Not a rumour but... Craig Thomson

[BladeHearts]

BladeHearts: I am not a father, I don't know if you are, but perhaps you would feel differently if it was your teenage daughter who was the recipient of a picture of this 'persons' cock?

Axel,

Yes, I am a father, 14 year old son and 7 year old daughter.

To be honest the biggest problem is facebook and text messaging allowing kids to type stupid and inappropriate messages they probably wouldnt dare say to someones face, or recording for posterity messages which will probably cause extreme embarassment in years to come.

Both myself and my wife have been very clear in laying down ground rules for our son about what is and what is not acceptable behaviour online. If we thought those rules were being broken we would remove his access with immediate effect.

I guess that at 36, I am a fairly young parent for a 14 year old, but when you see some of the stuff that 12/13 year olds post on each others walls, it leaves me staggered, shocked and saddened at the overtly sexual content of so many of the postings - not by my son, I hasten to add.

At the end of the day, Craig Thomson was 18 and as such should have known better and acted appropriately, however sadly this type of offence will become more and more prevalent in the future as kids act with ridiculous bravado behind the the comfort blanket of a computer screen.

 

[SwissBlade]

But in your opinion Blades Hearts, its all about him and his feelings. I don't believe that he should necessarily be portrayed as a menace to all children, but the girls involved in this 12 and 14 shouldn't be seeing such things (in my opinion). In reality kids probably misuse facebook and pic messaging but the fact is that he is an adult. He abused his position of authority.

Should he be punished forever. Not necessarily, but he shouldn't be allowed to play football again, just like Marlon King shouldn't.

Football teams are the focal point of a community, the players are held in high regard by its supporters and the local community. In SUFC's case they work with the community, with kids, schools etc. So for me, this lad shouldn't be allowed to work near a football team again.

Partly for his sake, his punishment but also to highlight to others that this sort of thing is not tolerated in football or society.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

what other jobs shouldn't he be allowed to do swiss?

 

[BladeHearts]

But in your opinion Blades Hearts, its all about him and his feelings. I don't believe that he should necessarily be portrayed as a menace to all children, but the girls involved in this 12 and 14 shouldn't be seeing such things (in my opinion). In reality kids probably misuse facebook and pic messaging but the fact is that he is an adult. He abused his position of authority.

Should he be punished forever. Not necessarily, but he shouldn't be allowed to play football again, just like Marlon King shouldn't.

Football teams are the focal point of a community, the players are held in high regard by its supporters and the local community. In SUFC's case they work with the community, with kids, schools etc. So for me, this lad shouldn't be allowed to work near a football team again.

Partly for his sake, his punishment but also to highlight to others that this sort of thing is not tolerated in football or society.

I guess thats where we need to agree to disagree, I believe that everyone deserves a second chance subject to the appropriate punishments.

In the case of Thomson, a judge set that punishment at a fine of £4k. I hope to goodness that this whole sorry episode has focused his mind on the wrongness and inappropriateness of his actions. As part of passing sentence the judge could have chosen to ban Thomson from having any contact with children, given that he chose not to do so, why should football pass a sentence of its own?

Should he re-offend again, then yes I agree the punishments should be draconian and realistically there would be no place for him within football, but at the moment I believe we should side with the Judge in believing that this was a stupid lapse of judgement.

 

[Darren]

I guess thats where we need to agree to disagree, I believe that everyone deserves a second chance subject to the appropriate punishments.

In the case of Thomson, a judge set that punishment at a fine of £4k. I hope to goodness that this whole sorry episode has focused his mind on the wrongness and inappropriateness of his actions. As part of passing sentence the judge could have chosen to ban Thomson from having any contact with children, given that he chose not to do so, why should football pass a sentence of its own?

Should he re-offend again, then yes I agree the punishments should be draconian and realistically there would be no place for him within football, but at the moment I believe we should side with the Judge in believing that this was a stupid lapse of judgement.

