Not a rumour but... Craig Thomson

[Sothall_Blade]

There are 2 possibilities here:

1. Mum and 12 year old never gave this information to the police when they first made the allegation. That's why none of it beyond the penis display was not before the Court. If that is the case, I think we entitled to be sceptical when mum and 12 year old out forward further information when they are paid by a paper for their story.
2. Mum and 12 year old did give this information to the police but, the police having checked the relevant computers, found it didn't stack up - hence it wasn't put before the court.

I have practised criminal law for 15 years and I can assure you that if there had been any kind of convincing evidence that Thomson had been grooming a 12 year old in the way suggested, that evidence would have been before the Court and, if the Court had accepted the evidence, Thomson would have been serving a prison term.

First case:- "Prosecutors told how Thomson swapped email addresses with the girls after asking them to be his friends on Facebook. The first girl was only 13 when Thomson approached her online. She had her age and birth date on her Facebook profile but Thomson still engaged her in sexual chat and asked about her body parts. He was in contact with the girl between May and August 2010. After she turned 14, he made her uncomfortable by telling her he wanted to have sex with her. Thomson then sent the girl a picture of naked male private parts."

Second case:- "The second girl was only 12 at the time of the offence and had known Thomson since she was small. She accepted his Facebook friend request in January 2010. Claire Bottomley, prosecuting, told Edinburgh Sheriff Court: "Initially, their conversations were of a general nature." But she said Thomson then repeatedly discussed showing his private parts to the girl. She added: "He discussed sexual acts, made inappropriate comments about her body and asked her to expose herself online." The prosecutor said that on June 18 last year, during a chat on a webcam, Thomson asked the girl to expose her breasts and mentioned a sexual act."

All this evidence WAS put before the court according to the report YOU linked to previously.
Which additional pieces of evidence would have resulted in him being jailed rather than fined?

Also, it is ok to just assume that the mother and child were PAID by the paper to embellish their story as you keep stating?
Or do you need to have some sort of evidence or inside knowledge to back that up with? Other than BladesHeart saying it's true of course.

Finally, "Lothian and Borders Police said they were now looking into information passed to them by a third party. A police spokesman said: "We are making inquiries into the possibility that another person has grounds for complaint". It may not be over yet.....

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Evidence proving he did all of the above...

 

[Darren]

First case:- "Prosecutors told how Thomson swapped email addresses with the girls after asking them to be his friends on Facebook. The first girl was only 13 when Thomson approached her online. She had her age and birth date on her Facebook profile but Thomson still engaged her in sexual chat and asked about her body parts. He was in contact with the girl between May and August 2010. After she turned 14, he made her uncomfortable by telling her he wanted to have sex with her. Thomson then sent the girl a picture of naked male private parts."

Second case:- "The second girl was only 12 at the time of the offence and had known Thomson since she was small. She accepted his Facebook friend request in January 2010. Claire Bottomley, prosecuting, told Edinburgh Sheriff Court: "Initially, their conversations were of a general nature." But she said Thomson then repeatedly discussed showing his private parts to the girl. She added: "He discussed sexual acts, made inappropriate comments about her body and asked her to expose herself online." The prosecutor said that on June 18 last year, during a chat on a webcam, Thomson asked the girl to expose her breasts and mentioned a sexual act."

All this evidence WAS put before the court according to the report YOU linked to previously.
Which additional pieces of evidence would have resulted in him being jailed rather than fined?

Also, it is ok to just assume that the mother and child were PAID by the paper to embellish their story as you keep stating?
Or do you need to have some sort of evidence or inside knowledge to back that up with? Other than BladesHeart saying it's true of course.

Finally, "Lothian and Borders Police said they were now looking into information passed to them by a third party. A police spokesman said: "We are making inquiries into the possibility that another person has grounds for complaint". It may not be over yet.....

This bit:

"He also invited her to come to his house for a sleepover, as long as she promised to walk around in her underwear. He tried to take her on drives and I'm just so relieved she didn't go with him.".

That takes it beyond grossly inappropriate Facebook flirting to active grooming. That would make it an offence of attempted grooming contrary to S15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

The guideline sentencing for grooming is 4 years where a victim is under 13. As this would only have been an attempt, he would have got less than that, but he would certainly have been looking at 1-2 years.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s15_grooming/

 

[Sothall_Blade]

This bit: "He also invited her to come to his house for a sleepover, as long as she promised to walk around in her underwear. He tried to take her on drives and I'm just so relieved she didn't go with him.".

