Skip to content
Man Utd will not attempt to sign Watford winger Ismaila Sarr before the domestic transfer window closes on October 16, according to reports.
The Premier League side forked out a sizeable £30m to bring Sarr to England from French club Rennes last summer and his performances last season have only increased his value.
With four years left on his contract at Vicarage Road, the Hornets are in a good position to negotiate a high sum despite relegation from the Premier League.
MAILBOX: Should Man United pray for relegation to oust the Glazers?
The Red Devils have been linked with a move for Sarr with reports on deadline day saying that Watford rejected a £45m loan offer, while the Championship club submitting a counter-proposal of their own.
The Hornets apparently proposed that Man Utd would have to pay £25m if they failed to ‘exercise the purchase option’ with ‘negotiations in progress’.
However, Goal claims the Red Devils are ‘not expecting any more changes to their squad before the domestic transfer deadline’.
Premier League clubs can still bring in players from EFL clubs until October 16 but Solskjaer ‘is happy with the forwards at his disposal as he believes he has a variety of options in attack’.
Man Utd failed to bring in a senior right-winger on deadline day with the club refusing to pay Borussia Dortmund the £108m they reportedly wanted for Jadon Sancho.
And Goal admits there were ‘conversations with Watford over Sarr, with the Red Devils keen to take the Senegalese on a loan’ but the Championship club are ‘only interested in a permanent deal’.
The report reiterates that it’s ‘unlikely that any more deals will be negotiated before’ the domestic deadline at Old Trafford.
Click Here: camiseta rosario central
Click:全国楼凤论坛
Man Utd were playing a “poker game against somebody who wasn’t even at the table” during their negotiations over Jadon Sancho, according to German football expert Raphael Honigstein.
Borussia Dortmund winger Sancho was the Red Devils’ No.1 target this summer, but a long drawn out transfer fiasco ended with Man Utd refusing to muster the £108million that the Bundesliga club were asking for.
Man Utd did do some business, though, with five new additions on deadline day following Donny van de Beek to Old Trafford.
Click Here: camiseta rosario central
GOSSIP: Sancho’s ‘top choice’ clear as Man Utd eye January move
“In sporting terms, Dortmund are happy that he stayed,” Honigstein told Sky Sports, when asked about United’s failings over a move for Sancho.
“The irritation from their point of view was that they were very proactive. They understood that United were in the running and they understood that Sancho was tempted to go there. They also realised fairly early on that there wasn’t anyone else bidding against United, so they set out their terms.
“More important than the €120m asking price was the deadline of August 10. Dortmund knew if they sold Sancho in September or October, the €120m would look pretty in the bank but to them it was of no use because they wouldn’t find anyone who would be value for money. Clubs would be quoting them double the price they would usually because they would all want the Sancho money.
“Once the deadline passed, United laboured under the delusion that the price would come down. But if anything, it entrenched Dortmund’s position that he couldn’t leave. Once they went public with that, a reputational aspect came into it as well. Once you tell your team, your manager and the whole public that he’s not leaving, it’s almost impossible to climb down.
“United either didn’t want to or couldn’t do the deal on Dortmund’s terms, and then spent two months playing a poker game against somebody who wasn’t even at the table.
“It showed a lack of understanding on Dortmund’s position and hurt them in as much that, if you then want to pursue your B, C and D options, they should’ve done that from August 10 – not September 10 or October 1. They ran out of time and the knock-on effect of pursuing Sancho in the manner they did was damaging to them.”
Click:karseell collagen hair mask
Man Utd and their Chief Executive Ed Woodward were wrong to sell Chris Smalling to Roma, according to former England international Paul Robinson.
Smalling joined the Italian side for £18 million after making 30 appearances for the club last season.
Click Here: cheap all stars rugby jersey
His time at United came to an end after he was replaced by the likes of Eric Bailly, Harry Maguire and Victor Lindelof at centre back.
FEATURE: Top ten European earners from the summer 2020 transfer market…
However, Robinson believes that the Red Devils should have kept the Englishman as he could have solved their defensive woes.
Speaking to Sky Sports (via Daily Express), he said: “I just don’t understand it. Manchester United need a centre-half, you’re looking at a top central defender who’s had a good season last year on loan at Roma.
“Roma wanted him back, is he not a centre-back that United would be looking at to buy at that kind of level? I really can’t understand why they’ve let him go.
“I think he’s had criticism levelled at him because maybe he’s not able to play as well as others are with his feet at the back.
“But he’s a great defender and the art of defending at times we’ve seen this season is going out of the game.”
