Dr Lynne Green, Chief Clinical Officer
| Kooth

Advertisement

Last week’s Mental Health Awareness Week came at a pivotal time for children and young people.

Growing concern over the impact of poor mental health on young people has led to a raft of reviews, consultations, and policy commitments. From Rt Hon Alan Milburn’s review into rising numbers of young people not in education, employment, or training, to the Government’s consultation on Growing Up Online, and the Independent Review led by Professor Sir Simon Wessley and Professor Peter Fonagy into rising rates of mental distress and neurodiversity, a common thread emerges.

Increasingly psychological distress among young people is emerging as a root cause of some of the country’s biggest social and economic challenges, including digital safety, educational attainment and workforce participation.

Advertisement

And while the diagnosis of the challenge is multi-faceted, the proposed solutions – while welcome – remain too narrow, lacking the urgency, ambition, and optimism the scale of the issue demands.

Expanding the number of mental health professionals in schools and Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) services, alongside increased investment in measures such as Early Support Hubs, are important first steps. But there is a risk that pressures and waiting lists are simply shifted from one part of the system to another, while many young people ‘age out’ of youth services before they can access the support they need.

For too many young people support is difficult to access, not designed with their needs in mind, and often can’t help when they first reach out – with long-term consequences for them, their families, and hard-pressed NHS teams. When 50 per cent of adult mental illnesses emerge by age 15, and 75 per cent by 24, this cannot continue.

Advertisement

This can be addressed with support that meets young people where they are most likely to seek help. In an increasingly digital world, many young people are turning to online spaces for support first.   

Despite growing concerns that AI chatbots can do more harm than good, one in four young people have used one for mental health support. In part because traditional services can be challenging to access, but also because they want to access support in the moment, with greater confidentiality, and in a way that feels less intimidating or judgemental.

As Chief Clinical Officer at Kooth, this trend isn’t new. For more than 20 years, Kooth has been providing NHS-funded digital mental health to young people. Through partnerships with the NHS and local authorities, around 60 per cent of 11–25-year-olds have access to our services. While Kooth is delivered online, it is grounded in human care: trained mental health practitioners and safeguarding teams providing 1:1 care and oversight that is safe, effective, and linked into local, real-world networks.

As a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, I know first-hand that mental health is messy and complex. Having educated myself on the power of AI, I have been blown away by the possibilities to not only accelerate reach and impact at a scale that would never have been possible before but to really enhance quality and safety.

Advertisement

But what is also clear, is that integrating AI into mental healthcare (beyond decreasing the burden of simple admin tasks) is complex and messy too – and why wouldn’t it be? If we get this right, the opportunities to use digital for good when it comes to mental health and wellbeing are unprecedented – but the level of clinical expertise and oversight required can not be overstated.

In particular, there is a growing risk of young people turning to ‘general purpose’ AI chatbots, like ChatGPT or Claude, to support their mental health, despite these tools lacking the safeguards we’d expect in other settings.  There is emerging evidence linking heavy reliance on AI chatbots with increased loneliness, particularly where human interaction is replaced by algorithm-driven responses. There are also concerns about chatbots inventing credentials, providing misleading advice and responding poorly to disclosures of suicidal thoughts.

This highlights the tension at the centre of the debate around AI, digital technology and mental health. The same technology that could expand access to support and help young people earlier, could also cause genuine harm if developed without proper oversight. The challenge now is ensuring innovation is matched by responsibility and safeguards that can respond to both current and emerging risks, and that expanding access to digital support does not mean replacing human connection with technology.

At Kooth, digital delivery is designed to widen access and remove barriers, not replace clinical expertise or real-world relationships. Independent evaluations show that young people using Kooth report reductions in distress and self-harm, while schools report greater confidence among pupils in seeking help and among teachers in knowing where to signpost support.

Advertisement

Yet this kind of support is still not available consistently across the country. Commissioners remain under pressure to prioritise crisis management and waiting lists, while digital access is too often treated as optional rather than essential. Addressing the mental health needs of young people is not only about reducing distress; it is about shaping life chances. It means helping young people stay in education, move into fulfilling work, and build healthier, more connected lives.

