Ugg Australia Uk,Cheap Ugg boots Uk,Ugg Australia Sale Uk

Sheffield United have signed Sunderland midfielder Andy Reid on loan until the end of November.

The 28-year-old Republic of Ireland international is in line to make his debut for the Blades in Saturday’s home game against Coventry City.

“It’s a big boost to have him here for a month,” United manager Gary Speed told the club’s website.

“He is of undoubted Premier League quality and therefore a good addition to the squad.”

The former Tottenham Hotspur and Nottingham Forest player joined the Black Cats from Charlton Athletic for £4m in January 2008.

Recently he has been hampered by a hamstring injury and has made just three appearances for Steve Bruce’s side this season.

Kidderminster fought back from 2-0 down to earn a draw at Southport as both teams finished with 10 men.

Chris Simm put the home side ahead with a 20-yard drive and Robert Marsh-Evans headed a second before half-time.

Lee Morris pulled a goal back for the Harriers with a close-range header before Southport’s Tony McMillan was sent off for a professional foul.

Chris McPhee scored the resulting penalty for Kidderminster, who then had Jack Byrne dismissed for a bad tackle.

——————————————————————————–

Southport: McMillan, Lever, Flynn, Davis, Marsh-Evans (Tony Gray 84), Barratt, Lee, Powell, McGinn, McNeil, Simm (Dickinson 57).
Subs Not Used: Daly, Williams, Blakeman.

Sent Off: McMillan (55).

Booked: Lee, McGinn.

Goals: Simm 17, Marsh-Evans 40.

Kidderminster: Lewis, Vaughan, Briscoe, Albrighton, Mike Williams, Blair (Morris 46), Shaw (Hankin 46), Byrne, Gittings, McPhee, Marc Williams.
Subs Not Used: Stevens, Wright, Sharpe.

Sent Off: Byrne (79).

Booked: Morris.

Goals: Morris 52, McPhee 58 pen.

Att: 1,447

Ref: D Mohareb (Cheshire).

Referee Dougie McDonald has been warned by the Scottish Football Association for failing to clearly explain why he changed his mind in giving a penalty.

An SFA probe decided that McDonald had been correct to rescind the award for Celtic against Dundee United.

But it said that he did not make it clear in his post-match report that the decision was his – and not one heavily influenced by assistant Steven Craven.

Craven later resigned feeling he was made a scapegoat in the controversy.

McDonald’s decision angered Celtic, while Dundee United were also critical of the referee’s general performance in the match won 2-1 by the Glasgow side.

SFA chief executive Stewart Regan said: “Following Steven Craven’s resignation and the circumstances surrounding the overturning of the penalty decision in the match, it was important to thoroughly investigate the matter.

Click to play
Click to play

Ref post-match comments unclear – Regan
“I am satisfied with the outcome of today’s meeting and the clarity of the findings.”

Regan had spoken to the match referee, Dougie McDonald, his assistant, Steven Craven, Hugh Dallas, the head of referee development, and Jim McBurney, the referee observer as part of the investigation.

“The committee reached a unanimous view that the overturning of the original decision was correct,” said the SFA in a statement.

“The match referee, Dougie McDonald, was present at today’s meeting and admitted that, after having blown for an infringement, he immediately realised that he may have made an error.

“As is appropriate in these circumstances, Dougie, unprompted, decided to approach the assistant referee, Steven Craven, who had assumed the required position for the taking of the penalty.

“Dougie then asked Steven if he had seen the Dundee United goalkeeper, Dusan Pernis, touch the ball first and Steven confirmed that, in his opinion, the goalkeeper had.

“Dougie then communicated to the players that he had made a mistake and restarted the game with a drop-ball, as per the Laws of the Game.”

However, the report stresses that McDonald had been warned over his explanation of the decision.

“In addition, the investigation identified that the post-match administrative process was not completed to the expected standard,” says the SFA.

“The committee agreed with this point and Dougie has accepted his responsibility in this regard.

Click to play
Click to play

Ledley sanguine over ref controversy
“It should also be noted that, while Dougie ultimately arrived at the correct decision during the match, he was marked down for the error in awarding a penalty in the first instance in the observer’s report.”

Celtic have also written to the SFA seeking clarification over referee Willie Collum’s decision to award Rangers a penalty against Celtic in Sunday’s Old Firm match, which Rangers won 3-1.

The furore caused by those decisions has led to much debate about refereeing in Scotland, with Collum revealing that he had received phone threats at his home.

Former referee Stuart Dougal this week called for a charter to be drawn up to broker a peace deal between officials, clubs, managers and players – and Scottish Senior Football Referees’ Association chairman Martin Cryans hinted that such action could be taken.

“The pressure placed on referees has intensified in this country in recent years and the last few weeks have highlighted the immense strain placed on our top officials and their families,” said Cryans.

“The aim now for the SSFRA is to work, in tandem with Stewart Regan, to help develop a respect initiative.”

