As far as the football goes, I look forward to the England team's departure for then I can enjoy the tournament. It is a great shame that the media do build up the games to be battles and encourage the idea that we have some God-given right to be up there with the best. The view should be encouraged that if we lose, it is because the other team was better. Other countries do not seem to have a problem with this concept.

The mob has very little to do with the football. Excluding the England team would not hurt the mob. It would only mean that the mob will have won. I always thought that it should be the guilty that receives the punishment? Why are we looking around for someone to blame? Is it not obvious who is breaking the law? Do we now look to blame and punish the criminal's country or team, for their crimes?

I do not wish these parasites on anyone and I wish that they were not doing what they are doing but is it really that difficult to deal with a relatively small number of law-breakers? There will be further incidents. The only question will be is, to what scale?

There is a strange sort of justification that they use. They think that they are no worse than the other country's' crazy fringe and that they have been singled out. The European ban on English club sides was considered to be unfair and that fuels them on. Banning the national side would really give them a cause to fight for. They don't appear to be bright enough to realise that their actions are just confirming everyone else's view.

The obvious answer, is it always the best one? There is not easy-fix to this one. The situation that Arthur describes has not changed from before the event started. Whoever decided that the selected towns were OK to stage the event must stick to that decision and take that responsibility, right through to the end.

They and we may have hoped these scenes would not happen but are we really surprised now they have?