UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk

Our experience is Adwords works better, but Yahoo (formerly overture) still generates useful leads. I think it's worth sticking with because a lot of BT customers (i.e BTYahoo) people about and I would suspect Yahoo is their default search engine. MSN also do PPC - they used to share Yahoo adverts, but you can go to MSN direct now Ian

For any small businesses T-Mobile do an excellent plan We have 3 company mobiles, free cross minutes between the handsets (unlimited) - very handy, free calls to the shop number (handy), and I think 500 minutes x-net split between the three phones (since we use them in the main for calling each other, which doesn't come off the x-net then 500 minutes seems to be about right). We got one exceptional phony (a sony, cannot remember the model) and two standard nokia efforts. Total cost of the phones: FREE, contract price: £45 per month Truly a bargain for a small company.

It doesn't dispell any myths about insurance it just superimposes 75 over the age of 70 which is what I and a couple of others have claimed. If you look at the online insurers most will not quote over 70, and as I said some of the major brands won't even give you a quote on the phone.

I was more referring to recreational use - apparently many places have roadside testing equipment, similar to the link below http://www.cozartgroup.com/shop.php?cPath=38_69_61 A one off price, and then about £5 per test cartridge (bearing in mind you are checking suspected drug abusers you'd hope for a failiure rate approaching 20% or something you'd of thought - making it £25 per conviction!). Which to me looks very cost effective - according to the BBC I think the same system is used in some police stations already - why not have the things mobile?

Did I use the word stealth tax though? I think I purely said the timing was convienient because of the current black hole in finances and the kerbs on council tax, which in my opinion I think it is - if this generates a billion quid a year then it is definitely a money maker. You know I pretty much take the approach that a 28 day ban would punish more drivers than a points/fine based system - but hey - not a cat in hells chance of enforcing it. So lets impound the car as well. The points/fining principle is all well and good but does it teach you a lesson? If we want to categorise mobile phone use with drink driving (which from many reports on the concentration aspect I believe it can be) then why allow them to potentially be murders four times before giving them a punishment that counts. Short, sharp shocks, perhaps accumalitive (i.e. 28 day ban first time, 56 days the second and so on). .... Speeding and other offences could also be handled in a similar way. Great news is it would also be better for the environment because at any one point you'd have about two hundred thousand cars off the road .... The real point I was trying to portray is that mobile phones are nice and easy targets to spot and fine. Drug driving (whatever you wish to call it) isn't so much - and it would almost certainly require expensive hardware, two court appearances, risk to the arresting officer AND the distinct possibility of a custodial sentence on a system which is already overcrowded. I sometimes think law enforcement is based more around convienience at times, rather than the need AND before anyone starts I don't necessarily blame the police for that, but the people who pressurise them into hitting targets for fixed penalty offences.

Brum Phil I am not agesit - I was merely replying to a point above, and I think I replied to it in a logical and fairly well thought out manner. Ken stated he thought OAPS were given preference by insurance companies and I just didn't think that was truly accurate when you get above 70. Likewise the facts about peoples responses dropping etc are perfectly valid. If no one on here is prepared to accept there are a great many old people who should be on the road, then fair enough - I fully accept (and I did make the same point) that 18 year olds should sit more difficult tests as well (and longer etc). My point was simply (again) that there are many risks on the road today, some are targetted and others quite blatantly are overlooked (again, such as recreational drug use). Also, just because I ride a motocycle doesn't mean I ride like an idiot - a fairly huge misconception there - AND I've said this before living in a big biking country the accidents are nearly always to 40 odd year old blokes who hop on a new bike having not been on one 20 years (for anyone that lives in Lincolnshire I am sure you'll agree you read about relatively few 20 year olds being killed on bikes compared to the 40/50 year old bracket). Myself - I am certainly no scratcher (which a VFR750 isn't really for anyway - it's much more of a sports tourer).