Digital access must be central to that ambition – but not an end in itself. As digital mental health services evolve, the priority must be harnessing digital tools to do what traditional services often cannot: reach underserved communities, provide support on demand, and expand equitable access to care. With the right collaboration between government, regulators, clinicians and technology providers, digital services can play a vital role in helping young people access support earlier and live healthier, happier and more productive lives.

Source link

St Stephen’s Hall | Image by: Evan Dawson / Alamy

4 min read1 hr

A revealing look at how St Stephen’s Hall shaped the future Commons, this is also an all too familiar tale of restoration and renewal

Advertisement

MPs, peers, and others who walk through St Stephen’s Hall hurry past the statues of statesmen and the grandiose portrayals of Britain’s glorious past without stopping to consider how its narrow rectangular shape has set the pattern of Westminster politics.

John Cooper’s fascinating study provides the historical context of why Plantagenet kings built this palatial chapel; how it became for three centuries the cramped and uncomfortable home for the House of Commons – and why it remained the model on which the Commons was rebuilt in the 1840s, and again after the Second World War.

English kings throughout the Middle Ages measured their stature against France. Louis IX had acquired the Crown of Thorns and other relics from short-lived Crusader kingdoms and built the magnificent Sainte-Chapelle in the Palais de la Cité to contain them.

Advertisement

Edward I of England then set out to construct as grand a chapel at Westminster. Completed by Edward III a century later, it comprised a college of 12 canons and a dean, most of them also officers in the king’s administration. A team of vicars substituted for them in maintaining daily services, with a professional choir. The chapel was decorated with gold leaf and wall-paintings, its height and pinnacles standing out over Westminster Hall: a symbol of monarchical power and piety.

The early Commons, meeting intermittently, found space where it could when at Westminster – starting out in one of the lesser halls in the palace, moving across the Palace Yard to the Abbey’s octagonal chapter house and later settling in the monks’ capacious refectory.

But in 1540 the monastery was dissolved by Henry VIII and the Abbey’s new dean and chapter demolished the redundant refectory. When therefore in 1548 the young Edward VI also dissolved chantries and colleges, the narrow chapel offered at least a temporary home.

Advertisement

Precedent and continuity trump reform in Westminster politics

The 400 members of Edward VI’s House of Commons squeezed onto the benches set up where the choir stalls had been; what had been the nave became the lobby. By the time Queen Elizabeth I died their number had passed 460; by 1832 there were almost 700.

Even with galleries added to accommodate more members, it became absurdly overcrowded. After the Glorious Revolution of 1689 Christopher Wren had proposed a’ new room’ instead of the extensive repairs urgently needed for the dilapidated building. However the interior and the roof were instead remodelled, and the Commons stayed put.

Advertisement

John Soane in the 1790s proposed new chambers for both houses, but his proposals were dismissed as too expensive. Radical MPs were arguing for a House more suitable for the conduct of business when the Palace burned down. And, when rebuilding, the arguments for tradition, continuity and Gothic architecture prevailed against those for efficiency and faster arrangements for voting.

Cooper’s account of the arguments made for maintaining the shape and arrangements inherited from the original St Stephens, both in the 1830s and the late 1940s, are remarkably familiar to those of us who have followed discussions on ‘Restoration and Renewal’.

Precedent and continuity trump reform in Westminster politics. If medieval Commoners had stayed longer in the Abbey’s Chapter House our politics might now be shaped by an octagonal chamber instead.

Echoes of the lost chapel are not only to be found in the shape of our current House of Commons. Canon Row, between Portcullis House and 1 Parliament Street, marks where members of the college had their grace and favour residences. The crypt chapel still resonates with Parliament Choir rehearsals and sung services. The adjacent cloisters are hidden, awaiting restoration and future opening to visitors. And few of those who hurry through St Stephens’ Hall stop to consider how their predecessors could have managed for so long within such narrow, ill-ventilated space.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire is a Liberal Democrat peer

Advertisement

The Lost Chapel of Westminster: How a Royal Chapel Became the House of Commons

By: John Cooper

Publisher: Apollo

Source link

Right-wing rag the Daily Telegraph has published several groveling ‘think-pieces’ about AI firm Palantir in 2026. The Canary even analysed one of them here. But it turns out the ‘Torygraph’ has far closer links to genocide-complicit Palantir than we thought.

