Oh righto Manc. Is that why you have made 4 replies?

Hang on shillito, £15 ticket, 2 galls fuel and a sarni approx £10. How do you get that to fifty quid? Anyway you speak like its a rip-off but exactly how much do you think BRFC make out of these events? If they were making money out of the game then maybe you would have a point, but I strongly suspect that these games lose money for the club. Maybe the club should stop trying to entertain their fans, stop flogging the dead horse and play all friendlies away to non league opposition. The point I make is that if we had won the Prem last season the ground would have been full, whether Espanyol, Real or flippin Accy Stanley were the opposition. Similarly those same 5500 would prob have been there if we had played Rochdale or Nottingham Pork Butchers. BRFC or any supporters of them simply cannot afford apathy.

They aren't proper fans then SG. I suggest that they used the price as a lame and convenient excuse. Sorry mate but against Barca, Lazio, Chievo and I heard the same old shyte. Espanyol finished 5th in arguably the best league in the world ffs. Forget 'friendly' they played with desire and conviction. It should be viewed as a privelige to see their likes visit our home town. The plain truth is that although people claim to be supporters Blackburn simply does not have enough die-hards to maintain a Prem team without somebody else chucking money at it.

A lot of people whinged that we got beaten but imo one of the best games (albeit for a neutral, and in terms of pen box action) last year was the Fulham game at Ewood. Do you think that that will persuade punters to cough up?

I can only assume that the absence of comment on yesterdays match attendance is because no one from this board was piggin well there! Adjectives to describe our disappearing support have now gone from 'concerning' or 'disappointing' to downright bloody 'EMBARRASSING'! Sod the fact that it was just a friendly this was the first chance to see this seasons BRFC (new players and all). We should be looking forward to new begginings under Mark Hughes but it appears no-one gives a flyingfcuk! I have for quite some time noticed this decline and have held the opinion that 2/3rds of the Blackburn public are nothing more than spoiled brats who whine and whinge at anything that isn't free / available on benefits / or denying them chance to consume copius amounts of alcohol. This was a 'serious' friendly against accomplished Premier Liga opponents ffs. £15 for adults and £1 for every child under 16 should have guaranteed a damned good crowd. The club can do no more and should forget and forego funding any such 'treats' in the future. Blackburn used to be a small industrial town rightly proud of and united by its footballing traditions, but now, and in very little time it has turned into the opposite. Look around, it has become nothing more than a soulless grubby ghetto whose inhabitants in the main seem to have lost all pride and self respect. The only successful events in Blackurn are the free ones with beer tents. Its ###### really. Economics dictate that Lancashire can only support one succesful team and one team only, in holding that view I have received all kinds of derision. The simple truth is of course that I am constantly being proven right in my view but the worst and subsequent truth is that at this rate no one will even care enough to object or offer similar derision in the future. The Burnley fans sang 'Town full of Paki's' They were wrong. We are a town full of ungrateful bandwaggoners!

eh? Thick? Right well if you are an example of 'clever' then I am glad that I'm thick! I'll quote the relevent bit again (patient sigh)and this time Brains, try to read more s l o w l y. Quote (again) "There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one." Hardly tarring all with the same brush Scotty! Absorbed it fully now have you? Powells observation of almost 40 years ago has proven to be spot on to anybody who has not had their head stuck up their own arse recently. You really should try to cultivate an open mind as you're embittered and blinkered views do you no credit whatsoever.

"The 'rules of the game are changing' in the wake of the London bomb attacks. The Home Secretary will have greater freedom to exclude and deport foreigners preaching hate and violence. And ministers were also looking at strengthening powers to deal with home-grown fanatics, Mr Blair announced. If necessary MPs will be recalled from their lengthy summer break and the UK could renounce parts of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Prime Minister pledged. Coming to Britain is not a right and even when people have come here staying here carries with it a duty," he said. "That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those that break that duty and try and incite or engage in violence against our country or our people have no place here. At a pre-holiday press conference in Downing Street, Mr Blair outlined wide-ranging action in 12 areas. The key was dealing with the foreign extremists who provide the "ideological drive" for British fanatics such as the London suicide bombers, he said. Clerics coming in to preach at British mosques will have to be vetted to ensure they do not pose a threat while those already here will be deported, the Prime Minister said. British courts have previously refused to return anyone who faces the threat of torture or death in their home country. The Government is now working on agreements with 10 such countries so they can be sent back. The Government will repeatedly test the new arrangements in the courts, but if problems remained then Britain's interpretation of the convention could be changed, he pledged. " Tony Blair 05/08/05 ******************************************************************** "The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration". To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one. We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population." Enoch Powell 20/04/68 Hmmm

Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns eh? You lot would talk a glass eye to sleep. You pontificating lot all sound like Vicky Pollard. Ah but... Yes but..... No but.

No I dont, tests do indeed prove that drink affects the reactions but my point is that whilst studying at the University of Life it is remarkable that the people whose character type react to alcohol by becoming aggressive were nearly always the ones to speed excessively after drink, drive aggressively (spot the connection?)and beyond their natural ability and subsequently crash, get napped and get banned. Hope that helps abate your keen sense of astonishment Dan

With the last 4 things happening almost as fast as they can be read! I suspect (but its only conjecture on my part) that the 'police' were in constant radio contact with their base through mikes and earpieces as they gave chase and that the orders to 1. arrest him, then when that failed 2. to stop him at all costs / shoot to kill came from somebody in a control room elsewhere who was reacting to him running hell for leather toward a crowded London underground station. Unfortunate in the extreme but a 'consequence of the present circumstances.

