Nottingham Forest knocked Premier League Newcastle out of the Carabao Cup for the second consecutive season after a dramatic finale.

Championship outfit Forest took the lead in the second minute when former Newcastle striker Daryl Murphy nodded in Sam Byram’s cross from close range.

Newcastle equalised in the second of six minutes of injury time when Salomon Rondon angled in a powerful low shot.

But two minutes later Matty Cash fired home before Gil Dias’ late chip.

Forest met Newcastle at the same stage of competition last season and claimed a thrilling 3-2 victory at St James’ Park.

The conclusion to this match was just as enthralling as Forest deservedly secured their place in the third round.

Aitor Karanka’s side had taken the lead when on-loan West Ham full-back Byram crossed for Murphy at the near post.

Murphy, who scored six times in 18 appearances in all competitions for Newcastle, escaped his marker and glanced a header past Newcastle goalkeeper Karl Darlow.

Murphy almost had a second five minutes into the second half when Darlow fumbled a shot from Dias, only for Federico Fernandez to make a brilliant last-ditch block.

Darlow, a former Forest player, made a crucial save just after the hour mark when he pawed away an audacious chip from Joao Carvalho.

Forest seems to be cruising to the finish only for substitute Rondon to equalise with clinical finish – Newcastle’s only attempt on target in the match – after a clever pass from Ayoze Perez.

However, Forest hit back when Darlow parried Dias’ shot and Cash arrived in the penalty area to slide the ball home.

Newcastle then had claim for a penalty when Luke Steele grappled with Perez inside the box but referee Jeremy Simpson waved play on.

The impressive Dias then caught Newcastle on the counter and superbly chipped Darlow to seal the victory.

A meteor seared over Australia on Tuesday night, lighting up the sky over Perth. 

According to the ABC, the local Department of Fire and Emergency Services received calls from “more than one concerned caller” who thought the meteor could be a UFO.

The meteor’s fiery descent was captured on several dash cams. 

CCTV footage shows how bright the meteor was — in the clips in this broadcast, it illuminates the entire frame. 

Perth residents weren’t sure if they actually saw the meteor’s fall on Tuesday. @goralphy thought he was caught speeding by a traffic camera.

Others took the opportunity to roast the city.  

As Lisa Barnes points out, if the meteor managed to make it to land, you probably shouldn’t grab souvenirs. Remnants belong to the state and any discoveries should be reported to Gravity Discovery Centre. 

Finding actual pieces of meteor is questionable — according to Professor Phil Bland, director of the Desert Fireball Network which studies the fallen space rocks, only about 2 to 3 percent of visible meteors make it to the ground. 

But Bland is hopeful. He told ABC that considering how bright it appears on camera, the object must have been large. Larger meteors have a greater chance of making it through Earth’s atmosphere intact. 

“So that is really exciting,” he said. 

ABC reports that the Desert Fireball Network should be able to pinpoint where the meteor landed by the end of the day. 

US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has suggested the right of return for Palestinian refugees could be removed from any eventual peace settlement with Israel.

Speaking at an event on Tuesday with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington DC-based neoconservative think-tank with pro-Israeli sympathies, Haley was asked whether she agreed with taking the right of return off the table.

“I think we have to look at this in terms of what’s happening [with refugees] in Syria, what’s happening in Venezuela,” she said.

“So I absolutely think we have to look at the right of return.”

Palestinians view the right of return, along with the end of the Israeli occupation, as one of the basic tenants in achieving a peace deal with Israel.

Haley also accused the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) of exaggerating the number of Palestinian refugees it currently provides aid to and services for.

“We will be a donor if it [UNRWA] reforms what it does … if they actually change the number of refugees to an accurate account, we will look back at partnering them,” Haley said.

‘Starvation and distress’

There are more than five million Palestinian refugees in the occupied territories and surrounding countries of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

The majority are descendants of the 700,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed from their villages, towns and cities by Zionist paramilitaries in 1947-1948.

In response to the refugee crisis, UNRWA was created the following year under UN Resolution 302, which stated its mandate to “prevent conditions of starvation and distress … and to further conditions of peace and stability”.

Since its inception, UNRWA has worked with governments on interim measures in anticipation of a “just resolution” to the Palestinian refugee question.

Adnan Abu Hasna, spokesman for UNRWA in Gaza, said the issue of refugees is political by nature.

