To think this guy should be fired?(50 Posts)
Basically the gist of it is that this guy, Craig Thomson, plays for Hearts. He is a registered sex offender having engaged in indecent behaviour over the internet toward girls aged 12 and 14. Hearts are stating he won't be sacked as he was "naive" and "subject to outside influence." Now perhaps I'm missing something but I would imagine that that excuse could only be used for someone who has a learning disability and genuinely doesn't understand what they're doing. Does Craig Thomson have a learning disability? If not, I would agree with Children 1st who are looking for him to be fired given that he is a public figure and as such isn't a suitable role model. What do you think?
Well he hasn't done anything at work, so I should think it is entirely upto Hearts as to whether they wish for him to continue playing for them or not. I don't know every intimate detail of the case, but I would imagine he possibly didn't know their ages, what with it being over the internet and all. And I think he's fairly young himself, maybe 19 or so? If he thought they were 16 then I can see how it all escalated. I pretended to be older loads when I was that age.
Is he required to have a clean CRB check to be a footballer?
I am not being facetious, btw - but am wondering whether, if you think he should be fired, that we should require all convicted sex offenders to step down from their profession?
There was a thread about him yesterday, sorry can't do linky things and I think the general consensus involuted balls and wirecutters or mangles. Then fired. Then prison. Then some of your uncle Rodneys dodgy mates in prison to give hime 'a little tickle with their fists'..
Not trying to make light of a truly horrible situation but answer is Yes (he should be fired) and then some.
WFT did I write involuted? I meant involved
My guess as to what actually happened is that he 'engaged' with these girls on the internet who lied to him about their age. Or he just didn't ask the age. I don't get the impression from the reports that he actually knowingly and intentionally contacted children. And I don't think you need to have a clean CRB check to be a footballer.
As for whether or not he should be fired....I don't know. If he would come into close contact with children as part of his job....perhaps. But my guess is that the 'campaign' for him to be fired is simply because he is a public figure, not actually down to what the job entails. That's an important distinction.
I think if his club were to drop him for this, I wouldn't blame them, and I wouldn't feel they'd done the wrong thing, but to keep him on....I don't really think that's wrong either. I'd likely change my mind if I knew the case was more than a giant mistake on his part though.
He knew how old they were, it was on the eldest one's profile on FB and he admits to that. He knew them off the internet as well. He actually encouraged the 13 year old to engage in sexual acts and flashed her on a web cam. He deliberatly added the 12 year old with the same intentions. Both girls didn't look older than their ages.
I first i thought that there was no need to sack him but he is guilty of grooming so he should be removed from the public eye.
The majority of sex offenders are sacked or asked to resign from their jobs when convicted. What bothers me is the mere £4000 fine and no other punishment, which is the norm for sex offenders, other less offences carry heavier penalties.
Hmmm okay. That's different then.
He should've been legally punished more, I quite agree. But I'm not 100% certain losing his job would've really helped anyone. I still say it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the club to fire him though. And I wouldn't be happy unless I knew he wouldn't be in contact with children.
It's hard to make the call on this one. Would be very easy to go all out on the attack, and I understand why people would.
I think he should have been punished more, but the only people taht can decide whather he should keep his job are his employers. It's nothing to do with anyone else and if he is doing his job properly, then what he does in his private life should have no bearing on his employment, however disgusting it is.
The problem is that sportsmen become public figures and are idolised by youngsters.
I do think that a suspension and supervision to make sure that being attracted to underage girls is not an ongoing urge. He was in the process of being well known and could of have easily attracted a girl who was old enough and i feel that is the issue, why he felt it appropriate to pursue girls so young.
I would have thought that he would welcome a chance to be completely cleared of this not being a problem and it just being proved to be an error of judgement as most sports stars do come into contact with children (charities, mascots, hospital vsits etc) this will follow him for quite a while either way.
bubble- do you feel the same way towards gary glitter?
Yes, I do. I'm not entirely comfortable saying it mind you, and I do think punishment need to be harsher in the first place so that the job ended up irrelevant. Football players and pop stars can't do their jobs very well from prison.
But I think that if people want to pay Gary Glitter for his music then thats up to them.
Birdsgottafly - I'd be interested to know how you "know" the intimate goings on of this private case?? Have you seen the girls? Do you know them personally? Just that all of the reports I've seen have stated that he didn't know their ages.
I believe in second chances and unlike some don't want sex offenders going to prison to be beaten up, i don't see how that is helpful. I agree with prison if there are treatment programmes within them, but at the same time i think that the only way to start to end sex crimes against children is utter condemnation of the act. In this case his age should be a factor but in other cases such as G Glitter, who is a repeat offender, i think the public should step in and demand that his career is ended.
Squidgy - he had been a friend of the family and had known the girl since she was six.
His apology is here
Seems a bit weak considering what he's done.
But should we give a sex offender a second chance? Can a peodo change?
Squidy- if you type is his name there is an interview with one of the mothers of the girls, i will find it and link. He pleded guilty of two offences one involved him admiting that he knew how old the girls were.
Someone else has linked it so i won't, but in some reports his legal representative has issued apologies for his actions.
Pumper-Young lads can make mistakes and even if you are attracted to underage girls it doesn't mean that you act on it, you can be made to understand why you shouldn't 'go there'.
It depends on the nature of the offence.
He is in a position where he has contact with children and is a "role model", though God knows, the idea of a footballer being a role model revolts me. Would you think a teacher should keep their job-no of course not.
bird I do get what your saying and if its a 16 yr lad and a 15 yr old girl then allowances should be made but a 35 yr old man and a 14 yr old girl then no allowances.
I take things in tabloid newspapers with a pinch of salt to be honest.
But, I'm not condoning what he did. Just saying that he hasn't done anything wrong at work so I see why Hearts haven't fired him.
I think the problem is the lack of punshiment as another poster said if a child sex offence carried an automatic prison sentance, this wouldn't be an issue, his employment would be ended. Also, if he had to attend some sort of 'course' he also couldn't just carry on playing, i don't feel that a fine and being put on a register is enough. A sex offence carries less weight in the workplace than other less offences, which is ridiculous.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.