A Celtic spokesman said that there will be “no comment at this stage” from the club.

However, speaking before the SFA statement, manager Neil Lennon said: “We want to draw a line under it.

“We are just looking for clarity and why it cost a linesman his job as well.

“I think we have a right to write letters in. I don’t make a fuss of referees, until two weeks ago.”

The sun will rise next Wednesday on a new American landscape, the same way it rose on a new American landscape almost exactly two years ago.

That was the dawn of Obama-time. Millions of Americans had dined delightedly on Obama’s rhetoric of dreams and preened at his homilies about the inherent moral greatness of the American people.

Obama and the Democrats triumphed at the polls. The pundits hailed a “tectonic shift” in our national politics, a registration of the fact that we had entered a “post-racial” era (a black Harvard prof coined that particular absurdity).

The realities of American politics don’t change much from year to year. The “politics of division” which Obama denounced are the faithful reflection of national divisions of wealth and resources which are wider today than they have been at any time since the late 1920s.

In fact the “dream” died even before Obama was elected in November 2008. Already in September that year Senator Obama, like his opponent, Senator McCain, had voted, at the behest of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (formerly of Goldman Sachs) and of Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, for the bailout of the banks. Whatever the election result, there was to be no change in the architecture of financial power in America.

Two events are scheduled for next Tuesday. If we are to believe the polls, the voters will install Republicans as the new majority in the House of Representatives. A longer shot – they may even win the Senate.

If that happens, Obama will be in exactly the situation that Bill Clinton found himself on November 9, 1994, the day after the Republicans won control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Also on Tuesday, chairman Bernanke and the Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Board will convene in Washington and decide on how much money to create – “quantitative easing” – and hand to the banks, in order to lift the country out of a Depression which has 30 million Americans either without a job, or working part-time. Their deliberations will be more consequential, at least in the short term, than the verdicts of the voters in the democratic contest.

The November 2 election will at least settle a simple question: will the Tea Party movement, as nutty a bunch as has diverted America since the Goldwater movement of 1964, have any sort of decisive political effect?

So far as the US Senate is concerned, the Tea Party has been the prime factor in keeping Democrats in certain states in any sort of contention.

Even though persuasive detective work has established that a couple of oil millionaires from Wichita, Kansas, the Koch brothers, have been sluicing money into Tea Party-related political organisations, one could make a convincing case that purely on the basis of cui bono – who stands to gain – the Democrats surely invented the Tea Party out of whole cloth.

If it wasn’t for bouncy Tea Party girl Christine O’Donnell, the Republicans would be counting victory in Delaware as a sure thing. But in a primary race, O’Donnell defeated the orthodox Republican and courtesy of her jaunty admission

More on November 2: Goodbye to the age of Obama

that she had once dabbled in Satanic practices – something this very religious nation takes as a serious disqualification for political office – she now lags far behind Democrat Chris Coons.

There are other states – Colorado, Utah and Kentucky – where Democrats may survive because of whacko performances by their Tea Party opponents.

If the Tea Party may yet save the Senate for the Democrats, in House races its candidates may have had the effect of juicing up Republican voters with their joie de vivre. Contrary to a thousand contemptuous diatribes by Democrats, the Tea Party is a genuine political movement, channeling the fury and frustration of a huge slab of white Americans running small businesses – what used to be called the petit-bourgeoisie.

Some Democrats may buck the tide. In California it looks very possible that next January Jerry Brown will shake Arnold Schwarzennegger’s hand and return to the job of governing California, a function he last exercised 27 years ago, in 1983.

If Brown prevails this will be a huge shot in the arm for those who believe that against all the evidence, American voters can appreciate a candidate who spends $100 million less than his opponent and spent most of the year keeping his mouth shut.

In 1995 Bill Clinton clawed himself out of the political grave by the politics of triangulation – outflanking the Republicans from the right, while retaining the loyalty of his progressive base. Can Obama display the same resourcefulness?

Obama will display similar flexibility. The President’s aides are already confiding that the White House will move right. The question is: will his liberal base tolerate their hero colluding with Republicans in seeking to destroy Social Security and Medicare in the interests of political survival. If that is the course Obama takes, look for a serious challenge to him from another Democrat, as we head towards 2012.

In the dark morning hours of Feb. 22, 2006, a group of unknown attackers detonated bombs in the northern Iraqi city of Samarra, bringing down the golden dome of a revered Shia Muslim shrine.

A few hours later, I drove through Baghdad and watched the country descend into civil war. Then the Baghdad bureau chief for The Washington Post, I drove with Iraqi and American colleagues to Sadr City, the sprawling slum on the outskirts of the city. We watched hundreds of black-clad religious militiamen, waving their AK 47s in the air and calling for revenge, in what would be the start to a campaign of sectarian killing and torture.

