Confirmed Osmajic banned for 9 matches

[Guiness8741]

As someone who reads a lot of judgments it seems very well reasoned and seems to consider the evidence carefully. With no conclusive evidence they have looked at everything else (the reaction, the contemporaneous report etc). The character reference is useless for the offence and only relevant in the punishment (e.g not a racist man but found to have used a racist term).
As a club we need to weigh up his cultural heritage and decide what support he is given in terms of it’s unacceptable (in which case he goes) or he needs education. It’s a minefield as different words are acceptable in different parts of the world - either way unacceptable here.
I wonder how the club feel after backing him to the hilt when on any reading the panel would have always found him guilty on the balance?

 

[simo]

so how is that objective if they've been told what to look for, its like showing the jury a picture of a murderer with a knife in his hand (that he could have been using to make a salad). Again not saying they are dodgy or there's any conspiracy just pointing out possible discrepancies with the practice.

Report, para 54.

 

[Ooh David Eyres]

Ok.. having read through the report, I have the following initial thoughts/questions:
1. Why was the FA acting as prosecutors? They had clearly taken sides before the trial even began! I don’t understand. Hopefully there is someone who can answer this pretty obvious question for me!
2. There are still no answers as to why the FA didn’t publish the report at the same time as the verdict/punishment. Why did it take them so long?
3. Hannibal’s reaction was given “significant” weight in the panel’s decision. Why? Nobody is denying he thought he heard something, so his reaction is irrelevant.
4. It seems the swaying factor in the decision mainly comes down to the panel concluding that milly had some time before the meeting in the referees changing room after the game, to enable him to try and fit his explanation around the allegation he knew was being made against him. Why should that be held against him? Especially as his version of what he said was “bad man” which doesn’t even sound like “black mother”!
5. It seems the onus was put on milly to remember exactly what he said, rather than just being sure he didn’t say it. Why should he reasonably be expected to remember exactly what he said? If I said to you “what EXACTLY did you say a few mins ago?”, clearly you wouldnt be able to remember your precise wording, but you would know whether you had said something racist or not. It’s like what happened to John torode from masterchef and the racist allegation that was made against him.
6. Who instructed the lip readers (the FA)? Were they completely independent? I note the panel acknowledged that the lip readers had heard Hannibal’s version of events before studying the footage, which they accept may have influenced the lip readers. Why did milly/PNE not have any of their own lip readers coming up with a different version of events to back up what milly says he said? It seems the only evidence milly/PNE came up with was a lip reader saying that lip reading was unreliable. I find this strange.
7. How / why did the panel conclude that Hannibal could hear osmajic clearly and unambiguously, despite him having his back to milly, and 21,000 fans inside the stadium? There doesn’t appear to have been any substantive debate or evidence presented to the panel from either party in that respect. So it was literally just guesswork.
8. The panel gave weight to their opinion that Hannibal was a very reliable and credible witness. Enough said!
9. In terms of the suggestion by some (including me) of a wider agenda/conspiracy theory, in the justification for the severity of the punishment, the report made it clear that an “Aggravating factor” was the “diversity and inclusion agenda” and because the match was being seen by a wide audience/on tv. This pretty much proves that there were wider considerations involved.

 

[tete55]

As someone who reads a lot of judgments it seems very well reasoned and seems to consider the evidence carefully. With no conclusive evidence they have looked at everything else (the reaction, the contemporaneous report etc). The character reference is useless for the offence and only relevant in the punishment (e.g not a racist man but found to have used a racist term).
As a club we need to weigh up his cultural heritage and decide what support he is given in terms of it’s unacceptable (in which case he goes) or he needs education. It’s a minefield as different words are acceptable in different parts of the world - either way unacceptable here.
I wonder how the club feel after backing him to the hilt when on any reading the panel would have always found him guilty on the balance?

They have not said he made a racist remark, they said he made reference to a protected characteristic. In the case skin colour.

