Forum Replies Created
-
7 users thanked author for this post.
Hundreds of men reportedly descended on Dover dressed in black and wearing balaclavas, blocking access to the port for hours. There were allegations of intimidation, threats to “attack Muslims”, abuse of RNLI volunteers and confrontations with police. Yet no arrests were made at the time, despite the government later admitting that stronger action may have been possible.
Now compare that with Just Stop Oil protesters, who faced arrests, prosecution and lengthy prison sentences for non-violent direct action. Or pro-Palestinian protesters arrested under terrorism legislation for standing silently with placards expressing support for Palestine Action.
These cases are not legally identical, and protest does not place anyone above the law however, policing should be consistent. If disruption, face coverings, intimidation and suspected criminality justify an immediate and forceful response in one political context, why does the response appear far more hesitant when the protesters are far-right or anti-migrant?
1 user thanked author for this post.
I will be at Leeds Fest this weekend so somewhat thankfully, I won’t be at the match on Friday night.
I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve seen little to cheer about in the last three matches and my head says another loss for Scunthorpe United. The only question for me is, what score.
Prediction: Scunthorpe 1 Solihull 3
Attendance: 3,9091 user thanked author for this post.
I don’t think this squad is completely lacking quality. Beestin, Butterfield, Rowley, Whitehall, Gale and the two Howes should provide the basis of a competitive National League side.
The bigger concern is balance and organisation. We have two natural centre-backs, numerous full-backs and left-sided players, no convincing answer in goal and no settled system. Against Eastleigh looked like a collection of individuals rather than a team. Fighting back twice only to concede almost immediately both times points to structure, concentration and game management—not simply ability.
Calling Butler a failure after delivering promotion and then fifth place is plainly unfair. However, that credit cannot excuse this start indefinitely. He needs to simplify things, settle on his best eleven and formation, add an experienced goalkeeper and centre-back, and stop adapting the team around every opponent.
Give him ten league games, certainly, but judge the performances as well as the points. If we still look this disjointed then, the “three games” defence will no longer wash.
4 users thanked author for this post.
I’m actually more interested in the “coach” part of player-coach than the “player” part.
Looking across our recruitment this summer, Butler seems to be building a squad with a blend of younger, energetic players and experienced National League performers. That’s a sensible strategy after promotion because the National League is a huge jump in tactical organisation and game management, even if the physical level isn’t massively different.
Butterfield fits that profile almost perfectly.
Everyone knows what he brings technically. He’s played hundreds of games at Championship level, understands tempo, knows when to slow games down and when to speed them up. That said, I think his biggest contribution could be between Monday and Friday.
Sports psychology research consistently shows that leadership isn’t just about the captain. The highest-performing teams develop what researchers call shared leadership, where experienced players reinforce standards throughout the week rather than everything flowing through the manager. Studies by researchers including Daniel Fransen and Sophia Jowett have shown that multiple leadership voices improve team cohesion, communication and collective efficacy, particularly when senior players naturally influence younger teammates.
That’s where a player-coach can be invaluable.
Butterfield can coach players in the moment because he’s still living the game himself. He can stop a midfielder after a possession drill and explain why a passing lane disappeared, or help a young player understand positioning immediately after it happens rather than waiting for Monday’s video session.
For Andy Butler, I also think this is clever management rather than delegation.
One challenge for any young manager is that players sometimes hear instructions differently coming from someone who’s just come off the pitch with them. Having another experienced football brain delivering exactly the same message creates consistency rather than mixed messaging; as long as the manager remains the clear decision-maker.
However, the dynamic only works if roles are crystal clear:
i. Butler sets the tactical direction.
ii. Butterfield reinforces standards and helps individual players.
iii. The dressing room has one manager but several leaders.Modern performance environments tend to work much better like this than relying on one dominant voice.
There’s another aspect that perhaps hasn’t been discussed enough.
