to think that a professional football player who has recently been convicted of child sex offences should be bloody well sacked?

[MollysChamber]

Craig Thomson here

This is really making my blood boil. Horrible offences. Basically grooming of a 14 year old and a 12 year old he's known since she was a toddler ffs.

Today Hearts FC released a statement saying that they are not sacking him and he has made a half arsed statement apologising to the club, his family and friends, but not his victims, oh no.

Apparently the club were warned about his behaviour by a concerned parent 6 months before his arrest but he continued to represent them teaching PE at local schools here

Am I being unreasonable to think that he should be sacked?

he's gonna be surrounded by rough as fuck footie fans who all know what he's done - he'll get his just deserts i should imagine. I bloody hope so anyway.

desserts, even.

He is not in any old job though - he is in a position where people look up to him, especially young impressionable people. The only reason he got such a light slap on the wrist is because he didn't actually lay a finger on those girls (thank God!) - but if he'd got his way, it sounds like he would have.

Suspension is the very least he should have got - sacking would have been preferable.

IGH - you were right the first time - it's deserts!

No, the abuse of position of trust was that he had know then girls all their lives. Sorry that wasn't clear.

And yes, we have to differentiate between the legal and the moral stand that the club takes.

Legally, are they allowed to fire him, or do they wait and not renew the contract?

As a profi footballer, I would imagine he would come into contact with U16s. Mascots, ball boys/girls, junior teams. Most clubs have football schools where they promote young talent. Are they going to keep him segregated from them?

Fucking hell.

Times journo just posted this on Twitter

GrahamSpiers Graham Spiers
Everyone condemns what Craig Thomson has done. But he is no ?sick paedo? and the rest of it. This is what the internet does to kids today.
1 hour ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

GrahamSpiers Graham Spiers
I feel sorry for Hearts? Craig Thomson, as deplorable as his actions have been. This kid, in the internet age, took a dire wrong turning.
1 hour ago

"He is not in any old job though - he is in a position where people look up to him, especially young impressionable people."

But that has nothing to do with him and I don't think we can legally differentiate between which professions are looked up to/idolised from other jobs the way we can between jobs which do or do not have social responsibility/positions of trusts such as police/teachers/doctors/solicitors. The fact that a large section of the population idolise footballers does not mean they should be subject to different treatment by the law when they hold no actual responsibility.

"
Legally, are they allowed to fire him, or do they wait and not renew the contract?"

They certainly could have fired him straight off when he was convicted for gross misconduct, I'd be interested to know where they stand now though seeing as they have made a public statement that they'd stand by him. It could be argued that they would now be sacking him due to media/public pressure rather than because of his conviction which would certainly change the context. However I don't know enough about the specifics of this case,his contract or scottish contract law to say with any certainty.

"As a profi footballer, I would imagine he would come into contact with U16s. Mascots, ball boys/girls, junior teams. Most clubs have football schools where they promote young talent. Are they going to keep him segregated from them?"

Well the schools of excellence are generally segregated anyway, they don't train ogether and would have little contact other than when selected players go down to the underage training sessions. So that could be easily done.
Either way I'm sure the conditions of being on the sexual register is that you are not in a job which requires unsupervised contact/direct work with children (open to correction here though.) As such there'd be no reason for him to ever be unsupervised with any of the U16 teams. The mascot issue would be unlikely as he is not captain so there won't be the expected outrage of seeing him walk out on to a pitch holding a childs hand. The ball bioys & girls are on the side of a pitch in a packed stadium so no issue there either.

I don't agree that they hold no responsibility though, MayorQ - they do have a responsibility to their fans, IMO. Maybe not legally but morally they do.

But that's a very subjective argument and it's only going to be circular. You say you believe they have a moral responsibility to their fans, I say I don't, you say you do...etc.

you explain why you believe they don't have a moral responsibility to their fans and I'll shut up and go away. They know that fans look up to them, they know that they are in the public eye - so they should behave better and give the poor saps who think they're so fucking marvellous a better life example. Not "I'm paid so much to run after a ball for entertainment that I can get away with doing whatever the fuck I like and no one will do anything bad to me".

They are professional footballers. The only responsibility they have is to their employer in exactly the same way anyone else under contract has. If people look up to them that is not their doing and they do not control that. They have no more moral obligation to supporters than I have to my clients.In fact they have even less because I am directly employed by my clients, and I still feel I have no moral obligation to my clients (I do however have a professional obligation to them).

I don't see why or how they can be held responsible for the actions of those who think that immitating professional footballers personal conduct is a good idea. If someone is thick enough to think that or if parents can't explain to a kid what is right and wrong to the extent that which a child will ignore what their parents tell them because Wayne Rooney did it then that has nothing to do with the footballer.
They are paid because they are elite athletes in a sport which is a huge commercial success, they are not paid becuase they are bastions of moral decency or because they are good role models for kids.
It'd be great if they were, and the ones who choose to be deserve some praise. But it is not a pre-requisite of being a professional athlete.

I do see your point MayorQ. And this is where the argument would become circular so I shan't continue; except to say that it doesn't do anyone any good to see how little punishment this excuse of a man has had for his crime and they DO all see how little it is because he is in the public eye.
If he was a politician, would he not have been forced to resign? If he was a judge, would he not have been forced to resign? Politicians are hardly bastions of moral decency either (although I suppose you could argue that judges are supposed to be).