I'm a father as well and - amazing as it may seem - I really don't think these girls are going to be scarred for life by seeing pictures of male genitals - come on, don't they do "I'll show you mine if you show me yours at school anymore"?. Thomson was stupid and shouldn't have done what he did, but I think the sentence was about right given his age and the fact that this really does come at the bottom of the scale of sex offences. What I think is most instructive is the hysterical reaction we get to any type of sex offending these days - which is worth a thesis in intself...

 

[Vancouver]

I see a much bigger issue with a player who drove drink, crashed, killed someone and then fled the scene than an 18 year old who did a really stupid thing. I'm not belittling the offence but if someone who killed someone else can still play why can't this guy?

 

[raul]

He was at school with the 14 year old and the 12 year old was her sister.

At the end of the day, what CT did was wrong but it probably ranks as extreme stupidity rather than inherent evil.

This is reflected in his punishment of a £4k fine.

Good point. The severity of the crime is always, but always refelected in the sentencing

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....tim_s_fury_as_driver_is_handed_fine_1_3565953

 

[Vancouver]

Good point. The severity of the crime is always, but always refelected in the sentencing

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....tim_s_fury_as_driver_is_handed_fine_1_3565953

A mate of mine's mother was killed by a car thief evading the police and was given an 18 month sentence. Absolutely disgusted.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

I'm a father as well and - amazing as it may seem - I really don't think these girls are going to be scarred for life by seeing pictures of male genitals - come on, don't they do "I'll show you mine if you show me yours at school anymore"?. Thomson was stupid and shouldn't have done what he did, but I think the sentence was about right given his age and the fact that this really does come at the bottom of the scale of sex offences. What I think is most instructive is the hysterical reaction we get to any type of sex offending these days - which is worth a thesis in intself...

So you would be quite relaxed about an adult repeatedly sending your 12 year old daughter naked pictures and inviting them for car rides and sleepovers?
If so, bully for you but I’d suggest that your opinions about sex offences are out of step with the majority rather than everybody else being “hysterical”.

 

[Crazyblade]

Do you really believe that?

As a father of twin girls aged 13, yes I absolutely believe it. If it had been my one of my daughters, there is absolutely no way I wouldn't get my hands on the dirty little scumbag and do him some serious damage to him, and I make no apologies for that whatsoever.

I will reiterate my feelings again - if he ever did come here, my association with Sheffield United would be at an end.

 

[Darren]

So you would be quite relaxed about an adult repeatedly sending your 12 year old daughter naked pictures and inviting them for car rides and sleepovers?
If so, bully for you but I’d suggest that your opinions about sex offences are out of step with the majority rather than everybody else being “hysterical”.

Not sure where you get the car rides and sleepovers from. This is a summary of what he did

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...12-and-14-for-sex-on-facebook-86908-23207046/

Of course I wouldn't like it if he did such things to my 12 year old daughter but I wouldn't be demanding that some stupid immature 18 year old never work again or want to do "serious damage" to him. What I find interesting is that offences like this provoke such extreme reactions these days when, up until around 30 years ago they didn't.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Not sure where you get the car rides and sleepovers from. This is a summary of what he did

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...12-and-14-for-sex-on-facebook-86908-23207046/

Of course I wouldn't like it if he did such things to my 12 year old daughter but I wouldn't be demanding that some stupid immature 18 year old never work again or want to do "serious damage" to him. What I find interesting is that offences like this provoke such extreme reactions these days when, up until around 30 years ago they didn't.

As I linked to previously, here is a more detailed version of what he did. Daily Record, so it's the same source as you're quoting from.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...tar-craig-thomson-s-depravity-86908-23228208/

The sickened mum added: "He was well aware of how young she was. At one point he asked her how old she was now and when she told him she had turned 13, he said to her 'I knew that' before saying what he wanted to do to her. It is disgusting. 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. I dread to think what might have happened."