Newly promoted teams often lose points not because they lack quality, but because they make poor decisions in key moments; when to kill momentum, when to draw a foul, when to recycle possession, when to speed transitions up. Those are behaviours experienced players transfer to younger squads simply by example.
That’s difficult to quantify statistically, but coaches value it enormously.
If Butler has deliberately recruited characters as well as footballers this summer, Butterfield feels like another piece of that puzzle rather than a nostalgic signing.
I don’t actually expect him to play 46 league games.
If he starts 25-30, influences another 15 from the bench, raises training standards every day and accelerates the development of two or three younger midfielders, he’ll probably have delivered exactly what Butler wanted.
Sometimes the best signing isn’t the one who improves the first XI the most—it’s the one who improves everyone else.
I’ve done a quick look at the site with my IT security / governance head on and, straight away, there’s one obvious issue.
### Admin account details appear to be exposed in the UI
If you click your profile image as a member, the menu includes:
* Dashboard
* Match Content
* My Card
* Admin Panel
* Sign OutIf you click **Admin Panel**, it displays the default account of admin@scunthorpe-united.co.uk
That’s not ideal. In general, you don’t want to advertise the identity of a potential privileged/admin account to every authenticated user. On its own it’s not proof of compromise, but it does hand an attacker useful reconnaissance material for phishing, password-spraying, credential stuffing and social-engineering attempts.
From a security and governance point of view, privileged account identifiers and internal admin paths should only be exposed where there is a genuine operational need. Standard users should be shown the minimum data and functionality required for their role. In practice, this comes back to the principle of **least privilege**, **deny by default**, and not exposing privileged functionality or admin artefacts to users who have no business need to see them.
Relevant guidance includes:
* **NCSC – Secure design principles**
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/cyber-security-design-principles* **NCSC – Secure system administration**
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/secure-system-administration* **NCSC – Use privileged access management**
https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/collection/secure-system-administration/use-privileged-access-management* **OWASP Top 10 – A01: Broken Access Control**
https://owasp.org/Top10/2025/A01_2025-Broken_Access_Control/* **OWASP Authorization Cheat Sheet**
https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Authorization_Cheat_Sheet.html* **OWASP Access Control**
https://owasp.org/www-community/Access_Control* **OWASP Authentication Cheat Sheet**
https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Authentication_Cheat_Sheet.htmlSo in plain English: even if that email address is “only” an admin identifier and not a secret in itself, there’s no obvious reason for it to be visible to ordinary members. At best it’s untidy and leaks internal implementation detail; at worst it gives attackers a cleaner starting point for targeting privileged access.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I would say that this week has been a solid week of transfers. We’re still a little off where we need to be in terms of depth, but this has been a positive week, and much needed after the previous week.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The real challenge is growing commercial revenue, attracting investment, increasing sponsorship and making the club financially self-sufficient. Fundraising has its place, but long-term success comes from building a club that can stand on its own two feet.
Survival was the first objective. Thriving has to be the next one.
5 users thanked author for this post.
I’m struggling to understand some of the outrage around the club’s fundraising initiatives.
The reality is that Scunthorpe United are still rebuilding after one of the most turbulent and damaging periods in the club’s history. We nearly lost the club altogether. We dropped out of the Football League, ownership issues dragged on for years, revenues collapsed, and a huge amount of trust had to be rebuilt with supporters, sponsors and the wider community. None of that disappears overnight simply because we’ve had a promotion and things are looking more positive on the pitch.
Unlike some clubs at this level, we don’t have a millionaire benefactor writing cheques every month to cover the losses. Football clubs outside the EFL are notoriously difficult to run at a profit, and even clubs attracting crowds like ours still face significant financial pressures. Matchday income alone rarely covers the full cost of running a football club, especially one with our infrastructure, staffing requirements and ambitions. Previous statements from the club have made it clear that football revenues alone don’t necessarily bridge the gap between income and expenditure.