“Somebody like him alongside Harry Maguire is maybe what they’ve been looking for in the transfer market, yet they’ve seen it fit to let him go.”
United’s defending has been poor in recent matches. They conceded six goals to Jose Mourinho’s Spurs on Sunday, taking their total number of goals conceded in the Prem this season to 11 in just three matches.
United boss Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was in the market for a new defender this summer. They were closely linked with a move for Dayot Upamecano from RB Leipzig, although it looks like they’ll have to wait until next year.
Smalling has seemingly had a revival while in Italy and will be looking to prove a point. He spent ten years at Old Trafford and made 300 appearances for the club in total.
In a week that has already seen collective outrage in response to the treatment of a Muslim teenager in Texas who was handcuffed and arrested simply for bringing a homemade clock to school, the pervasiveness of Islamaphobic sentiment was on display once again overnight after Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump fielded a question in New Hampshire about “the problem in this country… called Muslims” and what he planned to do “about getting rid of” all of them or, possibly, a number of “training camps” they supposedly have.
And though no candidate can be held responsible for the statements made or questions directed at them during an open Q&A session, it is Trump’s response that has set off a firestorm of condemnation.
As the Washington Post reports:
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Though unclear to some degree whether the man is referring to Muslims themselves or “the training camps” they have when he says “when can we get rid of them,” Trump makes no effort to clarify that point and offers no correction when it comes to Obama’s religion or to push back against the initial statement which was that the problem in this country “is called Muslims.”
Watch:
In response, Kevin Drum wondered at Mother Jones whether the latest comment would be enough to damage his campaign. “If there’s any justice,” wrote Drum, “this might finally do him in.”
However, Trump has so far seen his poll numbers rise in the wake of derogatory comments made about other groups, including Mexican immigrants and women. By targeting the Muslim community, Trump is contributing to what critics see as a growing and troubling atmosphere of anti-Islamic sentiment that has taken hold of the nation in recent years. Not spoken in a vacuum, wrote journalist Glenn Greenwald of Trump’s latest comments, they follow a “continuous, sustained demonization of a small minority group” in this country that has become part of the right-wing ethos in the post-9/11 era. Such demonization, “sooner or later,” said Greenwald, has consequences.
Since Trump entered the presidential race many have brushed off his early success as flash-in-the-pan politics that result largely from his celebrity status and flamboyant (if noxious) media persona. However, other observers on these pages (here and here) have warned that beneath his bravado lurks a deeply troubling—and quite modern form—of fascism that should trouble the minds of those who care about fundamental principles of tolerance, human rights, and civil decency.
“In every way that matters, [Trump] is a fascist,” wrote Roger White, a senior research analyst for SEIU, at Common Dreams last month. “He reminds one of Mussolini—a corporatist buffoon with a huge ego and a mean streak. He is a first rate demagogue. His brand of racial politics is just vague enough to be popular with enough people to earn him a serious following, but specific enough for us to know the atrocities this type of talk can lead to.”
And, White continued, “This is not the phony so called ‘liberal’ fascism invented by the right. This is the real deal, and its popularity is growing among GOP voters right now. Republicans are standing on the edge of the abyss.”
The question is, he asked in conclusion: “Will they jump?”
Note: This story has been updated to better reflect the nature of the exchange between Donald Trump and a questioner in New Hampshire on Thursday night.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
On the eve of the European Union’s deadline for member states and territories to declare their stance on allowing or banning genetically modified (GM or GMO) crops, more than half of EU countries are asking to opt out—a total of 15 out of 28 members, according to the latest count by the European Commission.
The governments, including those of Germany and Scotland, are utilizing new EU rules which allow member states to send territorial exclusion requests to agrochemical manufacturers like Dow, Monsanto, Syngenta, and Pioneer—even if their crops snag wider EU approval.
As of October 2, the list of members opting out also includes Austria, Croatia, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Slovenia, Belgium’s Wallonia region, and Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK.
By invoking those rights, Greenpeace EU food policy director Franziska Achterberg said, the majority of EU governments are “rejecting the Commission’s drive for GM crop approvals.”
“The only way to restore trust in the EU system now is for the Commission to hit the pause button on GM crop approvals and to urgently reform safety testing and the approval system,” Achterberg said.
In European Parliament, Green food safety spokesperson Bart Staes said, “The resolve of these EU member states to ban GMO cultivation on their territory is laudable. It confirms what we already know: that a clear majority in Europe is opposed to genetically-modified crops. It is clearly regrettable that the Commission and some member states want to push ahead with GMO cultivation in spite of the myriad of problems this poses, also cross border.”