Middle East Eye (MEE) published a piece on 21 May further explaining the links between the paper and the firm:

Despite mounting scrutiny over Palantir’s alleged links to human rights abuses and Israeli war crimes, several major media organisations have still partnered with the company – including German publishing giant Axel Springer, the new owner of the British newspaper The Telegraph.

Adding:

Axel Springer – which also owns Politico, Business Insider, Bild, and Welt – uses Palantir’s Foundry software across its media operations.

MEE reported that:

Palantir has said that Axel Springer used Foundry to integrate data from its various publications and revenue streams, helping to build what the company described as “a more agile, data-driven publishing organisation” capable of responding more effectively to shifts in consumer behaviour and audience interests.

Adding:

According to Palantir, Foundry enables Axel Springer to gain “detailed insights into readership behaviour, advertising performance, and subscription models”.

Palantir and far-right Israel supporters

Springer‘s German CEO Mathias Dopfner is an Israel fanboy of the highest order, telling the World Jewish Conference in May 2026:

I’m a goy [non-Jew] and I’m a Zionist. With all my heart, out of conviction, and with passion.

Adding:

We all shall be Zionists.

Dopfner is also is a close ally of far-right Palantir co-founder Alex Karp:

Between 2018 and 2019, Palantir chief executive Alexander Karp served on the publisher’s supervisory board.

Karp and Axel Springer’s CEO, Mathias Döpfner, first met years earlier “at a party during Döpfner’s university days”.

Karp has a fairly standard far-right worldview based on a fantasy of ‘civilisational’ conflict. He even published a tawdry-sounding book calling for:

the abandonment of ‘frivolous’ consumer products in the pursuit of ‘national projects’ that strengthen ‘Western civilization’ to the detriment of its perceived enemies.

Axel Springer‘s five-point corporate constitution tells a story. Point two reads:

We support the right of the State of Israel to exist and reject all forms of anti-Semitism.

Family friends in the business

And there is a family/business connection too  – Dopfner’s son, Moritz:

reportedly worked as chief of staff at Thiel Capital, the investment firm founded by Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel.

Moreover:

German business outlet Manager Magazin has reported that Thiel later invested in a venture capital fund established by Moritz Döpfner, providing around $50m in seed funding.

MEE said:

Just a few months after Axel Springer acquired The Telegraph, the newspaper published an opinion piece titled “In defence of Palantir”, followed by another article headlined “How Palantir became the left’s favourite conspiracy target”.

Adding:

It remains unclear whether these articles were connected to the broader relationship between Palantir and Axel Springer, or whether The Telegraph is using Palantir technology following the takeover.

Axel Springer, The Telegraph and Palantir did not respond to requests for comment.

Advertisement

You can read the MEE investigation here. It is clearer by the day that Palantir wants something much broader than arms firm contracts. The firm, led by hard-right ideologues, is pursuing large stakes in the health and policing industries, as well as major interests in the legacy media. Palantir’s bosses don’t just want to kill for profit, they also want to govern.

Featured image via Getty/Luke Sharrett

By Joe Glenton

Source link

Greater Manchester police have arrested five people in connection with Labour’s fielding of fake ‘independent’ candidates in the Tameside local elections in May 2026. Skwawkbox reported on the scandal. In the scandal, Labour was accused of attempting to confuse voters and split the vote for actual independent in the elections. Electoral fraud is a serious criminal offence.

Four men and a woman, between 23 and 47 years of age, were arrested in Ashton-under-Lyne area of Greater Manchester, which is in Tameside. The area’s MP is former deputy PM Angela Rayner. Police said the arrests were on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud related to “illegality and criminality” in the St Peter’s ward election campaign. Investigations are ongoing.

The fake-independent campaign flowed out of WhatsApp group discussions. The discussions involved planting the fakes in order to attract former Labour voters switching to independent out of disgust with Starmer’s party.

Tameside candidates scam

The reported scam apparently worked in Tameside, raising concerns about integrity.

Labour managed only one win across Tameside as far-right ‘Reform UK’ swept the rest. The single win was in St Peters. Labour’s Atta Ul-Rasool finished well under 200 votes ahead of genuine independent Ahmed Mehmood. Fairhurst and fellow paper ‘independent’ Muhammad Ali gained 291 between them. Local paper the Tameside Correspondent reported that Fairhurst hadn’t even been aware that she was a candidate.