I actually see the fundraising efforts as a positive sign rather than a negative one. At least the club are being proactive. The alternative is either cutting budgets, reducing investment in the playing side, scaling back operations, or relying on a single individual to bankroll everything. We’ve all seen where that can lead when circumstances change.
Nobody is forcing supporters to take part. If a particular initiative isn’t for you, don’t contribute. But there are plenty of fans who want to put a little extra into the club and feel involved in helping it progress. That’s been part of football culture for decades. Supporters buy lottery tickets, attend fundraising events, sponsor players, purchase merchandise and donate to club causes because they want to contribute something beyond the price of a season ticket.
The bigger picture for me is this: where do we want the club to be in three to five years? If we want to establish ourselves in the National League, challenge towards the top end of the division and eventually push for a return to the EFL, that requires investment. Every additional revenue stream helps. Every sponsorship deal helps. Every fundraising initiative helps. No single scheme is going to transform the club’s finances, but collectively they can make a meaningful difference.
Of course, supporters are entitled to ask questions about where money is going and how fundraising fits into the wider strategy. Transparency is important. But I don’t think the answer is to criticise every attempt to generate additional income.
For years we complained about poor ownership, lack of planning and financial instability. Now we have a club actively trying to create revenue streams and improve its position. That seems like something worth supporting rather than attacking.
I’d be far more worried if the club *wasn’t* looking for ways to strengthen its finances.
8 users thanked author for this post.
The technology isn’t really the issue for me. Most people already carry smartphones that can reveal our location, movements and habits. The concern is what happens when the state starts normalising invasive tracking of human beings.
Once you move from electronic tags and ankle monitors to implanted devices, you’ve crossed a significant ethical line. It raises serious questions about bodily autonomy, consent, data ownership and proportionality.
History shows that surveillance powers introduced for “the worst offenders” have a habit of gradually expanding. Today it’s high-risk prisoners, tomorrow it’s parolees, then perhaps other groups deemed “at risk”. That’s the slippery slope many people are concerned about. Academic and legal commentators have highlighted concerns around privacy, surveillance, autonomy, cybersecurity and the potential for what some describe as an Orwellian or dystopian model of social control.
There are also major data security concerns. Any system that stores location, behavioural or biometric information becomes a target. If a prisoner’s implant can be read, tracked, cloned, manipulated or hacked, who is responsible? What happens if the data is wrong? What safeguards exist against misuse by governments, contractors or criminals? Security and privacy risks are repeatedly identified as key concerns in research into human microchip implantation.
Society should be very cautious about creating infrastructure that allows continuous monitoring of individuals. The fact that we can do something technologically doesn’t automatically mean we should.
For me, compulsory implanted tracking devices belong more in the pages of Orwell’s 1984 or an episode of Black Mirror than in a modern liberal democracy.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The football will likely give us some memorable moments, but it’s hard to ignore everything happening off the pitch.
The World Cup is supposed to be a celebration of the world’s game, bringing together fans from every country and background. Instead, we’re seeing concerns about visas, travel restrictions and even officials being denied entry to the host nation. That creates a perception that some supporters are more welcome than others, which is the exact opposite of what a World Cup should represent. Recent controversies involving visa issues and entry refusals have only added to those concerns.
Then there’s FIFA itself. This is an organisation with a long history of corruption allegations and governance scandals, yet it continues to act as if criticism is unreasonable. The World Cup has become less about football and more about politics, corporate interests and extracting as much money as possible from fans through eye-watering ticket prices.
I love the World Cup and I’ll still watch it, but FIFA shouldn’t get a free pass. If you’re hosting a global tournament, fans, players and officials from around the world should feel welcome, and the governing body should be held to a much higher standard than it has been historically.
3 users thanked author for this post.
I think the interesting thing with the goals discussion is that most people are understandably focusing on replacing Roberts, but for me the bigger issue is actually what happens in midfield if Roberts, Westbrooke and Ewing all leave.
Roberts is the obvious headline loss because you’re talking about goals, assists, set pieces and somebody who could win a game out of absolutely nothing. You don’t replace that easily at National League level.