That takes it beyond grossly inappropriate Facebook flirting to active grooming. That would make it an offence of attempted grooming contrary to S15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

It's quite possible that he made those particular invitations to her personally rather than in writing via Facebook.
I don't think anybody's disputing that they frequently came into contact at (schoolgirl's) parties etc..
It doesn't mean that the girl and her mother are lying just because everything they say he did wasn't written down.

 

[BladeHearts]

Evidence proving he did all of the above...

I must have missed the reference to sleepovers and car rides then.

The above is evidence that Thomson was immature, stupid and completely inappropriate in his behaviour on Facebook.

The facts are he was fined £2k for both offences and no restrictions were placed on his contact with children.

---------- Post added at 02:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 PM ----------

Evidence proving he did all of the above...

I must have missed the reference to sleepovers and car rides then.

The above is evidence that Thomson was immature, stupid and completely inappropriate in his behaviour on Facebook.

The facts are he was fined £2k for both offences and no restrictions were placed on his contact with children.

 

[Darren]

It's quite possible that he made those particular invitations to her personally rather than in writing via Facebook.
I don't think anybody's disputing that they frequently came into contact at (schoolgirl's) parties etc..
It doesn't mean that the girl and her mother are lying just because everything they say he did wasn't written down.

Obviously the prosecution did not think it credible. Otherwise it would have been before the Court.

 

[JJ Sefton]

The above is evidence that Thomson was immature, stupid and completely inappropriate in his behaviour on Facebook.

Sending photos of your cock to children is a bit more than that however much you like the player.

 

[Darren]

Sending photos of your cock to children is a bit more than that however much you like the player.

I would say sending photos of your cock to anyone is pretty immature...

 

[BladeHearts]

Sending photos of your cock to children is a bit more than that however much you like the player.

In the case of Thomson, I would on this occasion give the benefit of the doubt that it probably was, as the Judge may well have done given the lenient sentence.

Craig Thomson is not the most intelligent of individuals and somewhere along the line seems to have missed the fact that at 18 he was now an adult, albeit still part of the Youth Squad at the time of the offences.

Its not a case of liking the player, I dont, what he did was utterly wrong and he fully deserves to have been sacked, albeit I also believe in the concept of rehabilitation and second chances.

I guess I am flogging a dead horse here, but my only reason for getting involved in this thread was in an attempt to highlight the discrepancy between some of the media coverage and the reality of what he was actually found guilty of and sentenced for.

Ultimately, I think Darren has highlighted this far more clearly than me, which is probably why he is a lawyer and I'm not!!!!

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I must have missed the reference to sleepovers and car rides then.

The above is evidence that Thomson was immature, stupid and completely inappropriate in his behaviour on Facebook.

The facts are he was fined £2k for both offences and no restrictions were placed on his contact with children.

Presumably if there was concrete evidence of him doing all of the above then he'd have been punished more harshly?

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I think the mother should have just used more of her nonce sense.

 

[BladeHearts]

Presumably if there was concrete evidence of him doing all of the above then he'd have been punished more harshly?

I think Darren summarises that perfectly in his earlier post.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

"... somewhere along the line seems to have missed the fact that at 18 he was now an adult, albeit still part of the Youth Squad at the time of the offences.
Its not a case of liking the player, I dont, what he did was utterly wrong and he fully deserves to have been sacked, albeit I also believe in the concept of rehabilitation and second chances."

1) He was 19 when he committed the offences. Presumably he forget both his 18th and 19th birthday's had taken place?
2) I'm amazed how many people are convinced the 12 year old girl is lying because there is no "concrete evidence" that he invited her out.
3) You agree that Hearts were right to sack him but think he should be given a second chance. Not at Bramall Lane he doesn't and that's why I got involved in this thread in the first place.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I don't think the girl is lying, i have no real opinion on that to be honest.

The fact remains it seems he got off a bit lightly compared to what the mother has accused him of.

either a) There has been some gross errors of impunity or b) there wasn't enough evidence to prove all of it happened.

 

[BladeHearts]

I don't think the girl is lying, i have no real opinion on that to be honest.

The fact remains it seems he got off a bit lightly compared to what the mother has accused him of.

either a) There has been some gross errors of impunity or b) there wasn't enough evidence to prove all of it happened.

I'm not making any comment on the girls involved at all.