 

[simo]

Lip readers verdict is damning.
Hannibal changes his word from Mother to Mum and back to Mother.
The Osmajic having time to make something up is all speculation and putting that in is unecessary as it just provides fuel to the fans and our legal team.

Based on the balance of probabilities and the lip reading you would expect a ban but less games due to not proving fully and lip reading not being a direct science.
4 Or 5 would seem a fairer punishment as opposed to 9.

There's also a random redacted part around the lip reading.

Paras 80 and 88 seem the most relevant when it comes to sentencing. Standard range is 6-12 games. The fact he reoffended so soon after an offence that was similar in its impulsive nature did not at all favour him. Considered a “ serious aggravating feature”. TBH, once it was decided he was guilty 9 games doesn’t look a bad outcome. Could easily have been more.

 

[Ooh David Eyres]

So for all those demanding extra evidence/the report.. the verdict now is that the lip readers in on this big stitch up also?

This place 😂😂😂.

Let’s see the footage that the lip readers saw then. If there is nothing to hide, publish it. Let us see it.

 

[Dannypne7]

This debate is pointless.
Rightly or wrongly, he's serving a ban.
PNE need to get rid now, they won't lose any money partly thanks to his goal the other night.
He's a liability in the grand scheme of things 🙄

 

[Ooh David Eyres]

Having now seen the report, I'm very disappointed (but not in any way shocked) by Ridsdale's reaction to this. I don't know how he could have sat through that hearing and thought there was any other outcome.

Taking this public nationally has only drawn more eyes to it and paints the club in a really bad light. I feel like the club lost it's morals a long while ago, employing some extremely morally questionable people over the last 5/10 years.

Like who?

 

[Heckyball]

Shut this shit show of a thread down.

 

[Ooh David Eyres]

Half asleep, so reading comprehension might not be as it should be, but basically, the balance of probabilities comes because Hannibal’s account was consistent, whereas Osmajic’s wasn’t, and that plus the lip reading coming to the consensus that the word “black” was used, is how they came to the conclusion they did.

I’m sure that will be accepted perfectly reasonably

2 side points. All the strawman arguments here about whether Hannibal is really black, whether Hannibal said something abusive first, whether Potts heard it and could support Osmajic, were completely delusional and not submitted by us as evidence

Secondly, Matt Scrafton’s stupid statement about a Preston player apologising on behalf of Osmajic was a blatant lie and the club should’ve taken action against him for attempting to influence the investigation

Hannibal’s account wasn’t consistent at all. He said Osmajić said “black mum” and then he changed it to “black mother”. The panel gave no weight to that, and just said it was consistent because it meant the same thing.
But the issue isn’t what he meant, it’s what it sounded like. “Mum” and “mother” don’t sound anything like each other!

 

[norfolk white]

What I would like to know, as I have no idea, is:

- were the lip readers first language English?
- were they looking at the lip reading as being said by a person whose first language is English?
- do people whose first language is not English move their lips the same way as a persons whose first language is English when saying the same words?
- could a person whose first language is not English, and says a word with a foreign accent, say a word with different lip movements compared to a person whose first language is English?

Just asking 🤷‍♂️

 

[Ooh David Eyres]

What I would like to know, as I have no idea, is:

- were the lip readers first language English?
- were they looking at the lip reading as being said by a person whose first language is English?
- do people whose first language is not English move their lips the same way as a persons whose first language is English when saying the same words?
- could a person whose first language is not English, and says a word with a foreign accent, say a word with different lip movements compared to a person whose first language is English?

Just asking 🤷‍♂️

I Thought the same thing

 

[monky1234]

I think everyone should send some more emails.

 

[justinr73]

I think everyone should send some more emails.

Nah, letters by registered post.

 

[monky1234]

What I would like to know, as I have no idea, is:

- were the lip readers first language English?
- were they looking at the lip reading as being said by a person whose first language is English?
- do people whose first language is not English move their lips the same way as a persons whose first language is English when saying the same words?
- could a person whose first language is not English, and says a word with a foreign accent, say a word with different lip movements compared to a person whose first language is English?