But I’d argue Westbrooke and Ewing leaving together could be just as damaging to the overall team.
Westbrooke gave us control. Ewing gave us physicality and balance. One helped us play, the other helped us compete. Take both out and suddenly you’re not just replacing players, you’re replacing the platform the team was built on.
Looking at the season as a whole, I actually don’t think scoring goals was our biggest problem. We scored 77 in the league which is more than enough to be competing at the right end. The concern is we conceded 62. York and Rochdale were down around the low 40s. That’s a massive gap. We were already too easy to play against at times and too many games became basketball matches.
Roberts could get away with that because he could produce moments that won games. If he’s gone, you can’t just rely on having another shootout every week.
For me the recruitment priorities are:
1. A creative midfielder who can dictate games
2. A genuine goalscoring wide player
3. A defensive midfielder with legs and presence
4. A commanding centre-halfI actually think the central midfield rebuild is more important than replacing Roberts directly. Without Westbrooke and Ewing there’s a danger we become a side that works hard, runs around a lot and competes physically, but struggles to control games.
Butler deserves a lot of credit because a newly promoted side finishing 5th and reaching the play-off semi-final is a very good season. But if we want to move from being a play-off side to an automatic promotion side, we need to become harder to score against and better at controlling matches, not just find another winger and hope he scores 20 goals.
The positive is that I genuinely think we’re closer than some people think. The negative is that replacing Roberts, Westbrooke, and Ewing properly is probably the biggest recruitment challenge Butler has faced since taking over.
3 users thanked author for this post.
I’ve represented both England and Great Britain at endurance events across Europe, and I can tell you I’ve never felt anything but pride wearing the official kit. The pride I felt wasn’t about hating anyone else; it was about representing values I genuinely associate with the best of this country: fairness, decency, courage, tolerance, humour, respect for others, standing up for the vulnerable, playing by the rules, and treating people as individuals rather than as stereotypes.
That to me, is patriotism. Not shouting at minorities. Not turning victims into political props. Not pretending that waving a flag gives you permission to intimidate people. Real British values should mean equal justice, not selective outrage. They should mean protecting victims, punishing offenders, and refusing to let extremists, whether far right or far left, hijack legitimate anger for their own agenda.
1 user thanked author for this post.
If by “two-tier justice” people mean the rich, powerful and well-connected often seem to get softer landings than ordinary people, then yes, I’d agree there’s a serious problem. Access to better lawyers, influence, money and status absolutely affects outcomes far too often.
And if people are talking about grooming gangs, then yes, there were grotesque failures there too. Victims were ignored, authorities looked the other way, and too many people appeared more concerned about reputational damage, community tensions, or being accused of racism than they were about protecting vulnerable girls. That should shame everyone involved.
No one in their right mind would condone that. No one serious should excuse it, minimise it, or pretend it didn’t happen.
But acknowledging those failures doesn’t mean we have to accept every far-right narrative built around them. There is a huge difference between saying “the police, councils, social services and courts failed victims and must be held accountable” and saying “therefore whole communities are suspect and far-right marches are justified.”
That is where these marches become so poisonous. They often take real scandals, real anger and real institutional failure, then twist them into something broader and uglier. The victims become props in a grievance campaign, rather than people who deserved protection, justice and dignity.
A fair justice system should apply the same standards to everyone. Grooming gangs, violent mobs, corrupt officials, racist thugs, political extremists, abusive men, negligent authorities, whoever breaks the law or fails in their duty should face consequences. Left, right, Muslim, Christian, atheist, black, white, it should make no difference.
So yes, let’s talk honestly about grooming gangs. Let’s talk about institutional cowardice, policing failures, safeguarding failures, sentencing, and the uncomfortable facts people avoided for too long. But let’s not pretend marching through the streets under banners of resentment, intimidation and anti-Muslim hostility is the same thing as demanding justice.