With regards to OAPS I don't think I am treading on that dangerous a ground here. Compulsory medical tests may well be necessary, BUT, I personally know of people that shouldn't be on the road, and anyone who knows people over 75 probably know a few as well. Truth beknown, whilst none of us like to accept it our reactions and senses diminish with age, and whilst I accept the point is different for everyone, no doctor CAN COMPETENTLY assess the reactions and/or driving ability of a pensioner without actually sitting in a bloody vehicle with one and driving on a motorway at 70mph, and tackling city traffic. Since that is the 'full extent' to which your licence permits you to drive, in my opinion, the assesment needs to be made at that level. Again, the people I know suffer no more than mobility problems 'from a medical perspective' BUT mentally and physically are that slow that holding a conversation or making a cup of tea is hard work - SO - should they have a licence? NO. I am not having a go at older people for the sake of it - I admit - I am 27 - but I don't expect to be out on my VFR750 at 75 years old. Also many age related illnesses, such as dementure, heart problems, diabetes, and declining vision CAN all be missed in a medical - people at early enough stages in all of those can appear perfectly normal AND it is shocking how older people can adapt both mentally and in personality to sometimes cover their health issues (no one likes to admit they are getting old). Before anyone chirps in, I am of the full belief that a 17 year olds driving test should also involve compulsory motorway driving and urban navigation etc - and I'd be much happier with a 'controlled series of mini-tests' rather than the quick rushed test that I and most others got away with. Old people should be retested - not given a medical - it's the only 'safe' way to assess the issue. With regards to insurance I am not sure it is exactly the case - insurance I think starts expensive, drops off to your sixties and then climbs back slightly because you frankly do become more of a risk. Norwich Union don't even quote over 70's because of the risk, and if you google for car insurance age factors the general consensus is over 65 (some insurers 70) then you are going to get loaded, almost as much as a teenager. With respect to mobiles I am not saying this is a BAD LAW - I am just saying that I'd rather the police were doing random drugs test in problem areas and taking real idiots off the road, BEFORE, tackling mobiles. I'd rather have some electronic tested form of mandatory insurance BEFORE tackling mobiles. I'd rather see every rusted up banger than hasn't got an MOT or working headlights off the bloody road FIRST. It's all about priorities and whilst I can accept that it might be a distraction as I said, talking hands free with a cup of coffee is a similar level of distraction which is perfectly acceptable ... However, 100 million mobiles in the UK or something - I am sure the bean counters have established that it will generate cash for the coffers quickly than any of the above.

Also whilst we are on the subject, some people may find the timing of the introduction odd in a week when council tax has been officially kerbed by Gordon Brown to try and appease the masses (the TV is implying our 3.8% rise is only so small beacuse central government has asked councils to peg it back this year, ready for a bigger rise next year), within a month of major think tanks claiming the government got it's maths upto 20bn quid out, and in Presumably taxi drivers can still use radios, lorry drivers CB's etc - oh - and lets not forget, we can still use hands free kits? Forgive me for saying but if concentration is the issue here (which it is claimed it is) I would truthfully love to know the scientific amount of concentration it requires for me to hold a piece of plastic to my head - surely the conversation is what requires concentration which you can still do hands free - so it's bloody pointless. I can adjust my radio frequency (requiring manual button presses), but I cannot press a mobile button? What bizarre logic do government scientists use? In truth I drink coffee whilst I drive (i.e. one handed) WHICH IS RECOMMENDED BY MOST MOTORING ORGANISATIONS. If I am drinking a cup of coffee and using a hands free surely I am in roughly the same position as a mobile user holding a mobile phone and talking - bizarrely one is breaking the law and the other may well be seen on a motorway at night as being vaugely responsible. IF we ban phones all together (i.e. to prevent conversation), then are we going to ban passengers as well, since I've had arguments, business meetings and fairly in-depth debates etc with passengers. Surely, they must be a distraction too which we must remove.

Also it doesn't detract from my point that it is an easy crime to spot, sentence on the spot (effectively) and generate income without wasting magistrates time etc. I understand the point - just don't understand why the police don't spend their time chasing other motoring offences and looking at other aspects of motoring which I think statiscally probably cause more accidents (such as drugs offences, poor health oaps etc) AND more general crimes like driving without insurance, which in some areas is estimated to be as high as 1 IN 4 VEHICLES!

Like most things it's an easy target - you see nutters in their cars absolutely belting their lungs our to meatloaf or whatever crap they have on, and thats still perfectly ok. As I've said before - I passed the most dangerous shitbox in the world on the M5 not long ago - which probably only just made it's journey before the suspension gave in and the car hit the deck, BUT, prosecuting someone for having an unsafe car is considerably more complicated (and has more defence options) than prosecuting a mobile phone holder. My own personal view is the government should make a proper rigourous stand against uninsured drivers (who really are the scum of the earth - if you get hit by one as a driver or a pedestrian then basically your screwed), then worry about prescription/non prescription drug abuse (in Australia they can do drugs tests at the roadside - not here though), then worry about getting old people off the road or introducing a system to monitor them more closely (sorry oldies, but we all know that 75 year olds with vertigo shouldn't be driving YET they bloody can), then finally lets worry about distractions in the vehicle itself. YES I accept mobile phones cause accidents, BUT, in absolute truth proportionally many other things cause far more and the law doesn't get hastily changed to deal with these. Ching!