 

[BladeHearts]

As I linked to previously, here is a more detailed version of what he did. Daily Record, so it's the same source as you're quoting from.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...tar-craig-thomson-s-depravity-86908-23228208/

The sickened mum added: "He was well aware of how young she was. At one point he asked her how old she was now and when she told him she had turned 13, he said to her 'I knew that' before saying what he wanted to odo to her. It is disgusting. 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. I dread to think what might have happened."

Let's be clear, this is the "concerned" mother selling her "story" to the Scottish Sunday papers.

Thomson was found guilty of sending a picture of his penis via Facebook and that alone.

 

[SwissBlade]

what other jobs shouldn't he be allowed to do swiss?

Nothing where he can come into contact with vulnerable people through his work and his internet access should be limited or monitored.

I guess thats where we need to agree to disagree, I believe that everyone deserves a second chance subject to the appropriate punishments.

As part of passing sentence the judge could have chosen to ban Thomson from having any contact with children, given that he chose not to do so, why should football pass a sentence of its own?

Should he re-offend again, then yes I agree the punishments should be draconian and realistically there would be no place for him within football, but at the moment I believe we should side with the Judge in believing that this was a stupid lapse of judgement.

He may well be very sorry, but how many times do we see criminals reoffending.

Relatively speaking, the guy pretty much had the world at his feet, he blew it, nobody else. It seems that he was also warned of his behaviour in the past but took no notice.

Football needs to take a stance, not just in things like this, but as we know footballers have few morals and I think British football needs to start setting an example.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Let's be clear, this is the "concerned" mother selling her "story" to the Scottish Sunday papers.
Thomson was found guilty of sending a picture of his penis via Facebook and that alone.

Alternatively, she's disgusted that Hearts wanted to ignore what he'd done and is giving a true account of what actually happened.
If she's lying, Thomson will be suing her and the paper for libel presumably?
Are you seriously willing to call the victim and her mother liars and take the word of self-confessed weirdo just because he plays for a football team you support?

 

[Vancouver]

Alternatively, she's disgusted that Hearts wanted to ignore what he'd done and is giving a true account of what actually happened.
If she's lying, Thomson will be suing her and the paper for libel presumably?
Are you seriously willing to call the victim and her mother liars and take the word of self-confessed weirdo just because he plays for a football team you support?

But if there was evidence for everything the mother stated happened surely he would have had further charges levied against him? Maybe he doesn't want to sue as it's really not good PR to sue the mother of a 12 year old you just sent a cock shot too. Maybe he just wants to get on with things and hope they go away.

I'm not condoning what he did by the way; just offering another perspective.

 

[SwissBlade]

Let's be clear, this is the "concerned" mother selling her "story" to the Scottish Sunday papers.

Thomson was found guilty of sending a picture of his penis via Facebook and that alone.

Jesus! Thats ok then if it was ALL he did!

One of the girls was 12!

EDIT - Fair point about the mum selling her story though

 

[BladeHearts]

Jesus! Thats ok then if it was ALL he did!

One of the girls was 12!

EDIT - Fair point about the mum selling her story though

What CT did was awful and he deserves to have been sacked. I also think that's Hearts handling of this was utterly inept as I have stated from the outset, so I am not sure in what sense I am letting my Hearts bias cloud my judgement.

It is my personal view, that he deserves a second chance.

As regards the mother I dont think she comes out of this tawdry affair with any credit whatsoever, cashing in on your child's grief to sensationalise a story for the Sunday press is pretty darn low.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Do we know if this 12 year old was a slapper or not?

 

[SwissBlade]

Do we know if this 12 year old was a slapper or not?

I avoided this one

 

[axel smeets]

I'm developing both a sense of nausea and an affinity to Hibernian reading some of these posts.

 

[BladeHearts]

I'm developing both a sense of nausea and an affinity to Hibernian reading some of these posts.

Fair enough, I wish you and your pitchfork all the best.

 

[mattbianco1]

Do we know if this 12 year old was a slapper or not?

hahahahahahahahahaha, quality ! Bet she is.