“Because of this, it falls upon the international community to come up with a political solution,” he told Al Jazeera, adding this has nothing to do with a particular vision.

“We serve the Palestinian refugees until the Palestinian issue is resolved,” he said. “We execute what the resolution mandates. Once resolved, there is no need for UNRWA to exist.”

UNRWA cuts and refugee review

In January, the United States cut $300m out of $350m in funding for UNRWA, which forced the UN body to slash jobs and scale back its operations, much to the consternation of Palestinian employees and those who rely on its services.

Half a million Palestinian students in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip went back to the 692 schools operated by the UNRWA on Wednesday, but the agency said it only has enough money keep the them open until September.

Al Jazeera’s Harry Fawcett said Israeli media has reported the US is intending to go further by restricting the definition of Palestine refugees to only those who were forcibly displaced in 1948.

“They’re restricting the number from more than five million to 500,000, and indeed permanently cutting off all US funding to the UN agency,” Fawcett said, reporting from West Jerusalem.

“It is something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long argued for, both the restriction of the definition of Palestine refugees and also the disbandment of UNRWA entirely,” he said, noting the agency provides food aid to more than one million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Security implications

The Donald Trump administration has made no secret of its hostile view of UNRWA. In emails leaked to Foreign Policy magazine earlier this month, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, described the agency in January as “corrupt, inefficient, and doesn’t help peace”.

During his visit to Jordan last June, Kushner reportedly pushed for the refugee status of the two million Palestinians registered in the country to be dissolved.

According to Fawcett, some Israeli military and security officials are worried about the repercussions of the moves.

“They have been telling the Israeli media that they are concerned about preventing UNRWA from operating because of the security implications that could have,” he said.

“So there is by no means a total acceptance of this plan in the Israeli establishment.”

WASHINGTON – The guilty plea by Donald Trump’s former lawyer to campaign-finance and other charges raises serious questions about the president’s behavior, a majority of Americans say in a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll.

Nearly two-thirds say the president should agree to be interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Those surveyed express significantly higher levels of trust in Mueller’s rectitude than in Trump’s denials that his campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election. The poll of 1,000 registered voters was taken Thursday through Tuesday, after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign-finance law and other charges and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of tax evasion and financial crimes.

The findings underscore the perils for the president as the special counsel moves from an investigation that has been conducted largely behind closed doors to one playing out in the drama of the courtroom. 

“It’s ludicrous that Trump continues to write the tweets that question Mueller’s integrity,” says Richard Dean, 71, a political independent. The retired engineer from Gadsden, Alabama, was among those called in the poll.

“From everything I’ve read, they’ve proven that there were certainly Russian meddling and hacking and hacking attempts, and why Trump won’t admit that is ridiculous,” Dean said. “In my mind, I suspect and I think they’re about to prove that there was certainly collusion.” 

Fifty-five percent say they have a lot or some trust in Mueller’s investigation to be fair and accurate. Thirty-five percent say they have a lot or some trust in Trump’s denials of collusion. The telephone survey has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points. 

Mueller, a longtime Republican who led the FBI under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, was appointed in May 2017 by the Justice Department to lead the Russia inquiry after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. Trump has denied wrongdoing and labeled the inquiry a “witch hunt.” 

Approval rating slips, but not with party faithful

The president’s approval rating edged down to 40 percent, 3 points lower than in the USA TODAY/Suffolk survey taken in June. He retains the approval of a solid 89 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters. Fifty-six percent overall disapprove of the job he is doing as president.

Gregory Bailey, 58, dispatcher and driver for an auto parts company in Oklahoma City, is among the Republican faithful, calling Mueller “corrupt” and his inquiry “a farce.” He echoes some of the arguments Trump has made on Twitter against the investigation. Mueller “only hired Democrats for the investigation,” Bailey says. “It doesn’t take a year and a half to find something on Russian collusion, and collusion is not even a crime.”

Most Americans are prepared to be patient: 55 percent say the special counsel should take all the time he needs to finish the investigation, even if it continues into next year; 40 percent say he should wrap it up within weeks, as Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani has argued.

By 63 percent to 27 percent, those polled say Trump should agree to be interviewed by Mueller. That includes nearly a third of Republicans.