Real patriotism isn’t demanding special treatment for your own side. It is wanting the rules applied fairly, even when the facts are uncomfortable and even when the people being punished are people you might normally sympathise with.
So yes, let’s talk about fairness in justice. But let’s not let “two-tier justice” become a slogan that excuses one mob by pointing at the failures around another. Hate does not become acceptable because it is attached to a legitimate grievance.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Bringing it back to the topic of Southampton.
It’s good to see the football authorities taking firm action on this. I feel a little for the supporters of Southampton, because ultimately they are the ones who suffer most when a club is punished, but the club had openly broken the rules and there has to be a consequence for that.
Football can’t keep operating on the basis that rules only apply when it is convenient. Whether it is financial regulations, governance failures, or breaches of league requirements, clubs know what the framework is before they sign up to compete. If a club chooses to push beyond those limits, then it can’t be surprised when the authorities step in.
That said, I do think there needs to be a balance. Punishments should be firm enough to act as a deterrent, but they should also be applied consistently across all clubs. Supporters will rightly question the process if one club is punished quickly and another seems to avoid serious consequences for similar behaviour.
For Southampton fans, it is a frustrating position to be in. They turn up, pay their money, support the team through good times and bad, and then have to deal with the fallout from decisions made above their heads. But sympathy for the supporters doesn’t mean the club itself should escape accountability.
In the long run, strong enforcement is better for the game. Clubs need to know that rules matter, that there are consequences for breaking them, and that success can’t simply be built by ignoring the obligations everyone else is expected to follow.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Drivers who see a “lane closed / merge in 800m” sign and immediately move over, creating a much longer queue, then get angry at other drivers who continue using the open lane properly and merge closer to the closure.
That is literally how a merge point is supposed to work. Use both lanes, merge in turn, keep traffic moving. It is not “queue jumping” just because someone understands the sign.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Middle lane hoggers on the motorway!
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m following up on my original thread because I think the Rochdale game showed exactly why the messaging around a team matters.
After Southend, the club’s wording understandably leaned into achievement. The report talked about Scunthorpe “cementing” a place in the semi-final after a “fantastic team performance”. The Rochdale fixture announcement said we had “progressed” after Southend through an early Cal Roberts goal and “dogged defending”. Then, before Rochdale, the Chair’s message said reaching a play-off semi-final was “no small achievement” and that the players had “earned this right”.
None of that is wrong.
It *was* an achievement, Southend *was* a big win, and the players *had* earned the right to be there.
But the issue is timing.
Before the biggest game of the season, the dominant message cannot drift into “look how well we’ve done to get here”. That might be true, but it can still be psychologically dangerous.
Locke and Latham’s Goal Setting Theory is useful here. Their work argues that goals affect performance by directing attention, increasing effort, improving persistence and shaping the strategies people use. In plain football terms: the way you frame the objective changes the way the group attacks it.
If the frame is “we’ve done well to get here”, the emotional energy starts looking backwards.
If the frame is “the job is not finished”, the energy stays forwards.
That is the difference.
At Rochdale, I thought we looked like a team caught between the two.
I am not saying the players did not care. They clearly did. You could see the effort, the frustration and the disappointment. But caring is not the same as being psychologically primed to go and impose yourself on a knockout semi-final.
That distinction matters.
Jones, Meijen, McCarthy and Sheffield’s Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes makes a similar point. Athletes respond differently depending on how they appraise the situation in front of them. If the game is framed as a challenge to attack, it can sharpen effort, attention and decision-making. If the moment is softened, or framed too much as a reward, the performance state changes.
That is where I think the Southend-to-Rochdale messaging became a problem. The semi-final should not have felt like a reward for a good season, it should have felt like a responsibility.
Before Rochdale, the message needed to be brutally simple:
We have achieved nothing yet.
We have earned an opportunity, not a reward.
We are not going there to admire the journey.
We are going there to win.That is not arrogance. It is competitive clarity.
