He never gets tested in training with our strikers , Frosty ..

Maybe a bloke on the line might help solve our woeful record at conceding goals from free kicks ; and maybe some work on the training ground might help us to score the odd free kick at the other end - we certainly had enough of them yesterday . The organisation of the wall is definitely down to the keeper - Brad was awful yesterday and IMO was culpable for both the goals . The first goal he came out but then stopped for some unknown reason and instead of smothering the attacker , Shmeichal style , he gave him time to pick his spot. With regard to the Stead debate , for the last half hour or so he had clearly drifted out of the game and should have been replaced by Gallagher at least 20 minutes sooner . The latter always boosts the morale of the crowd and might have given us the impetus to win the game . I believe he is our best striker as well as being an intelligent and very good "touch" player . Maybe Hughes expected a bit more injury time ....

That's true , especially so with Savage , who I would expect to see become the natural leader (and captain) of the team should he come . What could still be missing , however , is that final killer ball to link up the attacking midfield (such as it is) with the forwards . For such quality one has to pay more than 2-3 million which , IMO , makes Ferguson's role in the team very frustrating and disappointing thus far. It seems from noises from Birmingham that Ms Brady , a very shrewd lady indeed , is doing a good job at extracting the very maximum from Rovers' coffers for Savage . Maybe Hughes has broadcasted his admiration for RS a little too loudly...

Well let's hope Flitcroft has been practising his shooting ; have we ever had anyone less reliable in this department ? Dickov will start , but Gallagher has to be brought on VERY early if things start to get stale and predictable - which they surely will. Fergie back to his "imperious" best eh ..? More of a Commodus than an Augustus I'm afraid..... 0-1 defeat . Merry Xmas Souness

You'll be back ....

It's depressing but I can only see us getting a point if we work our nut$ off . Otherwise it's going to be the same old story . When is someone from the midfield going to take responsibilty and do something out of the ordinary ?

Some sensible comments on the Ferguson debate on this thread (probably coz Al hasn't "contributed" ) regarding the over sized transfer fee we paid. It would be interesting to see how Savage would make a difference to our midfield - with or without Ferguson. However hard I look I can't see anyone in our team worth more than 3million. Gally is probably our greatest asset IMO.

Paul , that is a near blasphemous comment The thing is ,these staggered times , as Ferguson states in your quoted article , are turning people off the game . Away fans don't know whether they're coming or going and the temptation is always going to be to just watch the match on the box - ironic , really , as it's the TV which is causing the match to be moved from its holy slot of 3pm in the first place . The implications of fewer away fans travelling are more relevant to the Rovers than most other clubs. As I've said before , the market will eventually decide . If TV continues to show as many games , and at silly times , then ticket prices will have to fall if grounds are going to be filled . Nobody wants to watch a game on the box being played to an empty ground. This could even benefit the Rovers in the long run if not the short.

So you'd outlaw war as well on that logic . It seems a bit strange that some ( not saying you , mind ) accept the need to for warfare , where "real" innocents die in their thousands , and yet the same people jump up and down when execution of the worst scum in society is advocated . Tony Blair comes to mind , here . At least Bush is consistent ...

Eh - where did I say that ?

Not necessarily Bryan . If there was an ABSOLUTE guarantee that the culprit would never be released I 'd settle for that . But that would mean no Euro laws for the UK and no more luvvy Govt's .......

Well you've argued about the retribution and deterrent aspect , Bryan . How about the most important role of execution - that of preventing the culprit in the most final way possible of ever inflicting misery on innocents like Mr and Mrs Chard again? BTW - Past prisoners in the UK were never on death row for very long . Executions were carried out within days . The best way - saves money on food etc ...

Funnily enough , Theno , there was a (black) Yank over there a while ago (American might know of him) who made himself very unpopular with the PC brigade by arguing that the best thing that ever happened to the negro race - in the long term of course- was being transported from Africa into America . After all the black Americans all seem well fed , well educated , and now in Condi Rice or Colin Powell have a decent chance of providing us all with a future US president . Back in Africa , things aren't so rosy . Liberia , for example , which was founded by freed slaves , isn't exactly a shining example of peace and harmony . It would be interesting if there was a US style of the current Brit TV programme where (black) celebs could trace their descendants and living relatives. I bet they wouldn't swap......