Nation split on question of impeachment

The nation is split on whether the House of Representatives should consider impeaching the president, based on what the voters know: 44 percent say yes, 47 percent say no.

“The man stood up in front of the entire world and said to the Russian government, to Putin, that he should look into Hillary Clinton’s email,” says Bonni Davis, 61, an attorney from New York City who is a Democrat. At a campaign news conference July 27, 2016, Trump encouraged “Russia, if you’re listening,” to try to find missing Clinton emails; an indictment released last month by the special counsel reported that Russian officials began to target Clinton-related email accounts “on or around” that same day.

In Davis’ view, there is enough evidence for Congress to act. “That was beyond disgraceful,” she says. “The fact that Russia meddled is beyond question. The fact that Trump supported Putin is beyond question, and that’s not appropriate behavior for a president.” She calls his actions “a threat to our democracy.”

Carol Schmock, 63, a Republican and retired customer service representative from Auberry, California, sees more wrongdoing by former President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Clinton than by Trump, an allegation the president repeatedly has made.

“He hasn’t done anything worth impeachment,” she says. “He’s actually a very good president.” She ticks off his initiatives on immigration, North Korea and veterans’ affairs. “It’s just like he’s magic, in a way.”

There is, predictably, a sharp partisan divide on the question of impeachment. Even so, 9% of Republicans say the House should consider impeaching the president, and 18% of Democrats say it shouldn’t. Among independents, 47% support impeachment; 40% oppose.

Some take a wait-and-see attitude.

“Mueller needs to finish his investigation, and whatever he finds, the public should be made aware and then make the decision from there,” says Keith Walker, 59, a political independent and retired educator from Dover, Delaware. 

“For me, it would take actually being shown that he did a crime, especially on the Russian part of it,” says Melinda Strain, 50, a Democrat from Harrisburg, Missouri. “Morally, I think he’s done a bunch of things that are wrong, but they aren’t necessarily illegal.”

What about the swamp?

Fewer than one in four of those surveyed, 23 percent, say Trump has delivered on his campaign promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington. A 57 percent majority, including nearly one in five Republicans, say “the swamp” has gotten worse during his administration.

The Manafort and Cohen cases reinforce the dyspeptic view of some toward the ethics of Washington in general and the president in particular.

“It’s solid evidence of the person he is and the people he’s surrounded himself with,” says Benjamin Jones, 21, an independent who works in retail sales in Queens, New York. “This is real evidence that he is scandalous.”

The turmoil over the Russia investigation may help explain a disparity in Americans’ attitudes about the state of the nation. While nearly six in 10 say the economy is in a recovery, only one-third say the country is headed in the right direction. 

More: Poll: Pardon me? Most say Trump should be impeached if he pardons himself

More: Poll: Voters vow to elect a Congress that stands up to Trump

 

 

 

 

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2PNu15e

Seemingly from the very first moments of #MeToo, survivors and women were made to answer the same questions, over and over and over again, always asked with an air of accusation.

How long must an accused abuser suffer? What does redemption look like for them? What is the correct punishment? How much time is enough? What does an accused abuser need to do to redeem themselves?

The answers to those questions, which many women gave in abundance, appear to have been irrelevant.

Though it is not our jobs to do the emotional labor of fixing the problems abusers created — though we would rather have focused on what redemption looks like for those who suffered the abuse — we did it anyway.

We answered your questions, even when it wasn’t always clear they were being asked in good faith. We told abusers exactly what not to do, how to apologize better, and gave actionable steps they could take to begin the process of atoning for misconduct and maybe earning back our trust.

They did not listen. They ignored our advice. They made no effort at atonement.

Instead, what it looks like they did was fuck all of nothing, bided their time, planned their return, and most insidiously, distorted allyship into a defense of continued abuse. And the prevailing questions these abusers and their apologists still seem to be asking is: Wasn’t that enough?

No. It sure was not. But that doesn’t seem to matter to them anyway.

Image: Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images

To the surprise of no one, the Fuck All strategy worked flawlessly for Louis C.K. 

Less than a year after the comedian admitted to sexual misconduct against several women in comedy (some of whom left the field because of his actions), his comeback is underway.

On Sunday night, Aug. 26, C.K. made his triumphant return to stand-up at the Comedy Cellar with a fifteen-minute set that failed to even mention his misconduct. He was rewarded with a standing ovation for bravely ignoring everything and doing the same old shit. 