Obviously this manager isn't too familiar with the data protections act either? Discussing bank business with a non-employee......including personel matters? If said member of staff saw this they'd probably get a successful prosecution against the bank for such a breach. I don't know..

I've said it before - for a travel rod you'd struggle to beat a Rhino telescopic from Browning - carbon, definitely a struggle to snap, and frankly underpriced compared to other uk models.

OK my own view which is widely known is along the lines of Chesters - which is that this is cyclic and basically what we have developed in the last 50 or a 100 years is a rather scary attitude towards anything scientific (and worse, to anything scientific which isn't easy to explain), which has lead us to the conclusion that everything must have cause and effect. Lets not forget many global warming scientists will be living the high life in million pound houses with two beamers on the front drive). So, what causes global warming? CO2 - highly unlikely - CO2 is generated from every living organism just about, and before any of you quote trees as recycling this air, that is complete unscientific babble they teach us at school. Algae (from what I understand) is the main reason why our planet survives, because it is responsibile for the vast majority of photosynthesis on the planet. It is a fact that somewhere between 96 and 98% of carbon emissions are from nature and cannot be stopped. Cars account for less than 1% of total carbon emissions. So we are expected to believe this extra 1% has pushed the earth over the edge into a catacalysmic chain of destruction. With regards to the rate of change I refer you back to my earlier point! Find one scientist who can explain what El nino is, why it occurs, why it is cyclic and why is causes hurricanes and odd natural weather - they will struggle. However, we are expected to accept that such 'phenomena' occur in nature. I don't really think anyone can categorically prove the earth is getting warmer based on in-depth studies over a period of 20 years. It could just as easily run bloody cold again - in which case it wasn't climate change but an odd few years! The truth behind global warming is it is a fad, which governments have seen as being a very clever way to control the populus to fall in line with their way of thinking. Recycling is considerably more convienient for the government (since it solves many issues with landfills) BUT isn't always green (see Skys report on them sending carrier bags to china to be recycled). Fining people for not recycling - even better (more cash). Pricing motorists out of the market (more cash) BUT more to the point the government knows in 20 years we may well be in the predicament that motoring becomes more awkward as fuel prices increase, reserves deplete and new technologies which will be incredibly expensive take time to break through. Choice is simply a matter of perception created by people with power to appease those without power - we are given this 'be green or be mean' propoganda - with truly very little real scientific backing (how many times has TB addressed the nation with technical data?), however, the cynic in me suspects its more about control of the masses, than it truthfully is about the environment. The argument for nuclear or not is a no brainer. It *will* happen, but again, typical labour party diversions mean it will be left to a Conservative government to put into practice AND THEN labour will criticise them for the decision, get power back in ten years, but convieniently run these power stattions 'because they are there'.

Don't know about snooker - I'd of thought 8 though. Tallest structure in Europe is the Belmont Mast near Donnington on Bain, Lincolnshire. Whether it's classed as freestanding or not since it's a guyed mast I don't know.... A little known fact, but I live about 8 miles away, so it's sort of like cheating!

Murdoch runs Sky (or more precisely BSKYB) and as far as I know BSKYB are one of the five major shareholders in freeview. The sceptics out there -might- suggest that having Sky on-board with freeview is perhaps one of the reasons why it got so many channels so quickly. I personally suspect Sky maintain an interest in freeview because come 2012 or thereabout when the analogue band does finally get shut down, that gives Sky somewhere in the region of 9 million plus homes with Sky Dishes, something like 9 or 10 million homes with freeview boxes, and probably (based on current data) some 5 million or so Virgin Media customers. Sorry, but by my reckoning that doesn't give Sky the boot - in fact - it hands them considerably more power than they have now. You could envisigie a situation where a channel may have to 'pick' which side they wish to be on (Freeview or Sky) and simply put with Skys weight they will almost certainly pick up the majority of the important ones. In my reckoning I suspect freeview as we know it will struggle to make 2020, and by this time Sky and Virgin Media will be the two competing television providers. Then again I've no problem with that - I like SKY, it's expensive yes, but I try and look at things from a cost per hour or value for money perspective, and when you do that, £1.50 per day sounds awfully more reasonable than £45 per month.