They should already know that violence is wrong , Bry , but that's an educational problem . The main reason why they should be executed is primarily to stop them committing similar crimes again . Vengeance may or may not be a satisfactory experience for the family of the victims , but I'd like them to die solely because I wouldn't trust a future gutless Gov't - or Brussels - to let the scum out to kill and maim again. Death is final ; people like those in Theno's article deserve it . Talking about TV is trivialising the subject . (Those so inclined can see that kind of thing on the net anyway....)

On the subject of native peoples , have the red indians been completely wiped out yet ? Maybe you should give them their land back Talking about imposing systems on others it's always seemed ridiculous to me to brand "The English" as imperialists when only about 3% of the population ever benefited from the empire - the rest were either stuck up chimneys , stuck down the mines , stuck in a factory or stuck in some God forbidden foreign hell hole fighting for a pittance . Maybe it's not surprising then that the ones who have to pay back the "victims" of empire ( generations after the event !) are not the 3% but the poor ba$tard working classes . Perhaps it's time to the "natives" to stop wingeing and sort their own countries out . If not then maybe I'll be tempted to with my begging bowl to Italy - those damn Romans need to compensate me for their empire . What did they ever do for us anyway .....?

Firstly , the state is never as bad as the criminal IF the latter is given a fair trial . The victim of a murderer is NEVER given a trial by his peers . To confuse the two and brand them the same is simply ridiculous and an insult to real victims of crime . Your second point has more validity . Quite simply , though , such mistakes are bound to happen . Any legal system has to have the strength and cvourage to accept that this will always be the case and to attempt to minimise such cases . A better way of looking it - and a more logical one - is to balance the tragedy of an innocent man hanging , with the far greater number of innocents who die at the hands of those who kill again after being released for a similar crime . This is especially the case with sex offenders who are notorious for re-offending . To put it bluntly , more innocents would live if execution were introduced . Not a nice choice but then again the law has to be dispassionate if it is to work.

HERE is the relevant article that started the debate . You're correct that none of the political parties currently endorse the introduction of Sharia law but as the growth in the numbers of Muslims grow , so does their political power . The issue will not go away - to pretend it will is only wishing thinking . This is the thin end of the wedge . On the radio today , one representative of the Muslim community (I'm afraid I can't recall exactly which organisation ) stated that many aspects of Sharia law were compatible with GB law . Well I'm sure there are but what about the rest..... The problem is who decides on this assumption and where to draw the line . I would suggest that any concessions given would lead to more demands from our Muslim brethren . Seventy years ago certain other non democrats made demands that were not compatible with democratic principles . Unfortunately appeasement is alive and kicking in GB today . Let's hope the peacekeeping services of your good friend Paddy Pantsdown are never needed here , Philipl.....

If his hands are raw then it serves him right for the misery he inflicts on thousands of ears . I wouldn't mind if he could beat the bloody thing with any kind of rhythm . But he can't . Get rid .

I think it's fairly obvious I was referring to the ones who were executed , Eddie....!! PS - When did Blair get sent down then ..?

Sharia law indeed . At the moment the Muslim representatives are merely asking for it to be applied in certain areas . So much for integration into British laws and customs ! Unlike other immigrants (and their descendants ) , with the followers of Islam there will be no integration . Not now , not ever . Only the naive or stupid can fail to see where such "requests" will end . The creation of a self governing state within a state is the ultimate goal . The trouble will come when they stop asking and start demanding . This government doesn't have the will to resist attacks on our democracy . Hopefully future ones will .

That's your opinion . There are many who believe it can . One question , Al . What would you have done with the war criminals after the Nuremberg trials ? Don't say you'd have left them to rot in a cell without any comforts . By your standards that would surely constitute "cruel and unusual punishment " and deprive them of their human rights and be just as immoral as killing them . What is this thing called morality anyway - other than the weak conscience on the part of those who are unwilling to grasp the truth that society has to protect its own ? Soft measures for criminals are "immoral" if anything . Violent crime (barbarism) is on the increase and its the vulnerable who suffer . Save your morality for them , not the criminals.