So I guess this is how an abuser is redeemed: Not with the whimper of even a half-hearted attempt at reconciliation, but with the bang of thunderous applause.

This is how an abuser is redeemed: Not with the whimper of even half-hearted attempts at reconciliation, but with the bang of thunderous applause.

As if that wasn’t insult enough to the comedians who Louis C.K. harmed, his heroic apologists have started coming forward to show how little they, too, have bothered to learn, listen, or care over the past year.

“OMG! Can you believe that guy went on with his life?! Yes, I can,” SNL cast member Michael Che wrote on his Instagram account.

Che lamented that the comedian who pulled out his penis in front of unsuspecting women and ruined many of their careers in the process had been “shamed, humiliated, [lost] millions of dollars, [lost] all of his projects, [lost] the respect of a lot of his fans and peers, and whatever else that comes with what he did.”

Further expressing his sympathies for millionaires who actually experience consequences for their actions, Che continued, “Just because it looks to you like someone is ‘getting off easy’ cause they still have the perks you would kill to have, doesn’t make it so.”

To finish, Che said, “I don’t know any of his accusers. I don’t know what he’s done to right that situation, and it’s none of my business. But I do believe any free person has a right to speak and make a living.”

To be clear, we’re not questioning Louis C.K.’s legal right to attempt a comeback, or speak, or earn a living. That’s a conversation seemingly of Che’s own invention, and an effective way to belittle and delegitimize the actual conversation we’re trying to have about this.

No, what we’re demanding is answers to questions like: What has Louis C.K. done to earn our trust back? What has he done to deserve a comeback? How has he worked to correct the situation he created for himself and the women he abused?

Comedian Michael Ian Black also valiantly declared he’d take the heat for applauding Louis for trying to move on after serving his time.

Let’s make something else clear: Louis C.K. served no time. No one was calling to put him in prison, though it’s worth noting that what he admitted to can arguably fall under the umbrella of indecent exposure — which is, in fact, a crime men who aren’t famous comedians do go to jail for.

No one’s rallying around the rights of those offenders to get a second chance, though.

Louis C.K. temporarily put his career on hold. And frankly, it’s the women of comedy who lived in fear of working with him and had their careers affected by his actions who “did their time” by putting up with his presence in their community in the first place. They are the ones who should be allowed to move on with their lives, without him.

Black followed up his tweets expressing joy at an abusers return to the field with a blog post. Under the declarative headline, “The Way Back,” a man in comedy offered a guide to asking questions that women have already been asking and answering for months now about letting abusers come back.

Once again seeming to not bother asking or even considering the experience of the women C.K. abused, Black deemed C.K.’s misconduct “somewhere in the middle” on the “scale of horribleness.” 

Because, you know, that’s totally his place to determine. 

Presumably lacking access to Google any of the endless thinkpieces and Twitter threads of women discussing these exact topics in granular detail, Black went back to those same old questions:    

No matter what happens from this point forward, each of these men will wear always their scarlet letter. Is that enough, or do we need more? Do we need a better public apology than the one Louis offered? Rehab? Reparations of some sort?

Offering no answers, he continued with more strawman questions already asked by the likes of Matt Damon, Bill Burr, Bryan Cranston, Woody Allen, and countless others:

 But what is the right way [to find redemption]? Maybe you think it’s too soon. When is it long enough? What is the correct penance? What is the way forward? At what point do we show some grace? What do we need for somebody to come back in from the cold and find a little warmth?

It is the privilege of men like Black and Che to not have been part of the on-going conversation where women and survivors litigated these questions. It is the privilege of men like Black and Che to consider Louis C.K.’s return with the distant indifference of men who won’t have to worry about whether his comeback will mean a retaliation against the women who spoke out against him.

It is the privilege of men like Black and Che to give Louis C.K. the benefit of the doubt. And it is the privilege of men like Black and Che to ask these questions without considering the harm they do to the abused and #MeToo movement overall.

But those of us who’ve actually been paying attention to what’s happening do not have the luxury of giving admitted serial abusers our trust and sympathy without question. Because those of us who have been victims to this kind of systemic abuse know better than to assume the consequences will stick.

Did the standing ovation he received not offer a hint at how they won’t? 

While the cries for redemption and forgiveness have grown louder by the day over the past year, we’re still waiting for even a single modicum of evidence that abusers like C.K. and their apologists have learned a goddamn thing.

