits & pieces. I have to be honest and say that I have never looked into building my own Apple computer - I understand the PowerMac range are eminently user friendly but have no idea of the extent to which you can start from scratch. Given Apple is a computer company they may discourage such attempts but no doubt a quick Google will reveal all.

www.macupgrades.co.uk www.everymac.com http://www.2ndchancepc.co.uk/ http://www.crucial.com/uk/promo/index.asp?prog=desktop2 http://www.axiom.co.uk/ http://www.lowendmac.com/ Here's a few to give you some idea of what can and cannot be done - hope it helps.

This is not true - Apples are eminently upgradeable and there are a number of sites that explain how to do this.

The HRA is a red herring in the context of this thread other than perhaps to wonder if it should apply to the bomber who has recently been caught and is about to be questioned on what he can tell the police about his organisation.

In the current environment in London, if anyone is seen as remotely suspicious, is challenged to stop and responds to this by running away, he is literally taking a chance with his own life. If the guy concerned was subsequently found to have blown himself up along with 75 others on Oxford Street, what would the country have said about the forces then? It is a sad fact of life in times like these that some basic rights and liberties that we should all be able to take for granted are temporarily suspended. At the moment, this extends to decent law-abiding members of the Muslim community as well as everybody else. There is only one law for every citizen in this country - perhaps if we had not systematically tried to appease our liberal consciences by attempting otherwise, we would not have the tension that currently exists? An innocent person died, but the police were quite within their remit in what they did - if those involved are made scapegoats at the altar of a liberal, politically-motivated inquiry, can we expect armed officers to continue to operate in the protection of the citizens of this country? Imagine the storm of protest and ridicule if this proves to be the case, especially from some who are currently complaining with no real appreciation of the stress of the situation when you face what you have reason to believe is somebody about to murder your fellow countrymen - what decision process do you go through? "Hmmm, all his behaviour suggests he has something to hide, he has run away despite being called to stop, he seems to be inappropriately dressed for the time of year as though he is hiding something underneath his jacket - do you know what, I'm going to take a chance now he has run into the tube and hope nothing happens" I thnk not and am glad not, actually. It was a tragic error, but the circumstances in which we find ourselves means people are understandably nervous. When the police want you to stop in and around our major cities at the moment, the best advice is to do exactly what they say- especially if you for whatever reason have aroused their suspicions. To me, the poor bloke is yet another victim of the recent attacks, albeit indirectly. Would he have been shot three weeks ago? No. I don't understand the protests about this tragic event, any more than I understand calls for an inquiry - what would we learn? That somebody made a mistake!! Don't we all know this?

Hear, Hear - tragic error, but the circumstances in which we find ourselves means people are understandably nervous. When the police want you to stop in and around our major cities at the moment, the best advice is to do exactly what they say- especially if you for whatever reason have aroused their suspicions. To me, the poor bloke is yet another victim of the recent attacks, albeit indirectly. Would he have been shot three weeks ago? No.

I think he means that he finds your position hard to accept in the current environment in London. If anyone is seen as remotely suspicious, is challenged to stop and responds to this by running away, he is literally taking a chance with his own life. If the guy concerned was subsequently found to have blown himself up along with 75 others on Oxford Street, what would the country have said about the forces then? It is a sad fact of life in times like these that some basic rights and liberties that we should all be able to take for granted are temporarily suspended. At the moment, this extends to decent law-abiding members of the Muslim community as well as everybody else. There is only one law for every citizen in this country - perhaps if we had not systematically tried to appease our liberal consciences by attempting otherwise, we would not have the tension that currently exists?

That's an interesting thought on the consumer market. I have a 1ghz iMac using a G4 chip and my Mum has a 2.5ghz Sony thingy using Windows XP on an Intel chip. We can't tell the difference in terms of speed and processing capability using a variety of apps. I think the Sony cost about £500 more than the Mac ..... though I could be mistaken on this. The Sony certainly cost more. As Glenn says, for home use, a Mac takes a lot of beating - I know my Mum is coming round to this view. The downside, as my children point out, is that games on a Mac are great ........ when you can find them!!! Most standard shops don't stock them and you're into online sourcing of a much smaller range of games. Maybe that's the reason and it does lend credence to the observation someone made earlier about software developers being focused on Windows.