It's unreasonable that the punishment for his crime has had so little effect on his life. And unreasonable that it is public knowledge that he has "got away with" a wrist slap.

No agreed, it would just be circular. It's not that I can't see your point either, just that i disagree with it, which is likely to happen in debate/discourse.
But to me this would illustrate why we can't attempt to apply subjective moral standards to matters of law. We have to try and put some quantifiable standard on what jobs can be held in light of some criminal convictions and which can't. For me the best standard is those which are in a direct position of trust which could be open to abuse such as solicitors,doctors,teachers etc or those which in light of the conviction pose a direct threat to the public such as taxi drivers with either driving convictions or sexual assault convictions.
If we were to try and decide which professions are held up as role models it becomes a bit too convoluted and inapplicable.
As for your examples, I'm not sure about the UK but a judge would not be allowed to hold their position with a criminal conviction in Ireland, because that is viewed as a licensed profession which has a defined duty and obligation to the public.
For a politician it is similar to this. There is a difference with being forced to resign and your termination being an automatic consequence of the conviction. I would have expected the club to terminate his contract and am appalled they have not, but I do still believe that decision should remain with the club.

"except to say that it doesn't do anyone any good to see how little punishment this excuse of a man has had for his crime and they DO all see how little it is because he is in the public eye."

Oh and agree with this also. But once again this is an issue for the criminal courts. His punishment should have been far more severe, but to my mind it has to be seperated from his profession and the decision of his club after. If he was bricklayer or an accountant I would argue the same. That his punishment should have been more severe in the criminal courts but that should not prevent him from ever being employed as a brickie or a tax consultant ever again.

But a brickie or tax consultant isnt likely to be revered by impressionable 10-15 yr olds are they?

Keeping him on after this gives the impression that its 'not that bad' which IMO is very wrong.

But that's my point. At what point do we decide that someones chosen job carries an extra burden becuase some people look up to them? It's just far too subjective and also it is a by-product of the job and not something they have control of.

Then I think, MayorQ, that in essence we are in agreement, if not in technical detail! I am also appalled that his club did nothing and agree that they should have dumped him immediately.
:)

Essentially yes. I think the club should have sacked him.
Can I just ask (and not of you specifically thumbwitch) are those who are saying he should be fired because footballers are role models suggesting he should never be allowed to be a professional footballer again?
I'm just wondering because to me the logic in putting restrictions on certain professions would be due to their likelihood to re-offend or because they are part of a licenced and regulated profession and their conviction means that their continued practice of that profession is no longer practical. So a taxi driver convicted of sexual assault should be barred but one convicted of a non-violent crime perhaps should not.

Since I stand by my original thought that he is considered a role model, whether or not that is his responsibility or choice, then I would look askance at any club who chose to employ him as a pro footballer if his original club had dumped him from the off. Therefore I think it would have been very difficult for him to be re-employed as a pro footballer and that would have been a good thing (continuing my thoughts re role model/object of reverence etc.)

No problem with him being employed gainfully elsewhere - somewhere he poses no risk to children and young girls, either in person or by example.

I think though, that if Hearts had dropped him like a hot potato that no other club would have picked him up, not for a few years anyway, by which time his shelf-life would probably be over.

I am not too interested in what society feels is just punishment for his crime. Laws are the reflections of the wishes of a few, nought to do with me.

He'll be a pervert if he did it to any man or woman of any age and I would just dip his hands in a vat of acid for a few mins thereby making it difficult for him to get back onto facebook.

"Therefore I think it would have been very difficult for him to be re-employed as a pro footballer and that would have been a good thing"

I'd agree completely,But that's a very different thing to saying he shouldn't be allowed to be a footballer. I just don't see this standard being applied elsewhere. For example musicians are viewed as role models also, if one of them was convicted of such a crime it's 2 very different things to say that they should legally not be allowed to release another album and saying that nobody would buy the album,no stores would stock it and as such it would be very difficult for them to continue as a successful artist.Or a law banning the release of movies starring actors convicted of sexual or violent crimes is very different to studios realising that a star with such a conviction may not be as bankable and may hurt the studio financially thus choosing not to employ them.
Ditto any other bog standard job. If you were a manager at a supermarket you may well get fired upon such conviction and it would be very difficult to find subsequent employment, but nobody is saying that they shouldn't be allowed to be employed, just that most companies wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

Hearts have suspended the perv.

Unfortunately it isn't over a bucket of acid

He's going to get some serious abuse from the terraces for the rest of his career, and likely from other players too.

I think we're crossing the line back into the legal side of things again there MayorQ - and so I would have to say that no, I don't think he should be banned from being a pro-footballer again, any more than the recording artist or actor should be banned from practising their art in legally acceptable ways.

But I do think that they would (and should) get their moral come-uppance with lack of commercial interest.
At least for a while. And in pro-football (like modelling) a while is a very long time.

then we are in complete and total agreement despite apparently arguing. I simply see no legal reason for the mans exclusion from his chosen profession however I would hope that the natural consequences of his actions would mean that he was excluded.
Although Lee Hughes managed a succesfull enough comeback after 3 years in jail although this came later in his career.
However I unfortunately wouldn't share your optimism that he would not find a club for some time. I'd wager he'd find one by the start of the new season. Perhaps having to drop down a league or move country. I mean just look at Marlon King en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlon_King#Incidents_and_legal_cases