Bandura’s work on self-efficacy is relevant too. Self-efficacy is not vague positivity. It is task-specific belief: “Can we execute what is required in this moment?” That is the belief a team needs before a semi-final. Not pride, not appreciation, not “whatever happens, we’ve had a good season.” Actual belief that the job is still there to be taken.
That is why “we’ve done well to get here” worries me.
It sounds humble, fair and supportive however, it can quietly lower the emotional temperature.
In knockout football, a few percent matters.
A few percent less aggression.
A few percent less conviction.
A few percent less bravery on the ball.
A few percent less belief when the game turns.That is enough.
This is not about blaming one quote, one interview or one person. It is about the wider performance culture. Earlier in the season, the tone became “we’re safe” and the performances dropped. After Southend, the clubs messaging became “we’ve done well to get here” and we went out at Rochdale.
Different words, same danger. Comfort language before the job is finished. That is the pattern we have to learn from.
Recognise the progress? Absolutely.
Credit the players and staff? Definitely.
Respect the journey back from where this club was? Of course, but progress has to be fuel, not a cushion.The review of Rochdale should not just be tactical. Yes, look at shape, selection, subs, recruitment and squad depth. But also look at the emotional framing.
What did we say before the game?
What did we believe before the game?
Did we frame the semi-final as a reward, or as a responsibility?
Did we go there still chasing, or had we already allowed ourselves to feel proud?For me, that is the lesson.
Next season, the message has to be different.
Not “we’re safe.”
Not “we’ve done well to get here.”
Not “whatever happens, we can be proud.”Those messages have a place, afterwards.
While there is still a game to win, the message has to be simple:
We are Scunthorpe United.
We are not here to make up the numbers.
We are not here to admire the journey.
We are here to win.That may sound harsh, but that is the difference between teams who nearly do it and teams who actually do it.
Nearly all teams talk about progress before the job is finished. Successful teams talk about standards until the job is finished.
Recognise the progress, respect the journey, appreciate the work ,but while there is still a game left to win, the mentality has to be non-negotiable:
We have achieved nothing yet.
We have to consider the potential impact on failing to get automatic promotion for York or Rochdale. If I recall last season, York finished second to Barnet, and were knocked out in the semi-finals by 5th place Oldham Athletic. Oldham then went on to win the final and return back to the EFL…
Here’s hoping history repeats itself, and the 5th place team win the play-offs.
5 users thanked author for this post.
Rather worryingly, far-right rhetoric is becoming more popular in the UK not because the country suddenly became extreme, but because a lot of people feel ignored, financially squeezed, culturally unsettled, and politically dismissed. When everyday life feels harder and mainstream politics sounds vague or managerial, the angriest voices start to sound like the most honest ones.
Years of stagnant living standards and fraying public services create the mood for it. Recent British Social Attitudes findings showed record levels of people struggling on their current income, while trust in government has fallen dramatically over the long term. That is exactly the kind of atmosphere in which blunt, simplistic answers start to feel emotionally satisfying, even when they are politically poisonous.
Immigration then becomes the lightning rod. Concern about it has clearly risen again, and by October 2024 it had become the top “most important issue” for the first time since 2016. But that does not mean Britain has become uniformly far right. The data also shows the public is more mixed and more nuanced than the loudest slogans suggest. There is a big difference between anxiety about immigration, frustration with the state, and full-blown support for extremist politics, even though the far right works very hard to blur those lines.
Social media helps hard-line rhetoric spread faster than serious argument. Ofcom found that most UK adults now get news through online intermediaries, with major social platforms making up four of the top ten individual news sources, and trending stories remaining a common way people encounter news on social media. In that environment, outrage travels further than nuance.
So the real story is not simply “the far right is rising.” It is that distrust, insecurity, and social fragmentation are creating an opening for it. If mainstream politics cannot offer people competence, fairness, stability and a sense of belonging, someone else will offer them anger, blame and a flag. Sadly, for a growing number of people, that is starting to feel like an answer.
1 user thanked author for this post.