I didn't know about the online gaming situation; however, I do know that Scottish Power can only be accessed on a Mac using Safari rather than IE - what an exciting life I lead!!! In day-to-day use, what additional software does the avergae family/person need that is not provided by OS X in conjunction with Appleworks/Office (choose your poison)? For the home media buff, there is iMovie, iPhoto and iDVD iTunes is known by all Garageband for next year's thing iSync offers great compatibility with PDA's PIM is sorted by iCal, Mail & Address Book - though IMO MS do this better with Entourage PDF's? No problem And it all comes as standard. I accept the range of apps beyond this is limited but it is all out there, for example for MS Money read iBank, for MS Project read SharedPlan - all at a fraction of the cost. Overall, accepting there are some glitches, I really do believe Apple have failed to market their strengths in this regard and allowed urban myths to spread that have become established in the minds of the market.

I switched from Windows to Mac about a couple of years ago, but don't know anyone else who has done so recently. This leads me to two questions: Why are Apple unable to penetrate the market with what is clearly a better product (in my experience) than the current market leader? I understand Apple, in rejuvenating their products, focused first on the US and japanese markets and are now starting to address the European market. Does anyone know how successful they have been in Japan and the US?

Blue Phil, I accept the Ireland analogy may not be the best when you look at it the way you suggest; however, I struggle with the concept that Islam is any more supra-national than Judaism or Christianity. I remain unsure that the goals of the Irish were any more attainable than those of Islamic militants, or certainly seemed that way to those involved. But your points make me think about if other religions have been supra-national and in what circumstances: Christian missionaries (or were they simply looters/slave traders with a licence?), Jewish migrants in Eastern Europe - communities within communities. Is it possible that religion becomes more important to people, perhaps even to the point of fundamental, when they have fewer wordly trappings to otherwise distract them? This would explain the cycle of fundamentalism across different religions - most Christian countries in the Northern hemisphere are relatively better off than they were fifty years ago and have become coincidentally more secular? The same cannot be said for the vast majority of people living in Islamic countries, I believe. If you combine this with the idealism of the young and angry who feel oppressed, even if they are not by the standards of the country in which they live, the argument still holds water in helping to understand, rather than excuse, the attacks last week and starts to allow us to address the causes rather than the symptoms. I totally agree with you about the need for moderates to usurp radicals and that this is the biggest single responsibility of the Muslim community in the UK over the coming weeks/months - and to do it visibly in the eyes of their fellow non-Muslim citizens.

The invasion of Iraq was something I was not in favour of; however, comparing the number of innocent civilians subsequently killed with those who were systematically killed by the Saddam Hussein regime, including those fed to lions by his sons does make me consider the merits of the invasion - overall, more people can go about their business than would otherwise be the case. That the post-invasion strategy was badly planned, if at all, is clear unless of course we take the somewhat conspiracy theory that Dubya wanted to flush the Islamic militants into one theatre so he could take them on several thousand miles from the US. As for the "who's killed the most" debate - isn't it meaningless? In my mind, there can be no doubt that over hundreds of years great evil has been perpetrated by those who claim to be acting in the name of their god, though I have yet to be introduced to any religious creed that advocates such atrocities, including Muslim and Christian - two religions who have peace, tolerance and respect at their core. Both religions have been, and continue to be, @#/?ised by people with other more sinister agendas who are either incapable of interpreting their chosen holy word or have no time for it and merely seek some form of power shift, at whatever cost. What does strike me, though, is the link between violent acts carried out in the name of religion and the associated perception of oppression/discrimination. Whilst non-religious, this is perhaps a greater driver - many Muslims feel oppressed or feel oppression of their faith/culture in different parts of the world notably in the former Palestine. In a similar vein, many Catholics felt oppressed in the North of Ireland a few decades ago. The common feature? Why, the emergence of freedom fighters/terrorists (delete as applicable) to fight the oppressors and act as a totem for disaffected others (preferably young, idealistic and angry). In both cases, religion is merely a conduit for a perception of secular issues within a group of people that happen to share a faith and a feeling of being dealt a bad hand. What's the point of all this? Well, amidst the discussion, debate, slanging matches and occasional abuse on this thread, it occurs to me that the attack in London had little to do with religion other than to act as a conduit for a deeper underlying issue. The real issue to me is that we fail to see this and start to make the situation worse by driving ordinary Muslims into extremism as a result of kneejerk reactions to the attack - in much the same way that Bloody Sunday was a great recruitment drive for the IRA 30 years ago. Pick on Muslims as the cause of the attack and we perpetuate the problem - understand the underlying non-religious causes (Middle East, Israel's existence, Palestine's semi-existence) and try to address that and we will make progress. Recent US non-military policy in the region seems to be at last addressing this as typified by the aid figures bandied around earlier on this thread and a more balanced approach to relations with both Israel and her neighbours; unfortunately, there are decades of baggage to dispose of first. This is not easy as man basically exists in comparative advantage to his fellow man all over the world, so perceived opporession can be seen readily if you want to look for it - the last 800 years between Christian and Muslim is a salutory reminder of this situation.