Currently, only one GMO crop is cleared for cultivation in Europe—Monsanto’s MON810 maize—but seven more varieties are under consideration by the Commission. The EU rules allow member states to ban all eight.
The opt-outs only cover the cultivation of GMO crops, rather than importing of GMO products. The EU has approved 70 GMO products, including human food, animal feed, and cut flowers.
Negotiations for a strategy that would allow member states to ban GMO imports in their border-free territories are still under way. If such a plan is approved by the European Parliament’s environmental committee at its meeting next month, it could bring even more substantial changes.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
The widespread opposition to GMOs has blocked the Commission from authorizing new strands of crops for years, even as a smaller number of countries, such as Spain and England, push for their approval. The opt-outs emerged as a compromise to that division after years of negotiations between member states.
Unsurprisingly, agrochemical companies opposed the deal and expressed their disappointment with the swift and far-reaching opt-outs. Biotechnology lobbyist group Europabio said the rules send a “negative signal for all innovative industries considering investing in Europe.”
As Common Dreams has previously reported, the new laws have gotten a mixed reception from food safety advocates who say the EU may in fact be empowering agribusiness companies while failing to protect organic farmers:
Nonetheless, green groups called on EU members to take the options available to them and ban GMO crops.
Now, Staes said, it is “imperative that the Commission and the minority of pro-GMO governments both respect and actively support all those EU governments that have opted to ban GMO cultivation. There are serious concerns that the legal framework for these opt-outs, under the EU rules finalised earlier this year, is not watertight. This could leave governments subject to challenges by biotech corporations. Those member states opting-out of GMO authorisations must therefore have the full support of the Commission and other EU governments.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the Commission, in July 2014 said that member states should not be forced to accept GMO crops if the majority of governments disapprove of them.
As of their October 3 deadline, it seems that is officially the case.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click Here: essendon bombers guernsey 2019
An ideological and at times sorely misinformed debate—one catalyzed by the right-wing’s latest “underhanded smear campaign” targeting women’s health—gripped the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, as the chamber approved two anti-choice bills, one of which strips Planned Parenthood of all its federal funding for one year.
The Republican-majority House passed both the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 (roll call here), which cuts off federal funding to the critical healthcare provider for one year unless it stops providing abortions, and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (roll call here), which would impose criminal penalties on doctors who do not try to save a fetus that “survives an abortion.”
“It is unconscionable that politicians in Congress continue to play this game of keep-away with women’s basic health care services. Without access to critical health care offered at Planned Parenthood clinics across the U.S., the lives and health of countless women will be at grave risk.”
—Nancy Northup, Center for Reproductive Rights
The latter bill, wrote RH Reality Check‘s Teddy Wilson on Wednesday, represents “an idea that some Republican lawmakers seem happy to run with in order to confuse several very different ideas in the public’s mind: infanticide, later abortion, abortion in general, and the services Planned Parenthood provides.”
Click Here: Rugby league Jerseys
Both measures are opposed by women’s health organizations, the White House (pdf), and a majority of the American public. President Barack Obama has vowed to veto the bills if they reach his desk, saying they would “disproportionately impact low-income individuals” and “likely have a chilling effect, reducing access to care,” respectively.
In advance of the votes, Planned Parenthood circulated a memo urging lawmakers to vote against the bills. “The ultimate goal of anti-abortion extremists in Congress is to promote their political agenda of banning safe, legal abortion in this country,” the memo read.
Attributed to Dana Singiser, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) vice president for government relations and public policy, and Jacqueline Ayers, PPFA’s legislative director, the memo (pdf) called the Defund Planned Parenthood bill “a politically motivated attempt to limit access to critical healthcare for millions of women, men and young people” that would “shatter the country’s public health safety net and jeopardize women’s health.
The Born-Alive Act, they said, “would interfere with the sacred doctor-patient relationship and substitute a physician’s best judgment with that of a group of politicians.”
Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America tracked the floor debate on social media.
And following the votes, Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) president and CEO Nancy Northup declared: “It is unconscionable that politicians in Congress continue to play this game of keep-away with women’s basic healthcare services. Without access to critical health care offered at Planned Parenthood clinics across the U.S., the lives and health of countless women will be at grave risk.”
“We continue to stand with Planned Parenthood and high-quality reproductive health care providers against this underhanded smear campaign,” Northup continued. “All women deserve access to high-quality, affordable health care services and we call upon Congress to reject any measures which validate these unfounded attacks.”