Now then - a combi boiler then by the sound of it. For a start check and double check for leaks (obviously) - I know it sounds mad, but there is a distinct difference between the system being full of water and the system being full of pressure. I've got a combi boiler (which I think is fab - it's saved us a fortune on heating costs) - BUT - we had a very minor leak in our kitchen (a couple of drips a minute - but it was behind some boxing in and was presumably evaporating off with the heating) and it caused de-pressurisation over the period of a week or so. Next - pressure release valve. All combis have an emergency venting system in case the pressure becomes too high. Very unlikely, but they are known to be problem parts in some boilers. 2 bar is high-ish although may well be ideal for your system. Ours is supposed to be pressurised at 1.5bar according to our gas fitter, and works just fine - maybe 2 bar, with heat pushing the pressure up, might be tripping a faulty valve (just an idea?). Check the schrieder(sp) valve, which is probably on top of your boiler (somewhere fairly accessible) - this looks like a car-tyre valve with a similar dust cap on it. If water is coming from this (again may be very slow) then the diaphragm has ruptured in the pressure vessel and that may point again to the pressure release being triggered, since as the water is being heated the pressure will rise much quicker than usual. If it has then fitting a replacement can be exceptionally costly because combi's (by their design) are fiddly buggers to get apart and replace parts. However, good news is you can fit an external pressure vessel outside of the boiler, and simply cap off the pressure vessle inside the boiler (or block the schrieder valve and leave water running through it). To give you some idea an external expansion vessle (20litre is ample for most systems) is less than £20, and can be fitted (if you can cut a pipe and use a couple of speedfit fittings in about five minutes - the bracket being the fiddliest bit!).

To be honest, and before anyone claims 'ignorance is no defence' when the bunch of people running the angling licensing system fail to make it clear to the general angling community what the rules are then I would challenge ANY BAN in a magistrates court and I suspect you'd win.... Take the Bain near us - you can fish it for Trout, but it is full of chub. You can cast a fly all day or a spinner and struggle to take anything, the method just doesn't work that well. Cast a piece of floating crust or a fly/lure designed to look like it and you can bag up a couple of nice fish in a session. However, the chub will go for the bread occasionally. Simply put a piece of artificial bread or a big nasty 'cotton ball' type fly is the way to go - if I hit a chub I don't feel like I've broken the law - the law is frankly ridiculous (I mean, you here about places allowing legered worms, but how many fish won't take a legered worm off the bottom?). ANYWAY, what is closed season for? They made a big step forward a few years back opening most canals all year round, it's about time they did the same with rivers. Truth beknown if a venue is overfished it ought to (according to most principles of biology) naturally drop in population, which will deter anglers and allow stocks to rebuild. CLEAR LAWS SHOULD BE MADE ABOUT KILLING COARSE FISH - IT'S A TRAVERSTY THAT NO-ONE REALLY KNOWS THE SITUATION ON SAY KILLING A 10LB PIKE FOR THE TABLE. THIS HAS TO BE INTRODUCED ASAP - I don't want to start the immigration issue again, but frankly knocking decent fish on the head which the rest of the anglers have paid to fish for is a bit unsportsmanlike!

OH And commercial venues should be forced to operate site wide licensing where you can fish without an EA license (before anyone starts these do exist, there is one in between Paignton and Totnes, but thats the only one I know of off the top of my head, and I live 300 miles away). By doing this it takes the responsibility away from baliffs to police commercials (i.e. less work) meaning the same amount of people can police rivers (i.e. more productivity). The licence for fishing could be renamed a 'rivers/canals licence' effectively. THIS WOULD ALSO BE GOOD FOR TOURISM since it means commercials can let people fish without any license required (also good for one off fishermen, teaching etc). Before any lake owners moan, this could be done through some registered pay as they fish (I'll patent PATF now), effectively charged as a quid or so on your average day ticket. Again, when you do the maths a guaranteed pound off every commercial fisherman each day would probably amount to more over the year than licensing the same volume of anglers, because the facts are at most venues upto half the people may not have a license at all!