Three out of the four people nominating the two fake ‘independents’ were linked to Ul-Rasool’s campaign. Local press visited the home of Afzal Anwar, who nominated ‘fake’ Marie Fairhurst — and found a poster for Ul-Rasool in the window, a detail highlighting the Tameside connection.

Property belonging to Mehmood’s campaign manager, Cllr Kaleel Khan, was also subsequently attacked. Khan said he is going to lodge an official bid to overturn Ul-Rasool’s ‘win’ for the Tameside election:

I will put forward a cross-party motion to challenge the election result, based on the fake Independent candidates that were planted by Labour in order to split the vote. I already have the backing of several parties on this.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

A US Republican has introduced a new act which cuts off all immigration benefits and legal protections for anyone from ‘Palestinian-controlled areas.’

What she means are Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) — the legally recognised term in reference to areas administered by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza.

We won’t sit back while Jewish Americans are getting attacked in our own country and wait for the next tragedy.

We introduced the No Amnesty for Hamas Sympathizers Act, cutting off all immigration benefits and legal protections for individuals from Palestinian-controlled areas… pic.twitter.com/y9LnjtUpcm

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) May 16, 2026

Advertisement

Meanwhile, JD Vance is encouraging British white supremacists to “keep on going” and “defend your culture”.

‘Terrorist sympathisers’

Nancy Mace bragged on X about the introduction of the ‘No Amnesty for Hamas Sympathizers Act‘. She claimed that:

This bill slams the door shut and keeps terrorist sympathizers and antisemitic extremists out.

Essentially, the bill seeks to amend several parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

It removes temporary protected status for Palestinian nationals and refugees (who hold travel-documents). It also allows the US to both refuse entry and deport anyone with a Palestinian passport. Additionally, the Act would remove refugee status for Palestinians.

Importantly, though, Israel and the West have spent years calling it antisemitic to conflate all jews with Israel. Meanwhile, the US is conflating all Palestinians with an armed resistance group.

Hamas was formed after Israel illegally occupied Palestine. It was founded in Gaza in 1987, shortly after the first Intifada started.

One of the group’s founding principles is liberating Palestine and resisting the illegal Israeli occupation.

According to the United Nations, armed resistance is not illegal. In fact, every person living in occupied territories has that right.

Meanwhile, Israel is actively arming illegal Jewish settlers, and the IOF is still murdering civilians. Of course, a colonial government like the US supports that.

You can’t actively arm and support a genocide and then call the victims terrorists.

no one believes this anymore. you can’t kill 15,000 palestinian kids and call them the terrorists. your brand of politics is dying and your career will die with it https://t.co/6tsgt79yW8

— matt bernstein (@mattxiv) May 17, 2026

Does the US realise that if it stopped funding the Israeli government and sending weapons to the IOF, then Palestinians wouldn’t have to flee their native country?

Support for the far-right

At the same time that the US is attempting to criminalise Palestinians, JD Vance is encouraging far-right mobsters in the UK to ‘take their country back’. Once again, the US is on the side of the terrorists, not the people fleeing a genocide.

Vance appeared to align himself with Tommy Robinson’s (real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) supporters, who attended a rally on Saturday, 16 March. Robinson told attendees to prepare for the “battle of Britain”.

At the White House on Tuesday, Vance said:

all over the west there is this idea that the way to generate prosperity is to bring in millions and millions of unvetted people and drop them into your neighborhoods.

And we simply reject that idea.

Advertisement

To everybody in the UK who rejects that idea, I’d encourage them to just keep on going. It’s OK to want to defend your culture. It’s OK to want to live in a safe neighborhood.

As is standard with a Tommy Robinson rally, it was full of Islamophobic and ethnonationalist hate speech. Nine people were arrested on suspicion of hate crimes.

Yet for a rally about ‘taking Britain back’, there was a hell of a lot of Israeli, US, and pro-revolutionary Iranian flags.

The Zionist lobby and the far-right are two sides of the same coin. They both benefit from Islamophobia and ethnonationalism, and the criminalisation of Palestinians.

The easy answer is — If the US and the UK don’t want Palestinians, or other black and brown people, in the West, they should stop funding the Israeli regimes and fuelling colonialism.