Good post Joey , but you seem to be falling into the trap that ALL nationalism is akin to nazism , and that the only way to defeat this evil nationalism is to embrace liberalism . But who defeated Hitler's brand of nationalism , and why did they ? The average British Tommy fought for his way of life , his traditions , and , yes, his nation . Could he , in his wildest dreams , have envisaged a land where whole towns would resemble the sub continent more than the England he knew . What would an Accy Pal have made of demographic compexion of Blackburn and the crime and filth that its citizens have to endure ? What you accept as "liberalism" today is an absolute perversion of the enlightened views of a century ago that ushered in the age of universal suffrage . The justice system is an insult to the very word justice ; family values have been crushed with opponents condemned as old fashioned ; whole communities destroyed to make way for immigrants (or twenty years ago as a means of getting rid of unions) ; and Christianity , the bed rock of our civilisation , deliberately eroded by pitiful educational standards to such an extent that even priests and vicars embrace the new values ( such as homosexuality ) rather than take on the anti-cultural pygmies who hold sway over all the main parties . If the "liberals" of the 3 parties ever do lose power - and they will at some point - then you're right , the backlash will be severe . Extreme and perverse policies need extreme solutions.

Skin colour / racial history is of absolutely no interest to me , Joey , as I have said on more than one occasion .( Some people , though , choose to believe what they want to - that's a reflection either of their intelligence ,intolerance of free speech and/or inabilty to fully digest posts ! ) As for your first sentence , I believe society needs shared values - ours go back to ancient times and are rooted on fundamental Judeo/Christian traditions that have evolved into what is broadly regarded as democratic values. There are those newcomers in our society who know little of British history and what they do know they hold in utter contempt . Islam and western style democracy are concepts that are incompatible . To me that is simply a statement of fact ; I neither hate Muslims nor have any regard for them , I am simply living with this social experiment like everyone else . But the questions I pose will one day have to be addressed - as they are in Holland.... Cheers .