Well done, Joey big nose and Bryan for bringing some maturity, thought and consideration back to this thread - long overdue!! I agree with the thoughts on Blair who has reacted very carefully to try to avoid a kneejerk reaction to the wider Muslim community in the UK. Likewise, the US do get a bad press in the Middle East However, the greater concern to me is linked to the above but more local: How have we got to the situation where British people feel the need to blow each other up and how does this link back to the points raised about the US, Israel and Palestine? This might take us to the root cause of last week's events.

My understanding is that this legislation was already in the planning stage as a result of the Schools Inspectorate report observing the promulgation of intolerance and hatred in faith schools, particularly those of the Muslim faith. Together with recent visits by "holy men", the need for such legislation was already felt. You make a good point Bryan - racial/religious hatred of ALL types is to be actively discouraged as is any incitement to bring this about, whether it is the BNP or selected Imams. It is not in the nature of being British to be so intolerant and if you can't live with this tolerance of those who are different you should go somewhere more in tune with your prejudices. This is an important piece of legislation to offset 20-30 years of liberal legislation concerned with confirming rights - now we have something in the pipeline that balances this with a focus on responsibilities as a citizen of this country. Not before time as you say but better late than never.

I tried, but it all got rather depressing. I went to University in Leeds and lived in and around the Hyde Park area and drove a bus around Holbeck/Beeston - it's all a bit close to home. The greater disappointment is the apparent obsession with rights with little apparent regard to responsibilities. I know it may seem a quantum leap in logic but I am sure there is a causal relationship here that underpins the ideological motives. Overall, we do not have a history, to the best of my knowledge, of ideology undermining the communal/national consciousness to such an extent - hence the limited revolutionary activity in comparison to others. I've always derived a certain pride in this characteristic and hope it continues, rising above recent events.

Oh ............ I'll get me coat, then! And get off my high horse.

I do not feel this is the right thing to do - AESF is entitled to his views and to air them along with other members of this MB. We may not agree with them but preventing his airing them is counterproductive IMO. As for the developments since I last posted: Yes, there is some validity in immigrants who feel unable to live by the laws of this tolerant land being returned to their native land. When in Rome etc. - even though we are as a country a pretty exciting cultural melting pot. No, this is a world away from advocating the banning of further immigration from Muslim countries - the people who undertook this attack give an otherwise perfectly decent community a bad name, so let's not blame everybody for the crimes of a few. It is truly shocking that we have created a situation where people born in this country feel they are entitled to kill and maim their fellow citizens. We have to ask ourselves if we have become too accepting of cultures/beliefs/values that are diametricallty opposed to those of the indigenous population and whether the bending over backwards has become too painful. It is one thing to want Pakistan to win at cricket but quite another to want to blow up our capital city - the Muslim community has a significant responsibility to play their role as British citizens and hound out those who hide in cowardice behind them otherwise we run the risk of Enoch Powell's "rivers of bood" speech coming true and some very dangerous civil situations developing. As an aside, there is no better advertisement for the banning of Muslim schools in the UK where, according to a recent Schools Inspectorate report, intolerance is too readily accepted and even encouraged. Why is this different from Roman Catholic schools during the period of peak IRA activity? Because, to the best of my knowledge, RC schools in the UK were never accused of accepting and encouraging religious intolerance. I don't have an insult to add here but would ask, as a normal member of this MB, that we show each other a little more respect than has been evidenced above and keep some basic courtesies and intellectual rigour in mind on what is a very important and dangerous topic that could determine the civil environment for years to come - I know we're all capable of that, including AESF whose comments warrant discussion and debate not emotive slanging and the threat of a ban. It is the thoughtless banning of so-called offensive thoughts and language that has contributed to the divisions that have lead to these tragic events - to differentiate is healthy (I'm black, you're white), to discriminate is wrong (you can't have a job because you're Muslim). I hope this makes sense.

Last week I went to a Plumbers merchants in Nelson run by a man of Asian origin who was Muslim. He listened to my confused description of the problem I had and told me exactly what was wrong. He then gave me the bit I needed to solve the problem but would not take my money. I then went to back to B&Q to get a refund on the £20+ of stuff the white staff had conned me into buying. So what? Well, I hope the events in London don't create a backlash on this kind man. Not being an admirer of Tony Blair, I was impressed with his observation that whilst this attack is likely to have been perpetrated in the name of Islam the overwhelming majority of Muslims in this country are decent, law-abiding citizens. A bas***d is a bas***d regardless of his skin colour or faith - the people who carried out this attack should be pursued to their graves, but I worry that the traditional British tolerance will waive and blame the easy (and innocent) targets in our community.