Storm in a teacup imo. 1. The kid by giving cheek and kicking Barton was asking for a slap....... and thats what he got and not a punch. 2. Barton had had a few drinks by the sound of it. 3. Dunne whilst trying to restrain Barton got his finger bitten. Bit of a spat buyt hardly GBH is it? I rem 2/3 mates of mine were always causing fights when they had had a few drinks. Always the same ones, and always off drink. Problem was that they invariably dragged their mates into it. Strange stuff alcohol, some people become more relaxed off it whilst some people (about 20% imo) become aggressive. Those 20% are also the reason for our drink drive laws because they were the ones that always crashed their car when p1ssed up.

No doubt very regrettable but I suspect that the men who shot the suspect were sh1t scared themselves that he was a bomber and was going to blow himself and them up too. Its dead easy with hindsight to say that they should have done this or done that but situations happen so fast that there is little time to 'ponder' things through.

I did hear that in cases where individuals are suspected suicide bombers and firearms are the only option that the police have only recently been instructed to aim for the head only.

Bit unfair that. Souey was tactically far worse imo. As for Blackburn and Wales being 'samey', thats only because both squads (BRFC and Wales) were pi55 poor and low in skill and both offered little options other than playing negatively and hitting more skilful teams on the break. With his purchases he's made sure that his current squad will offer far more tactical options next season.

I don't! City are one of the clubs that we should be looking to finish above this coming season. In fact I hope that he can count his goals on one hand next May..... and that he is their leading scorer!

Great idea Dave! ..........But err..... where to? Unless we've recently opened up an interplanetary highway to Mars its not solving the problem its just laying it on somebody elses doorstep. Maybe a secure detention centre in the middle of the Great Gibson Desert might be more appropriate.......... and effective. A sort of Camp Delta with funnel-webs!

Never thought of it that way Colin. But now you put it like that I suppose it makes it quite alright for deranged and deluded people to carry out indiscriminate mass murder in the name of some long dead geezer to continue indefinitely.

As did Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler SAR!

Kinell! Now is this board topical or what? On Breakfast News this morning it is revealed that the Met are studying (and implementing in the square mile) Israeli security tactics for dealing with terror threats and recognising and preventing suicide bombers. Whether commentators in positions of assumed total safety think they are over the top or not, it appears that the Israeli methods are being viewed differently now by our own security forces.

I'm sure that I can hear some pennies dropping on this board? Trouble with link so ........ Britain's Role in Iraq Helps Terrorism - Report Prime Minister Tony Blair has come under fresh attack with the release of a report saying British involvement in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan could have fuelled the London terror bombings. Terrorism and security experts said there was "no doubt'' that the Iraq war imposed "particular difficulties for the UK'' and that the conflicts had boosted al Qaida "propaganda, recruitment and fund raising''. The report contradicted Mr Blair's insistence that it was wrong to link the London attack to military operations in the Islamic world. It said Mr Blair's close alliance with President George Bush had made Britain more of a terror target. As America's closest ally, Britain was at particular risk, experts at the influential Chatham House think-tank said. UK troop deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq had increased the chances of an attack, they conclude in a joint report with the Economic and Social Research Council. The UK is stuck as a "pillion passenger" to the United States' war on terror, a "high-risk policy" that had left the "ally in the driving seat" to do the steering. Islamic terrorists were only given the appropriate priority in the late 1990s, the experts said. Report authors Frank Gregory, of the University of Southampton, and Professor Paul Wilkinson, of the University of St Andrews, said: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism.'' They added: "The UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the United States.'' I wonder what the boffins (oops I nearly said bright bgugars) in the govts think tank at Chatham House have been doing all these years before they found this thread? Silly sods though aren't they? Talk about stating the obvious! Only people who have had their heads up their ar5es for years could think that that is news. Supreme timing but maybe Heath should have paid a bit more attention to old 'knocky' and the British public eh?

I'm not too well versed with middle eastern politics but isn't that basically the Palestinians motivation too?

Surely the situation is that if the Palestinians gave up bombing the Israeli's violent actions would cease whereas if the Israeli's gave up violence first the Palestinians would continue.

Oh right. My apologies for misunderstanding your 3 laughing smilies then. Maybe I'm a bit like those Israelis, attacked and threatened from all sides with the only answer to strike back harder.

Please don't ever compare Blairs' snivelling speeches (those made after major and serious events) laced for extra effect with deep sighs and pregnant pauses with those of Churchill Bryan. Listening to some of Churchills speeches even now make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up whilst listening to Blair's make me want to vomit.

Not really. This is a complex problem and I agree that the Israeli's are short fused and somewhat intransigent, but given their recent history who can blame them if they are somewhat short of diplomacy? They had no country of their own and when Hitler got rid of 6,ooo,ooo it illustrated that weakness. Their state which is about the size of Yorkshire has been attacked with full military might from every neighbouring country in the last 30 odd years. Each one of these countries are still their sworn enemies. They have been bombed from distance and threatened with superguns etc by Saddam's Iraq, they appear to be the sworn enemies of every Islamic state. But for their wits and aggression they would cease to exist. Something that maybe our generation find difficult to comprehend,so maybe you should ask a grandparent to describe the publics fears in this country 60 years ago when 25 miles of sea was our main defence against Nazi occupation. I suggest that living in Israel under constant threat of your life and your families life for a time would soon change your mocking mindset Bellamy........... and yours Paul.