In fact, we’ve only seen evidence to the contrary.

Instead, we just recently saw CBS boss Les Moonves, who was a vocal champion of the #MeToo movement, get ousted in a New York Times expose — revealing his allyship to be a preemptive defense against his own litany of allegations for enacting and protecting abuses of power in his company. 

Moonves has yet to suffer a single consequence for the mountain of allegations against him.

Again, none of us are surprised that Louis C.K. is trying to come back, and being welcomed with open arms by audiences. And most of us aren’t even arguing that there should never be a way back for certain people who have made mistakes.

What’s more devastating is the unbelievably low bar that has been set for abusive men, who apparently need to do literally nothing to earn back their spot. And amid the endless pleas for us to consider the rights of abusers, none of these apologists have bothering thinking about the rights of the women who risked their careers, reputations, and wellbeing for speaking out against them.

The odd thing is that the person I’m least upset with right now is Louis C.K. It is far more depressing to watch his apologists (Black, by the way, claims his concern for C.K. is actually a concern for the #MeToo movement) prove their inability to comprehend any of what we’ve been fighting for.

Asking rhetorical questions that are all in essence, “Hasn’t he suffered enough?” is only invite the answer of, “Yes, he has.”

What C.K.’s apologists have effectively done is infect the conversations about what to do with abusers by asking questions that do nothing but sow doubt in a public that’s already shown to be more than willing to forgive and forget.

What Che and Black have done by asking rhetorical questions that are all in essence, “Hasn’t he suffered enough?” is only invite the answer of, “Yes, he has. Let him come back.”  

Meanwhile, those questions leave no room to ask if the women he abused and made unlivable working conditions for feel like they’ve healed enough. 

Even then, the onus of reconciliation is not on them. But the total lack of public consideration for them goes to show how ineffective the conversations around #MeToo have been. 

We don’t care how much Louis C.K. has suffered or not. We are not interested in abusers’ suffering. We are demanding change, not blood. We are crying out to be heard, not screaming for execution. 

And the god’s honest, awful truth is that, more and more, it’s starting to look like we won’t be heard. It won’t change.

Because apparently, abusers don’t even need to seek redemption before getting a standing ovation. So why did we even waste our breath telling them how to earn the right to come back? Why would we waste any more of our time trying to explain it again, and again, and again, and again if it always falls on deaf ears? 

Why did we even waste our breath telling them how  to earn the right to come back? Why would we waste any more of our time trying to explain it again? 

Abusers and their apologists do not seem to be interested in listening. Their lip service to those concerns appears to be a roundabout way of reaffirming the status quo. Because whether their intentions were good or bad, the only thing Louis C.K.’s apologists have succeeded in doing is raising the question of whether our culture needs to change at all. 

We are tired of working overtime to answer the questions that they will never seem to understand. We are tired of trying to convince them that victim’s lives and wellbeing matter more than their abusers.

Does Louis C.K. deserve a comeback? Who cares. He’ll get one anyway.

Skulls and other remains of massacred tribespeople used in colonial-era experiments to push claims of European racial superiority were handed over by Germany to Namibia at a church ceremony in Berlin on Wednesday.

In what historians call the first genocide of the 20th century, soldiers of German Kaiser Wilhelm slaughtered some 65,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama tribespeople in a 1904-1908 campaign in retaliation for a revolt against land seizures by German colonists.

Herero chief Vekuii Rukoro said the handover ceremony on Wednesday should have taken place not in a Berlin church, but a German government building.

He also accused Germany of taking too long to formally apologise for what is often called the first genocide of the 20th century.

“By trying not to acknowledge the past, the German government will continue to make serious mistakes as regards present and future policies,” Rukoro told the church audience, which included government officials from both countries.

“We are after all the direct descendants of these remains and we should not be ignored.”

“By trying not to acknowledge the past, the German government will continue to make serious mistakes as regards present and future policies.”

Vekuii Rukoro, the chief of Herero people

A Namibian delegation formally received the remains, including 19 skulls, a scalp and bones, during the church ceremony.

Michelle Muentefering, a minister of state for international cultural policies in the German foreign ministry, asked “for forgiveness from the bottom of my heart” as she handed over the remains to Namibia’s culture minister.