Just asking 🤷‍♂️

Names of the lip-readers are in the document. It'd be a surprise if English is not their first language given the names. And the point about first language not being English is also mentioned in there (para 61)

If you read the document, maybe you missed that. If you didn't read it, then the questions would've been answered for you if you had read it.

 

[norfolk white]

Names of the lip-readers are in the document. It'd be a surprise if English is not their first language given the names. And the point about first language not being English is also mentioned in there (para 61)

If you read the document, maybe you missed that. If you didn't read it, then the questions would've been answered for you if you had read it.

Thanks for your reply, yes I had ready the report before posting but cannot remember reading that part in para 61 so again thanks 👍

 

[Soapy]

This debate is pointless.
Rightly or wrongly, he's serving a ban.
PNE need to get rid now, they won't lose any money partly thanks to his goal the other night.
He's a liability in the grand scheme of things 🙄

Quietly shoo'd off like Sean the sheep.
He's a dick, it's been obvious for a while.

 

[jld74]

Pretty sure Hecky isn't the type of manager to shirk any decisions.
if he Believes in Milly he'll still be here after next window.

 

[Regardless]

Names of the lip-readers are in the document. It'd be a surprise if English is not their first language given the names. And the point about first language not being English is also mentioned in there (para 61)

If you read the document, maybe you missed that. If you didn't read it, then the questions would've been answered for you if you had read it.

I haven’t read it yet. Norfolk asked 4 question and you answered Q1 here. In the last sentence, you intimate that answers to Q2-4 are also in the report. Do you mean that literally?- because they seemed pertinent questions and I’m not 100% sure what you’re meaning. Cheers.

 

[Regardless]

Ok.. having read through the report, I have the following initial thoughts/questions:
1. Why was the FA acting as prosecutors? They had clearly taken sides before the trial even began! I don’t understand. Hopefully there is someone who can answer this pretty obvious question for me!
2. There are still no answers as to why the FA didn’t publish the report at the same time as the verdict/punishment. Why did it take them so long?
3. Hannibal’s reaction was given “significant” weight in the panel’s decision. Why? Nobody is denying he thought he heard something, so his reaction is irrelevant.
4. It seems the swaying factor in the decision mainly comes down to the panel concluding that milly had some time before the meeting in the referees changing room after the game, to enable him to try and fit his explanation around the allegation he knew was being made against him. Why should that be held against him? Especially as his version of what he said was “bad man” which doesn’t even sound like “black mother”!
5. It seems the onus was put on milly to remember exactly what he said, rather than just being sure he didn’t say it. Why should he reasonably be expected to remember exactly what he said? If I said to you “what EXACTLY did you say a few mins ago?”, clearly you wouldnt be able to remember your precise wording, but you would know whether you had said something racist or not. It’s like what happened to John torode from masterchef and the racist allegation that was made against him.
6. Who instructed the lip readers (the FA)? Were they completely independent? I note the panel acknowledged that the lip readers had heard Hannibal’s version of events before studying the footage, which they accept may have influenced the lip readers. Why did milly/PNE not have any of their own lip readers coming up with a different version of events to back up what milly says he said? It seems the only evidence milly/PNE came up with was a lip reader saying that lip reading was unreliable. I find this strange.
7. How / why did the panel conclude that Hannibal could hear osmajic clearly and unambiguously, despite him having his back to milly, and 21,000 fans inside the stadium? There doesn’t appear to have been any substantive debate or evidence presented to the panel from either party in that respect. So it was literally just guesswork.
8. The panel gave weight to their opinion that Hannibal was a very reliable and credible witness. Enough said!
9. In terms of the suggestion by some (including me) of a wider agenda/conspiracy theory, in the justification for the severity of the punishment, the report made it clear that an “Aggravating factor” was the “diversity and inclusion agenda” and because the match was being seen by a wide audience/on tv. This pretty much proves that there were wider considerations involved.

I haven’t read the report at all yet, but I grasp the unwelcome flavour of it. These do appear to be reasonable questions though.