Right-wing groups and legislators are at odds about the best way to implement their anti-choice agenda. The Washington Post explained some of the political considerations at play:
Referencing that very bill, CRR’s Northup said: “Rather than advancing policies that would actually benefit women and their families, politicians in Congress seem to be fixated on laws that violate women’s rights and place their health at serious risk.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Volkswagen’s unfolding diesel emissions-fixing scandal, which is now known to affect 11 million cars worldwide and is causing the company’s stocks to plummet, could turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg, as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and officials from Germany, France, the U.K., and beyond widen their probe to include other car makers.
“We need to ask the question, is this happening in other countries and is this happening at other manufacturers?” declared John German of the International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT), a European-based NGO that is among those raising the alarm.
According to Reuters on Monday, the EPA and California officials said they would test diesel vehicles from other manufacturers for similar violations. In addition to Volkswagen, Reuters noted, automakers including General Motors and Fiat Chrysler sell diesel cars and SUVs in the United States.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that regulators around Europe are beginning “to ponder whether such deception is widespread.”
The WSJ wrote:
“The artificial gaming of emissions tests threatens to become the car industry’s LIBOR moment,” Stuart Pearson, an analyst at Exane BNP Paribas, told the Financial Times, referring to the massive financial scam uncovered among London banks in 2012.
Adding to the speculation, the Guardian reported Tuesday:
Meanwhile, the UK’s Telegraph declared on Tuesday: “Every major car manufacturer is selling diesel cars that fail to meet EU air pollution limits, according to a report released this month.”
The Telegraph continued:
There is no shortage of U.S. stakeholders looking into the corporate malfeasance. In addition to the EPA and California’s Air Resources Board, the U.S. Congress is also investigating the debacle. New York and other state attorneys general are forming a group to probe the scandal, a spokesman for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said.
And the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ)—which recently restated its intent to hold white collar criminals accountable—has reportedly taken the preliminary steps to open a criminal investigation into VW.
In a statement on Tuesday, consumer watchdog group Public Citizen called on the DOJ to follow through on its promises.
Click Here: Cardiff Blues Store
“Justice demands a sharp break from the kid-glove, coddling treatment that the U.S. Department of Justice has shown to corporate criminals over the past decade,” said Public Citizen president Robert Weissman. “Assuming the allegations are true, this is a premeditated, intentional act designed to circumvent the law, with callous disregard for the fact that the vehicles were poisoning people and the planet in the process.”
“Volkswagen must be made to plead guilty for its crimes with no deferred prosecution agreement, regardless of whatever cooperation it now provides,” he continued. “Individuals inside Volkswagen must be prosecuted and should be sent to jail.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
The battle for the Democratic presidential nomination hit a new gear—though it may have ended for some—on Tuesday night as the party’s five candidates seeking the nation’s highest office squared off in their first televised debate from Las Vegas.
Brought to viewers by CNN and Facebook, the debate featured memorable back-and-forths on key issues as the two current frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, discussed such issues as the role that “casino capitalism” has played in wrecking the middle class, the importance of fighting climate change, the scourge of gun violence that grips the country, the failures of U.S. foreign policy in recent years, pervasive racial disparities throughout the criminal justice system, and others.
Sanders was widely given credit for upholding his pledge not to go on the attack against his rivals and even went so far as to defend Clinton against the so far unshakeable questions related to her use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State. “Let me say something that may not be great politics,” Sanders said. “But I think [Clinton] is right. And that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails!”
In response, Clinton reached out and shook Sanders hand in thanks, but Sanders wasn’t quite done. “And let me say something about the media as well. I go around this country and talk to a whole lot of people,” he continued. “The middle class in this country is collapsing. We have 27 million people living in poverty. We have massive wealth and income inequality. Our trade policies have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. The American people want to know whether we’re going to have a democracy or an oligarchy as a result of Citizens United. Enough of the emails, let’s talk about the real issues facing America.”
The interchange resulted in some of the loudest applause for the evening.
According to The Nation‘s D.D. Guttenplan, “What was interesting about that moment was that, although they were all clapping together, the Sanders and Clinton supporters were clapping for different reasons. The Clinton people perceived, rightly, that by the terms of the typical gotcha score-keeping that we have gotten accustomed to, Sanders had just handed his opponent a great gift. What the Sanders people saw was their candidate showing, in the starkest possible terms, his disdain for that kind of politics.”
Clinton, however, did not miss an opportunity—when presented with it—to go after Sanders on an issue perceived as a weakness when it comes to his progressive base of supporters: gun control. When asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper if the Senator from Vermont’s position on guns was strong enough, Clinton didn’t miss a beat and declared, “No. Not at all.”