Several Herero women in traditional, cow-horn shaped headdress wiped away tears during the at times emotional proceedings.

“May the remains of our ancestors finally go home to Namibia in peace. May they return to the dust from which they came. May justice be done and faith in humanity be restored,” said Johannes Isaack, Nama chief.

Outside the venue, some two dozen protesters held up signs that read: “Repatriation without an official apology?” and “Reparations Now!”.

The German government announced in 2016 that it planned to issue an official apology for the atrocities committed by German imperial troops.

But it remains locked in talks with the Namibian government on a joint declaration on the massacres.

It has also refused to pay direct reparations, arguing instead that German development aid worth hundreds of millions of euros since Namibia’s independence from South Africa in 1990 was “for the benefit of all Namibians”.

Class-action lawsuit

Angered by Berlin’s stance, representatives of the Herero and Nama tribes have filed a class-action lawsuit in a US court demanding reparations.

They also want a seat at the table in the discussions between the German and Namibian governments.

“They are still negotiating on an appropriate text … for an apology. That’s a big joke,” Rukoro said during the service, wearing a red, military-style dress uniform.

He accused both countries of trying to sideline him and others in the handover proceedings, saying he had been told in advance “not to embarrass the two governments”.

 Rukoro also blasted the decision to hold the ceremony at the French Church in Berlin.

“We don’t believe that it is bigger and more dignified than all the government buildings of the federal government in Berlin,” he said.

Rukoro and Isaack are both plaintiffs in the US lawsuit.

The New York judge in the case has yet to rule on whether to hear the suit, which Germany wants thrown out on the grounds of state immunity from prosecution.

‘Extermination order’

Incensed by German settlers stealing their land, women and cattle, the Herero revolted in 1904 and killed more than 100 German civilians over several days. The Nama people joined the uprising in 1905.

Determined to crush the rebellion, General Lothar von Trotha signed an “extermination order” that would lead to the deaths of about 60,000 Herero and 10,000 Nama people.

Many were murdered by German imperial troops while others, driven into the desert or rounded up in prison camps, died from thirst, hunger and exposure.

Dozens were beheaded after their deaths, their skulls sent to researchers in Germany for discredited “scientific” experiments that purported to prove the racial superiority of white Europeans.

In some instances, captured Herero women were made to boil the decapitated heads and scrape them clean with shards of glass.

Research carried out by German professor Eugen Fischer on the skulls and bones resulted in theories later used by the Nazis to justify the murder of Jews.

Germany has previously repatriated human remains to Namibia in 2011 and 2014.

The remains, many of which were stored on dusty shelves in universities and clinics, were “often stolen … brought to Germany without respect for human dignity”, according to the German foreign ministry.

Ireland beat Afghanistan by three wickets in the second ODI at Stormont to set up a series decider on Friday.

Middlesex seam bowler Tim Murtagh took four wickets for the second game in a row as the Afghans were restricted to 182-9 off 50 overs.

Najibullah Zadran top-scored for the tourists with 42 off 52 balls.

A second-wicket partnership of 68 between Andrew Balbirnie (60) and Paul Stirling (39) helped Ireland to 183-7 with 37 balls to spare.

Afghanistan, playing their 100th one-day international, had won the first of the three ODI matches in Belfast by 29 runs on Monday, having also come out on top 2-0 in last week’s Twenty20 series against the Irish at Bready.

Murtagh followed up his figures of 4-31 in Monday’s contest by taking 4-30 on Wednesday, including the wickets of the top three in the Afghanistan batting order.

Mohammad Shahzad was lbw for a duck to the second ball of the innings and was quickly followed to the pavilion by Hazrat Zazai, bowled having scored a single run, and Gulbadin Naib, lbw for seven.

When Hashmatullah Shahidi was run out by Balbirnie, Afghanistan were 16-4 but rallied with the help of Zadran’s quick-fire innings, along with 39 from captain Ashgar Afghan and 32 from Rahmat Shah.

Peter Chase, Kevin O’Brien and Simi Singh took one wicket apiece.

Captain William Porterfield fell to the fourth ball of the Ireland innings but Balbirnie and Stirling’s partnership helped see their side home despite the efforts of spinner Rashid Khan (3-37) and Mohammad Nabi (2-38).

Simi Singh ended unbeaten on 36, with Murtagh on four, scoring the winning runs.