However, I do question whether a Mother selling a sensationalised account of her childrens abuse to the Sunday papers is acting in their best interests.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

It might be if the money they got puts them through university. Or keeps them in a lifetime of pink velour tracksuits.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

I'm not making any comment on the girls involved at all.
However, I do question whether a Mother selling a sensationalised account of her childrens abuse to the Sunday papers is acting in their best interests.

I'll ask one last time. How do you know she "sold" her acccount? How do you know it's a "sensationalised" version of the truth?
Why can't it just be the mother's honest account of what happened in an attempt to force Hearts into action? (Which belatedly worked!)
You're very keen to throw accusations around about the mother and the victim, without any proof or evidence that they're lying/sensationalising.
While defending a self-confessed pervert on the grounds that there's not enough "concrete evidence" against him.
Why are you so keen to portray her as a bad mother and a liar, rather than accept Thomson was fortunate to get off lightly (so far).

 

[BladeHearts]

I'll ask one last time. How do you know she "sold" her acccount? How do you know it's a "sensationalised" version of the truth?
Why can't it just be the mother's honest account of what happened in an attempt to force Hearts into action? (Which belatedly worked!)
You're very keen to throw accusations around about the mother and the victim, without any proof or evidence that they're lying/sensationalising.
While defending a self-confessed pervert on the grounds that there's not enough "concrete evidence" against him.
Why are you so keen to portray her as a bad mother and a liar, rather than accept Thomson was fortunate to get off lightly (so far).

My issue is that the case has gone to court and the chance to present evidence or make accusations has passed.

For the record, I was equally apalled at Hearts and Thomson suggesting that there were mitigating circumstances and people didn't know the full story.

 

[JJ Sefton]

In the case of Thomson, I would on this occasion give the benefit of the doubt...

What doubt? Are you saying he didnt send a photo of his cock to a child?

 

[BladeHearts]

What doubt? Are you saying he didnt send a photo of his cock to a child?

I was referring to doubt over how mature he was.

 

[mattbianco1]

It might be if the money they got puts them through university. Or keeps them in a lifetime of pink velour tracksuits.

She's probably saving to put her in an all girls boarding school to cock starve her so that the only cock she does get is that via facebook!

 

[JJ Sefton]

I was referring to doubt over how mature he was.

Im not sure its a question of maturity, its a question of not sending pictures of your cock to children.

 

[BladeHearts]

Im not sure its a question of maturity, its a question of not sending pictures of your cock to children.

I suppose its the broader question of whether he is a predatory paedophile likely to reoffend at any moment or a rather unintelligent, daft, lad, who needs to realise he's an adult now and act accordingly.

I would suggest that the Judges sentence implies he thought the latter.

Sad, as it may seem, I would hazard a guess that this sort of behaviour and conversations of this type are actually remarkably frequent on facebook amongst teenagers, the problem is Thomson himself is no longer a child and should act appropriately.

 

[Crazyblade]

A couple of very simple questions, with very simple answers:

Was Thomson an adult when he sent this picture to girls aged 12 and 14? Yes.

Was the youngest girl involved 12 years old? Yes.

Had Thomson known this girl for several years and was therefore fully aware of her age? Yes.

NO EXCUSES THEN.

Maturity? Couldn't care less. He was an adult and has no excuses whatsoever.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Sad, as it may seem, I would hazard a guess that this sort of behaviour and conversations of this type are actually remarkably frequent on facebook amongst teenagers, the problem is Thomson himself is no longer a child and should act appropriately.

I doubt you're far from the truth with this.

 

[Darren]

I suppose its the broader question of whether he is a predatory paedophile likely to reoffend at any moment or a rather unintelligent, daft, lad, who needs to realise he's an adult now and act accordingly.

I would suggest that the Judges sentence implies he thought the latter.

Sad, as it may seem, I would hazard a guess that this sort of behaviour and conversations of this type are actually remarkably frequent on facebook amongst teenagers, the problem is Thomson himself is no longer a child and should act appropriately.

I think we all need to remember the kind of conversations we had about sex when we were aged 12-14 to get a bit of perspective on this. (Fortunately?) Facebook wasn't around when I was that age but I highly suspect that, had it been, my 12-14 year old self would not have been averse to Thomson type behaviour with any girl who seemed receptive.

As you say, the problem is that Thomson was not 12-14 when he got up to this sort of behaviour. One hopes he will now grow up.