Though the more than two-hour-long debate covered a variety of vital issues issues, as well as a few trivial ones, what was most striking about seeing the Democratic candidates all one stage together, according to the Campaign for America’s Dave Johnson, was the stark contrast of watching the Democratic candidates compared to recent Republican debates. As Johnson writes in an early-morning post on Wednesday:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
While tensions between the Israeli army and youth protesters neared an apparent breaking point, thousands of protesters rallied outside the Israeli embassy in London on Saturday to declare solidarity with Palestinians amid this “escalating attack” on their rights and lives.
The London demonstration, which is one of over 60 actions scheduled this week, comes amid new reports of three Palestinian teens shot dead after allegedly attempting to stab an Israeli settler and Israeli border police.
“Palestinians are living under a brutal military occupation,” declared the London protest organizers, citing the uptick in violence this month following new controversial policies surrounding the al-Aqsa mosque and the recent order for Israeli citizens to arm themselves against Palestinians. Forty Palestinians and seven Israelis have been killed since the beginning of the month.
The statement continues:
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Atheist, religious and non-religious people all stand together on this protest,” organizers note, making a point to condemn racism in “any form.”
The protests come days after the Israeli government enacted a series of harsh policies in occupied East Jerusalem, including increased checkpoints and other punitive measure, that particularly targeted Palestinian youth and protesters.
Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership
RT has this live stream of the London action while other large demonstrations were reported in Sydney, Australia on Saturday and San Francisco, California on Friday evening.
Meanwhile, other updates are available on Twitter.
Tweets about #SolidarityWaveBDS OR #palestine
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
As President Obama spoke Tuesday to an international conference of police chiefs and the nation reeled from the latest incident of police violence gone viral, FBI director James Comey has come under renewed fire for further driving a wedge between law enforcement and the communities they are supposed to serve.
Comey on Friday and again Monday repeated the assertion that the unrest, protests, and increased scrutiny on police following the recent killings of black civilians was driving a spike in violent crime, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the “Ferguson effect.”
“In today’s YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns?” he asked in his Friday remarks at the University of Chicago Law School. “I don’t know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior.”
The White House swiftly rebuffed these claims. And Comey’s stance was flipped on its head a day later when a police officer’s attack on a black female student drew national outrage after a number of cell phone videos of the incident went viral.
Author and Atlantic columnist Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote Tuesday that Comey’s own admission that his comments were not based on fact is part of a legacy of “creationist-style crime control” which has taken “a special and discriminating interest in black communities.” Coates cites a number of historic myths about black criminals: “‘they’re raping our women’ to ‘negro cocaine fiends,’ to ‘crack babies,’…and now to ‘the Ferguson Effect.'”
Coates added that Comey’s reasoning has dangerous implications that extend beyond the black community. “A theory of government which tells citizens to invest agents of the state with the power to mete out lethal violence, but discourages them from holding those officers accountable is not democracy,” he writes. “It is fascism.”
An editorial published Monday in the Baltimore Sun—a city which was also rocked with protests following the police killing of Freddie Gray—rebuked Comey’s “Ferguson effect” claim, noting “the theory is a damaging one to advance, as it only underscores the disconnect between police and the communities they are supposed to serve.”
Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Further, the Sun argues that saying police are subdued by the threat of a viral video “suggests officers have no idea about what has brought us to this point,” and are thus even further detached from the civilian population.
“The issue is not officers doing their jobs in an energetic, proactive way,” the editorial states. “The issue is the use of force when it’s not needed, the violation of civil rights and the general dehumanization of people who live in high crime areas, usually African Americans.”
Against this backdrop, President Obama on Tuesday gave an address to the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Chicago during which he told the officers that they can’t “cherry-pick” crime data, in what appeared to be a reference to Comey’s claims.
“We do have to stick with the facts,” the president said. “What we can’t do is cherry-pick data or use anecdotal evidence to drive policy.” He added that violent crime rates this year appeared to be nearly as low as last year.
The president also attempted to strike a tone of appreciation and common ground with the assembled officers, saying the broader social inequities and failures within the justice system should not be left for police to bear alone.
“Too often, law enforcement gets scapegoated for the broader failures of our society and criminal justice system,” Obama stated in his prepared remarks.
“I know that you do your jobs with distinction no matter the challenges you face. That’s part of wearing the badge,” he continued. “But we can’t expect you to contain and control problems that the rest of us aren’t willing to face or do anything about.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.