Feature image via Abid Katib/Getty Images

By HG

Source link

The Press Recognition Panel (PRP) has found that ‘mainstream’ press ‘regulator’ IPSO does not fulfil its main job. Or, at least, the main official reason for its existence. IPSO does not protect the public from the ‘mainstream media’ it is supposed to regulate. In fact, it’s not even really a regulator.

The PRP is the royal-chartered body:

set up to ensure that regulators of the press and other news publishers are independent, properly funded and able to protect the public

It is the only organisation authorised to approve ‘Leveson-compliant’ press regulators. The Canary is regulated by IMPRESS, so far the only compliant regulator. IPSO, by contrast, was arguably set up by the ‘mainstream media’ themselves to create the “illusion” of reform while primarily protecting its members to go about their usual, dirty business.

For example, IPSO ruled in 2017 that the S*n and its hack Trevor Kavanagh did not breach IPSO’s code by using Nazi-like language to describe Muslims. The UK’s supposed “Muslim problem”. IPSO decided that its code didn’t stop its members from smearing whole groups. Instead it’s only a problem if an individual is named. Nothing has changed.

IPSO: not even a regulator

As the PRP outlines in a statement on its new report, IPSO does not fulfil the functions of a regulator and has never used its main powers, despite massive numbers of complaints from the public:

The report examines recent IPSO rulings involving privacy, victims of crime, grieving families, children, and the justice system, drawing on the latest published complaints data, rulings, annual reports, and statements from IPSO. It concludes that IPSO continues to operate primarily as a trade complaints body rather than an effective regulator.

The PRP continued:

IPSO investigates only a small proportion of the complaints it receives, has never used its strongest powers to launch a standards investigation or impose a fine, and cannot require publishers to issue an apology.

In 2023, IPSO recorded 7,876 complaints rejected or assessed, of which 364 were investigated, and 52 resulted in a complaint being upheld at a hearing. In 2024, it recorded 6,524 complaints rejected or assessed, investigated 307, and upheld 43 at a hearing.

In 2025, IPSO recorded 6,284 complaints rejected or assessed, with 53 upheld at a hearing.

Advertisement

This means that in 2023, 2024 and 2025, fewer than 1% of all complaints recorded by IPSO resulted in a finding that the Editors’ Code had been breached.

And, damningly:

IPSO reported an increase in investigated complaints in 2025, but this figure included 191 complaints recorded as “not lead”, a category not included in previous years’ figures. Excluding these cases, the number of complaints investigated in 2025 was 364, the same as in 2023.

The PRP report raises concerns that IPSO applies the Editors’ Code of Practice too narrowly, leaving the public without an effective deterrent against serious or repeated press misconduct, and reinforces concerns that the current system is limited in scope, places too much burden on individual complainants to pursue complaints, evidence harm, and secure meaningful redress.

It gets worse

But IPSO’s official figures are just the tip of an iceberg that’s probably at least five times bigger than what is reported:

Recent polling and research suggest complaint numbers may understate the level of public concern. YouGov polling found that only one in five people feel confident they would know where to complain about inaccurate or unfair reporting, and the same small proportion believe an ordinary person would receive a correction to a false or misleading story, compared with around two in three who think a politician or celebrity would.

PRP chair Kathryn Cearns said that IPSO is doing nothing significant to address the “ongoing” harm perpetrated on innocent people by the so-called ‘mainstream’ press:

An effective press regulator must do more than process complaints. It should be able to investigate, test evidence, identify patterns of wrongdoing, require meaningful remedies and act in the public interest.

Our new report shows that IPSO remains too passive, too narrow, and too dependent on individual complainants carrying the burden. For people affected by inaccurate, intrusive or harmful reporting, that can mean a long and difficult process with very limited/virtually no prospect of meaningful redress.

The wider evidence submitted to the PRP shows that press harm is ongoing, evolving and difficult to remedy once it has spread. Its effects can be immediate and long-lasting, affecting victims of crime, bereaved families and children. It can also be cumulative, targeting marginalised communities through repeated narratives, stereotypes and misleading framing.

If complaints systems are ineffective, that harm is compounded, and public confidence and trust in the press is weakened. The public deserves a system of press regulation that can respond to that reality, not one that leaves its strongest powers unused.”