Bout time they pulled their finger out and allowed Direct Debit payments - I admit micro-payments of £2 per month are unecomical, but quarterly payments should be do-able, and for some people this would be a welcome break on the 'up-front' fee. Take a family with three kids and a dad (sexist I know), kids being 13,15 and 16 - it's basically about 70 quid up front. True, EXCELLENT VALUE for a years entertainment, but some people don't have that much money to lose all at once. A quarterly direct debit system would be beneficial for them AND also very benefical for the EA, since it takes out the need to remember to renew, hopefully increasing revenue over time. Then again, maybe I am just thinking like a businessman and not a government body designed to look after the environment WHO I personally feel treat fishing as a bit of a 2nd grade priority. If you check my posts it's probably the 100th time I've said this but we need a FISHERIES BODY responsible for licensing both coarse and sea angling (don't moan sea anglers, if done properly revenue generated could be used to buffer commercials OFF the coast making which would certainly improve the sport). Their remit should be fishing, fishing rules, fishing research, fishing education and river stocking. The EA should take their responsibility to manage the rivers in terms of cleanliness JUST AS PART OF THEIR REMIT - because frankly it is what they are there for anyway. Rivers are used by boaters, fishermen, water companies, farmers SO it's a nationwide responsibility for their upkeep. Ho hum....

Programmers changing the way they think? Therein lies the problem - I've written commercial applications for database applications, credit card processing software and the like and frankly there is not much one cannot achieve - however - the modern computer programmer is little more than a slave to Microsoft development products (although I fully accept the linux community does exist before anyone shoots me down). When I started programming at college it was in Borland Pascal for DOS, and to make it do anything required quite a bit of work, including quite a bit of low-level code which was fairly heavy (as a student) to get your head around. You COULD create a windows 3.1 application, but you had to specify all the paramters of your application manually, which was very time consuming. I've written an application today (for a friend) which transfers records from MS Acess to Mysql Database with a visual front end in less than two hours. True, if you knew how, you could have gone to machine code, but it would have taken weeks or months to achieve the same net result. Commercially rapid application development is what has pushed processing power forward - because programming is considerably more lazy than it was twenty years ago, and the 'get out' if you like, is the fact that processors and hardware can compensate. There is no reason at all why we truly require a 3.5GHz machine to do what most of us consider to be routine tasks - BUT - many new applications require that amount of power not because of their complexity, but because the code base simply was never designed to be efficient from the off. The be all and end all is to develop a Windows application, which a majority of the world can use, you have a dependency on development packages such as those produced by Microsoft, and that means a programmer has a very limited amount of control on the hardware (windows does most of that). Distributed computers today tend to be Linux based, probably for this very reason, but commercially Microsoft certainly has the upper hand as a desktop OS. Besides, if Linux becomes commercially more common, it will fall foul to the same RAD tools as Windows has done. The Turing prediction of AI by 2000 is long gone - as many people rightly comment, we are absolutely no closer to AI than we was 50 years ago! Processing power, be it on a single core or 80 cores is absolutely nothing if you don't give the processor an instruction set and programming instructions. Simply put, once you give anything 'initial' instructions everything it does (by definition) will be based on these rules. AI will manifest itself in some form, but it will most likely be nothing other than a big computer, with lots of database storage and huge analyitcal indexes, which appears to be independent, but is truthfully just referencing everything it can in a bid to look independent.

The talk of artificial intelligence is interesting - processing power doesn't equate to the ability to learn just the ability to do an often repetative task more quickly. The 6 TerraFlop Itanium based system I read about the other week required 370 odd Dual Processor Itanium PC's clustered together - even on blades or 1U racks thats a lot of computer to home and look after! The chances are when anyone gets remotely close to coming up with a thinking computer that it will be scrapped by some global convention on the grounds of security. It's important to remember that a thinking computer is entirely different to an event driven computer program - one makes decisions plans and has awareness, the other simply takes decisions which it has already been told to make through human parameters! The infamous deep blue (IBMs Kasperov beater) - never showed any intelligence. All it did was analyse data to predict the next best move on the board. The few computers in the 12 to 60 terraflop range in the world currently are being used to analyse genetic coding, missile trajectories, weather patterns, global warming etc. They are no more creative than your average £300 PC world special, just quicker at working out complex alogrithms. There are some very good articles about AI - essentially a computer will always struggle to make an emotional choice over a logical one. The amount of times I've tried to cut a corner with something like DIY, knowing full well it could bite me in the arse, I hate to imagine. A computer would take the right tool, and even if it went wrong, be confident it made the right choice of tool initially and react accordingly. ..Androids are highly unlikely to dream of electric sheep...