During visits to Baghdad’s morgue over the next two days, I saw Sunni families thronging to find _WalmartAd_the bodies of loved ones killed by the militias. The morgue’s computer registrar told the grim-faced families and me that we would have to be patient; the morgue had taken in more than 1,000 bodies since the Samarra bombing, and was way behind on processing corpses.

Here’s the thing, though: According to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commanders, it never happened. These killings, these dead, did not exist. According to them, reporters like myself were lying.

“The country is not awash in sectarian violence,” the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey said, on talk show after talk show, making the rounds to tell the American home-front not to worry. Civil war? “I don’t see it happening, certainly anytime in the near term,” he said, as he denied the surge in sectarian violence.

after the bombing of the Samarra mosque and had seen, not executed bodies in the streets but “a lot of bustle, a lot of economic activity. Store fronts crowded, goods stacked up on the street.”

Donald Rumsfeld held a news conference at the Pentagon to say that U.S. press reports of killings–such as mine that estimated 1,300 dead in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, based on what I had seen at the morgue, interviews with Sunni survivors, U.N. and Iraq health officials–were calculated “exaggerated reporting.” Iraqi security forces, , “were taking the lead in controlling the situation,” everything he assured his listeners was “calming.”

Here’s the thing, though: According to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commanders, it never happened. These killings, these dead, did not exist.

American journalists in Baghdad were under attack not just from Iraqi insurgents, but, at least verbally, from our own country’s civilian and military commanders as well.

After the mosque bombing, I had the twisting-in-the-wind experience of attending the weekly press briefings at the Green Zone–this war’s four o’ clock follies–and have the military spokesman insist that things were great, implying that the problem wasn’t the executed and mutilated bodies now found in the streets; the problem was people like me.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, though, I now know the extent to which top American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world, as the Iraq mission exploded.

The American troops, who were risking their lives on the ground, .

Heavily redacted, the log entries offer surreal but chilling glimpses of the chaos that followed the Samarra bombing on Feb. 22. Within hours of the bombing, U.S. troops reported gunmen attacking; open street fighting between Shia and Sunni militias; rocket-propelled grenade attacks on mosques; assassinations and kidnappings.

Later, one U.S. military patrol happens on militia members dumping bodies on the side of the street. The killers speed away, leaving the American soldiers with a grim discovery: “bodies shot in the face…still warm,” according to one log.

_WalmartAd_Iraq was not “calming,” as Rumsfeld would have it. Rather, this was sectarian war, and, over the next few months, the Bush administration’s effort to convince the world that everything was hunky-dory in Iraq became less and less sustainable as the slaughter continued. According to the synopsis of the WikiLeaks documents by The New York Times, the death toll in 2006 reached beyond 3,000 one month.

Late last year, I sat in on a seminar at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government led by a former Bush official in Iraq and heard her say matter-of-factly that more than 1,000 people died in one day in the immediate killing after the Samarra bombing.

But as the WikiLeaks documents show, Casey and Rumsfeld must have known that all along, owing to the accounts from their forces. Despite the statements of the top U.S. commanders at the time, it wasn’t the journalists in Baghdad who were lying.

Ellen Knickmeyer is a former Washington Post bureau chief in Baghdad and Cairo. Before coming to the Post, she was the West Africa bureau chief for The Associated Press. This year, she graduated from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

As the race to host the 2018 World Cup enters the final straight, the president of the Russian Football Union, Vyacheslav Koloskov, has slated the England bid team, branding them “absolutely primitive.”

He accused England officials of “raising tensions” by complaining to Fifa about comments from Russian bid leader Alexei Sorokin, who criticised London’s crime rate and under-age drinking problem.

Koloskov’s decision to get involved in the row has reportedly incensed the English bid team, who believe Russia is trying to goad them into an inflammatory retaliation that would go against Fifa regulations and damage their campaign.

Responding to England’s calls for an apology from Sorokin, Koloskov said: “It’s a comical situation. The English are afraid of how badly their bid is going. Their journalists are provoking members of the committee and they now say one member of our bidding team has spoken out against England in an improper manner.

“I think it’s a raising of tensions and also an attempt to in some way influence the work of our bidding team.”

Fifa rules ban bid teams from openly criticising one another, but Koloskov, who has spent time on both the Fifa and Uefa governing bodies, is not officially part of the Russia bid team. He is therefore allowed to voice his opinions and criticisms of the bids.

However, if England’s 2018 representatives responded they could fall foul of Fifa rules. But they are seething at what they regard as the latest provocation from Moscow after after Russian bid leader Alexei Sorokin stuck his oar in last week.

Not only did Sorokin attack London, a move which goes against Fifa rules, he then sent an apology letter for his transgression which lacked any actual form of apology.

“It wasn’t a formal apology because I don’t feel like I’ve broken any rules,” he said. “I just expressed my regret over the whole thing, it was just a misunderstanding. All of us in the Russian bid team have a great deal of respect for our English colleagues. I’d like to think they respect us as well. I hope we can put this matter to rest for good now.”