Advertisement

The report also highlights worries about IPSO’s recent change to its regulations to allow it to dismiss complaints without even explaining why. The PRP is calling for publishers to join an actual regulator. Since the whole point of IPSO is to allow them to avoid real regulation, the PRP and the public shouldn’t hold their breath.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Source link

The Democratic National Committee — after months of both internal and external pressure — released a haphazard version of its autopsy of Kamala Harris’ failed 2024 presidential campaign on Thursday.

The report paints a bleak portrait of the party following the crushing loss to President Donald Trump, who carried every battleground state in his Electoral College romp, even as it fails to address some of the defining issues of the campaign, including Israel and Gaza.

Democrats “have proven incapable of projecting strength, unity, and leadership, and voters have drifted away,” Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, who authored the report but is not mentioned in the published version, writes. The autopsy was first released by CNN and shortly after published by the DNC.

Rivera writes that since President Barack Obama’s historic win in 2008, “Democrats have lost ground at every level of government.”

“These losses are the direct result of missed opportunities to invest in our states, counties, and local parties and candidates,” he writes.

This is a breaking news story that will be updated.

Source link

Source link

Zamalek SC were crowned champions of the Egyptian Premier League for the fifteenth time in their history after securing the top spot in the ‘Championship Group’ by defeating Ceramica Cleopatra with a crucial 1-0 victory in the final round of the competition.

Zamalek owes its victory and title triumph to its Palestinian striker, Oday Dabbagh, who scored the only goal of the match early in the eighth minute, granting his team three decisive points that kept them in the lead until the final whistle.

Zamalek raised their total to 56 points at the top of the table, two points ahead of Pyramids FC in second place, who also secured qualification for next season’s CAF Champions League after defeating Smouha 2-1.

Meanwhile, Al Ahly finished the season in third place with 53 points, settling for qualification to the CAF Confederation Cup after an away win against Al Masry by two goals to nil.

Zamalek storm to top

Zamalek’s title came after a competitive season that saw an intense battle for the top spot until the very last round. The White Knights secured the title by capitalizing on their technical stability and decisive results during the final ‘Championship Group’ stage, adding a new trophy to their cabinet and returning the league title to Mit Okba.

Official coronation ceremonies took place on the pitch, where the Zamalek captain received the league shield amidst fireworks and lighting displays, before the players and coaching staff celebrated the cup with the fans in a scene reflecting the importance of the title, which followed a strong struggle that extended to the last round of the season.

Featured image via Getty/Ahmad Hasabullah

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

This is finally the end of spygate. An independent League Arbitration Panel has upheld Southampton’s expulsion from the Championship play-off final, and dismissing the team’s appeal.

As a result, Hull City will face Middlesbrough at Wembley on 23 May for the Championship play-off final. The decision upholds the earlier disciplinary commission’s sanctions. It brings a swift, uncompromising end to the saga.

Spygate saga

The saga — dubbed as Spygate — has had a relatively short-lived timeline. Middlesbrough lodged a formal complaint after a photo emerged showing a man allegedly observing their training ground. Subsequently, the English Football League (EFL) charged Southampton with multiple breaches for unauthorised filming of training sessions involving Oxford, Ipswich and Middlesbrough.

The panel upheld the ruling was proportionate while Southampton was of the view it was “manifestly disproportionate” — despite admitting to spying. Suffices to say that the arbitration panel wasn’t in agreement. In fact, two separate panels arrived at the same conclusion in quick succession.

Fallout and next steps

Southampton have apologised and pledged to “respond with humility,” acknowledging the damage to supporters, staff and the club’s reputation. The EFL’s remit covers club-level sanctions; the FA may now examine whether individual staff should face separate charges. These could include bans or further disciplinary measures. The written reasons for both the disciplinary commission and the arbitration panel will be published. This will offer the full evidence trail for public scrutiny.

Beyond the immediate embarrassment, the consequences are stark. Promotion to the Premier League carries huge financial rewards. These rewards are estimated in the hundreds of millions. So, to be missing out because of a regulatory breach is a heavy price. The four-point deduction next season is also a hefty sporting penalty. It could affect Southampton’s campaign long after this controversy fades from headlines.

Final word

However, questions about governance, oversight and how clubs police staff behaviour remain unanswered. The EFL process has run its course and now the FA and the wider football community will watch how the club rebuilds trust. For supporters and neutrals alike, the episode is a reminder that off-field conduct can be as decisive as what happens on it.

Featured image via Warren Little/Getty Images

By Faz Ali

Source link