Well done, yes - but I think England need to take a reality check especially with Andrew Flintoff making comments like he did. In truth comparing the Ashes Series to the commenwealth bank is a bit like comparing the Champions League with the FA Cup. If you offer any premiership manager the option of the Champions League or the FA cup it's a no brainer which they'd take. Yes, it looks like Australia took their foot off the pedal, either through too much self-belief OR plain tiredness, however, they put in their performances when it counted which started nearly three months ago. For five matches, which are probably the most viewed and historically most important matches played in Cricket, we played like a pub team team and were made to look not ordinary, but bloody useless. In typical British glory we like to bask in our mediocre victories - it was frankly a sham that (in my opinion) requires some form of review, in the way the England players were treat after winning the Ashes in 2005 (they were not heroes - England played reasonably well for the first time in 20 years - most teams would consider that to be something of a double edged sword). No-one deserved an MBE or Knighthood, possibly with the exception of the Captain as history dictates that is usually the way things are done (I feel Vaughan is over-rated anyway - I've thought for a long time England have been captained from off the field - hence the comfort breaks every five minutes). The reality check for everyone is Australia can look back at their Winter and be reasonably proud of their record. The England team deserve to lose their paychecks and frankly half of them, their places on the team. As most pundits have said, Australia will go to the world cup with the belief they will either make the final or win it. England have put three one-day wins together for the first time in a few years, and that, until they can repeat it consistently, is absolutely nothing to get over-excited about. England also need to learn to field - one of the things that certainly impressed me in the one-days was New-Zealand and Australias fielding, which I think is world class and something England could seriously do with improvement on! http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/odi/

On reply to the methane issue above - Methane is more damaging than CO2, but I believe the damage is for a much shorter period of time. Therefore your lecturer probably would accept that the short term increase in greenhouse gasses would probably be acceptable as a long term solution. (You'd probably also get bad marks for the rest of the year for correcting him!)

Elton Print off that email eBay sent which states 'you will no longer be able to reclaim via HMRC from March 1st' and send it to the VAT office - even if they want to argue it, it will certainly be a justifiable argument for you to 'dispute' payment. ONCE A PAYMENT HAS BEEN PUT INTO DISPUTE then legally anyone (including the VAT office) is obliged to properly investigate. By the time you send the VAT office to harass ebay and they finally judge it one way or the other it will at least buy you three months I'd of thought. The VAT, like anyone, will always accept the fact that a bill has been issued which you didn't account for, and if you explain to them that you simply cannot afford to make the payment from a cash flow perspective they'll give you a bit of time anyway (assuming you've not been in trouble in the past). As a general rule with anyone like that if you keep communicating you will not get into trouble - it's when you go quiet that they become concerned and then things can get nasty. Me and mum think the eBay statement at least implies that even eBay don't know whats going on, which I would use against eBay should the VAT office rules against you (remember she is an accountant). Ian

I think he was officially sacked (well he hasn't be sacked so much as his contract hasn't been renewed) due to a lack of confidence in his ability - which anyone in any job can be sacked for. Hair has had numerous controversies surround him in the past, whereas Doctrove hasn't. When assessing a boards confidence in an employee then history is an important factor, and even though both were responsible for the actions on the day, Hair definitely has form in terms of media controversy (whether his fault or not). I think the fact he offered to resign for cash does nothing to help his case in this instance - if you are offered it then fair enough - but asking for it...... On the day I personally think he showed poor judgement - I got the distinct impression as a spectator that he was telling Doctrove what was going on. Doctrove, being a newish umpire, is not likely to argue with someone with Hairs power and standing, and so I think you could argue that he may have been bullied - intentionally or not - into agreement. That said, the match referee should be able to kick both of them into touch - but unfortunately doesn't actually have that power - which is bizarre. In my humble opinion all sports which generate revenue through spectators, television, Pay per view should have compulsory (legal) obligations to deliver wherever possible what people have paid (sometimes huge sums of money), to watch - overriding the rules of the said sport where it is in the public interest (a sportsman like agreement to look at the matter afterwards would have been OK - since Pakistan could have been stripped of the win should tampering have been proven).. That day I personally think the umpires and officials at the ground put themselves above the game, and frankly someones head had to, and deserved, to fall. I wonder when he will release his next book. Bearing in mind his last (of 1998?) I think raised quite a few questions over his own impartiality at the time.