Says who? This is a decent article about the recent outbreaks of violence in Holland , which illustrates that a multi culturalist state is NOT the same thing as a multi racial statebased on integration and a shared culture . Unfortunately , there are many on this m/board who can't distinguish between the two concepts...... (The Daily Star in question is a Middle East paper , and not our own version ! ) Van Gogh's murder brings out Holland's contradictions By Peter Speetjens Special to The Daily Star Saturday, November 20, 2004 The murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a young Muslim of Moroccan descent has shaken Holland to its very foundations. To most people, including the Dutch, the killing and its violent aftermath, in which several Mosques and Islamic schools were set ablaze, came as a shock. Holland is generally perceived as a tolerant and open society, firmly built upon principles of freedom, equality and fraternity. However, especially regarding attitudes toward Muslim immigrants, the climate has changed much in recent years. A major reason for this was the rise to power of the late politician Pim Fortuyn, himself the victim of the first political murder in Holland since the end of World War II. A radical Dutch environmentalist shot him in May 2002. The flamboyant Fortuyn was an ex-Marxist who became a liberal professor of sociology and who published several books including "The Islamization of Our Culture" (1997), before becoming the head of a political party called "Livable Netherlands." Feeding upon growing anti-immigration sentiment, the party's main slogan was "Holland is full." Thanks to the charismatic Fortuyn, the party rapidly rose in popularity. However, after publicly stating that "Islam is a backward religion," Fortuyn was forced to step down as party leader. That prompted the ambitious wannabe prime minister to establish a party under his own name known as the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF). Despite, or indeed thanks to, Fortuyn's murder, and confirming a trend that had been obvious in pre-election polls, the LPF won no less than 20 percent of the vote during the 2002 elections, causing a landslide change in the Dutch political climate, traditionally dominated by a coalition of Christian Democrats and Labor and Liberal parties. In Fortuyn's hometown of Rotterdam, the LPF became, and still is, the largest party. Holland's second largest city and economic powerhouse thus bears a striking resemblance to its Belgian counterpart Antwerp, where the extreme nationalistic Vlaams Blok dominates the political scene and has called for a "Flanders for the Flemish." Theo van Gogh had always admired Fortuyn, even though the two could not have been more different. The first was a short, fat, chain smoking university drop-out who, wherever he appeared, cultivated a working class image wearing jeans and a T-shirt; the second was a tall, handsome, openly gay academic with a liking for Italian designer suits. Van Gogh was a left-wing elitist who cherished his seat along the sidelines; Fortuyn a populist with political objectives. The only thing they had in common was a sharp tongue and a dislike for Islam. Fortuyn always claimed he dared to say things as they were, where others remained silent. That's why van Gogh liked him. For years, the filmmaker was a kind of anarchist clown who badmouthed everything and everyone in society. This was a reason why, let's not forget, a majority of the Dutch, particularly politicians, hated him. He was also known as "the eternal anti-Semite" for his severe criticism of Israel and his statement that he was sick and tired of Jews talking about World War II and the Holocaust. Similar barbs were directed against Muslims. Van Gogh's last film, "Submission," was a 10-minute artistic documentary in which he depicted extracts from the Koran written on a naked woman's back, to illustrate the stories of four Muslim women mistreated by the men surrounding them. It was the film's form that upset conservative Muslims, including the 26-year-old Mohamed B. who killed van Gogh. To make the film, Van Gogh had teamed up with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a young liberal parliamentarian of Somali descent. Having fled her country of birth out of fear that she would be circumcised, she has become one of Holland's most vocal critics of Islam, if not always one of the subtlest ones. Last year, she openly called the prophet Mohammed "a pervert." While the way someone chooses his or her words, no matter how out of tune or misplaced, hardly justifies their being killed, it's also fair to say that neither van Gogh's nor Hirsi Ali's often incendiary statements on Islam qualified as true "meditations." Freedom of speech is, historically, one of the pillars of Dutch society, but as writer Remco Campert recently wrote in the daily De Volkskrant: "[F]reedom of speech is not exactly the same thing as hurting people in the deepest of their soul." What's more, by attacking all Muslims, and the Koran and Islam in general, people like van Gogh, Fortuyn and Hirsi Ali leave or left no room whatsoever for nuance or dialogue. In fact, their claiming that all Muslims - Moroccans, Malaysians, Iranians and Indonesians - were, at heart, the same, only increased polarization on the issue in Holland. The average Dutchman feels confirmed in his stereotypes of Muslims, and this is good for politicians like the late Fortuyn or Hirsi Ali, as they use this to attract the public's vote. Dutch Muslims on the other hand only feel more isolated and cornered, as a consequence of which they are increasingly falling back on their own Muslim community for protection and for a sense of belonging, defeating the stated purpose of those who blame Muslims for failing to integrate. Take van Gogh's killer Mohamed B. He is not a fundamentalist immigrant who recently came to Holland. He was born there to a middle class family, speaks fluent Dutch and finished high school. According to his teachers he was the kind of guy whom people liked, someone who would probably make it. He did not. Over a year ago, following his parents' divorce, he dropped out of university and came under the influence of a radical mosque in Amsterdam. "Why would I study?" he asked a friend; "An American who doesn't speak a word of Dutch has more chance of finding a job than me." This doesn't mean that Mohamed B.'s personal difficulties were justification for murder and he will have to pay the consequences for his actions. Today, however, increasing numbers of politicians are raising their voices to limit freedom of speech or religion as a solution to the present crisis. Unfortunately, fraternity has always been the least understood of the three basic principles (along with liberty and equality) the French Revolution ceded us. However, it is the bottom line of the other two: to respect each other as human beings. One thing is certain, Theo van Gogh would turn in his grave if he heard today's politicians quarrel over the aftermath of his death, and if he could, he would get up and curse them with all his strength. In that sense: Theo, rest in peace. Peter Speetjens is a Dutch journalist living in Lebanon. He writes for the Brussels-based De Standaard and the Dutch NRC. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR

Correct - and that's what most of the PC brigade don't seem to realise . Blacks (Christians ) have infinitely more in common with Whites (Christians) than they do with the Muslims , who are culturally and increasingly politically out on a limb of their own making . So why does it always come down to bickering about "race" ? The answer to that , I'd suggest , is that for too long people have been brainwashed into believing it's all about race . Kids are bombarded with mis-information from day one of their lives from groups and organisations (CRE for eg ) who have either vested interests (it keeps them in jobs) , or they have naive political dogmatic ideals that ALL races and cultures are capable of living together . Tell that to the Palestinians and the Jews. The end result ? We are told that we are all the same - but yet we are all different . We must all live together - but diverse communities are encouraged to flourish seperately (faith schools ?) . We are in the post Christian secular era - and yet we have to promote Islam at all costs so as not to "offend" the newcomers. This leads me to a question Shaddy posed .