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

Quick question,

If CT was 15 & 364 days would he have been placed on the sex register?

What if he was 16 & 1 day?

Both honest questions, i'm guessing the answers are NO & YES. In which case, what a crock of shit

 

[raul]

Fair enough, I wish you and your pitchfork all the best.

Well, you're doing pretty well with your shovel.

 

[BladeHearts]

Well, you're doing pretty well with your shovel.

Struggling to see your point on this one Raul, unless of course like Axel you agree that the correct sentence for sending an inappropriate photograph on Facebook is death!

The irony is that I'm actually defending the right of a now unemployed Hibernian supporter who has disgraced Heart of Midlothian to be given a second chance.

 

[Darren]

Alternatively, she's disgusted that Hearts wanted to ignore what he'd done and is giving a true account of what actually happened.
If she's lying, Thomson will be suing her and the paper for libel presumably?
Are you seriously willing to call the victim and her mother liars and take the word of self-confessed weirdo just because he plays for a football team you support?

He wouldn't have a libel case. To have a libel case he would have to show that what she said lowered hs reputation in the estimate of right thinking people generally. Given what he accepts he did, he would not have a cat in hells chance of convincing a jury that the embellishments coming from the mum (if they are that) lowered his reputation any further.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

As regards the mother I dont think she comes out of this tawdry affair with any credit whatsoever, cashing in on your child's grief to sensationalise a story for the Sunday press is pretty darn low.

At the time she spoke to a Sunday Newspaper, Hearts were refusing to sack Thomson.
The only punishment he’d received at that point was a fine of around a week’s wages (£4000).
That’s the same punishment he’d maybe get for missing a training session or getting booked for swearing at the ref.
If I was the Child’s parent I would do anything in my power to ensure that the full story was told and put pressure on Hearts to do the right thing.

Most people reading the original reporting would probably assume that it was a one-off, he was drunk, the girl was egging him on, he thought she was 16 etc..
It’s only when you read the mother’s more detailed account that you understand he did it repeatedly and persistently over a period of nine months.
He knew for certain she was only 12 and he invited her out for car rides and sleepovers. Also that there were several other girls involved.
You’re making an assumption that the mother got “paid to sensationalise her child’s grief”.
On what basis are you assuming that? Just because you liked Thomson as a player? Why not believe the victim’s account rather than the perverts?

 

[Darren]

At the time she spoke to a Sunday Newspaper, Hearts were refusing to sack Thomson.
The only punishment he’d received at that point was a fine of around a week’s wages (£4000).
That’s the same punishment he’d maybe get for missing a training session or getting booked for swearing at the ref.
If I was the Child’s parent I would do anything in my power to ensure that the full story was told and put pressure on Hearts to do the right thing.

Most people reading the original reporting would probably assume that it was a one-off, he was drunk, the girl was egging him on, he thought she was 16 etc..
It’s only when you read the mother’s more detailed account that you understand he did it repeatedly and persistently over a period of nine months.
He knew for certain she was only 12 and he invited her out for car rides and sleepovers. Also that there were several other girls involved.
You’re making an assumption that the mother got “paid to sensationalise her child’s grief”.
On what basis are you assuming that? Just because you liked Thomson as a player? Why not believe the victim’s account rather than the perverts?

The point is if that there had been any kind of evidence of the sort of stuff the mum says he did it would have been before the Court and he would have got a much more severe sentence than he did. The fact that no such evidence was before the Court justifies, I think, a degree of scepticism.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

The point is if that there had been any kind of evidence of the sort of stuff the mum says he did it would have been before the Court and he would have got a much more severe sentence than he did. The fact that no such evidence was before the Court justifies, I think, a degree of scepticism.

Who do you think is lying? The mother, the 12 year old or both? Which bits do you think they've invented?

 

[Darren]

Who do you think is lying? The mother, the 12 year old or both? Which bits do you think they've invented?

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.