To think this guy should be fired?

[WriterofDreams]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13918842

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?

The thing is - none of us know the content of his contract. I would have to assume that if Hearts have decided not to levy punishment, then he mustn't have acted outside the terms of his contract. Not comparable to presenters being fired by another company. And it isn't down to Hearts to levy punishment on behalf of the courts.

His manager and fellow players are not happy, it's the chairman and his mad ramblings that it's all the mafia's fault

The original thread is here www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1245536-to-think-that-a-professional-football-player-who-has-recently-been-convicted-of-child-sex-offences-should-be-bloody-well-sacked

Yes he should be fired and never allowed to work again. Then the state could support him.

sorry but the wee scumbag was teaching PE in the girls school so he knew full well how old they were. Also while on bail for this offence Hearts football club sent him to represent the club at a fundraising event for Barnardos...... sorry but WTF????

his apology (if you can honestly call it that) is a slap in the face for the girls and their families as is his punishment from the courts..... The fact that the Hearts chairman has seen fit to state in the press that it is all a big misunderstanding and that he was led astray and its all a big conspiracy against the club is utter bollox and is like my 4 year old telling me "a big boy did it and ran away"

There usually is a clause about bringing the club into disrepute so it is very unusual that it isn't there. He has been charged in a criminal court and made to sign a register, so it is very strange that it wouldn't mean that he is at least suspended, as nearly all of us would be outside of the professional sports world. It can only mean that someones unique skill level now dictates what they are allowed to do and keep their job.

outnumbered- that was one of my points, every professional sports person does have contact with children and why is this allowed considering that he is on a sex offenders register? He should have been bailed with conditions attatched, the rest of us would be to the point that you could not have contact with your own children.

The charity Children 1st are seeking to have him sacked on the basis that he will have contact with children in his job. It's unlikely to be unsupervised contact but still I wouldn't want a convicted sex offender anywhere near my child. I find it very odd that his excuse is that he was naive and subject to influence - that smacks totally of him taking no responsibility whatsoever - like outnumbered said, it's like a small child blaming someone else for what they've done.

It just seems that his offence isn't taken very seriously at all, which is total insult to his victims and their families.

It's a tough one. Mainly because offenders do need the chance to make a wage to live on - not because I have any sympathy for them or think they deserve that degree of autonomy - but because I don't think the state should have to provide for them indefinitely (unless in prison) and a homeless vagrant paedophile is harder to keep track of than one with a known place of address.

However, the apology from the offender in this particular instance, combined with the fact that he knew one of his victims from 6 years old so was fully cognisant of her age and even knew her parents as family friends, screams to me that barely pubsecent girls (in the absence of a learning difficulty and him not being able to perceive the age gap/consequences of his actions) are his sexual preference, in much the same way you can't choose whether you are straight, bi or gay. That says to me that the rest of his life and his life choices need to be carefully monitored so that he never ever has the opportunity to groom and sexually abuse young girls ever again. For me, the best way of 'monitoring' is simply locking him up with no internet access so he cannot act on those urges. That, for me, is the only humane way of preventing access to any potential future victims.

At 20, I knew that pursuing 12 or 14 year old boys would have been wrong (albeit personally not attractive). I would expect any 20 year old without learning difficulties to know this difference, and therefore I do not think he can be in any position where he has contact with children. The previous thread made reference to the amount of contact professional footballers have with children as part of the job (football training, child mascots for the game, children's charity involvement etc.). I suspect the majority of Hearts supporters just won't tolerate this and his position will become untenable through stadium chants etc. Sadly, no one seems to have taken the same stance with Mike Tyson (amongst others) who have also been found guilty (of rape) and go on to have crap film careers.

I think he should be sacked because the way football teams work these days it is very difficult to imagine that he will not come into contact with your children- they do so much outreach.nowadays. He can save society money by getting a (less well paid) job that does not include such contacts.

Part of my issue is that boys idolise football players. What kind of message does it send them if a convicted sex offender is someone they're supposed to look up to?

I'm sure i read somewhere that the club had told him not to report for training
He's suspended and the manager wants him ot but it will be up to the club owner what happens

hellatwork the detail in your post about him working at the girls school etc makes it all so much worse. He should absolutely definitely be sacked and surely no-one reading what you have posted would disagree.

I don't understand the idea that if this man can't play football then he will be unemployed for the rest of his life. There is not only one job in the world. Of course he will be able to do something else. Something that does not involve him being idolised by thousands of small boys and come into contact with lots of children through the course of his work.

My issue with this, is the club (read the Owner) puts the value of the player to them, ahead of any concern. Romanov is dilusional anyway, but I am glad Jim Jeffries is making a stand and suggesting that he may never pick him again anyway.
I do think he should be sacked. There are other jobs he could get, they won't be at the same wage level or using his 'talent' but so what?

Yes, I think the clubs themselves have a responsibility to their young followers and he should indeed be fired and made an example of

what a total sleazy creep

yes he absolutely should be made an exampe of, he knew exactly what he was doing, implying , and how old they were. He was in a position of trust. Another of these highly paid young men who think they are it.

take out the professional sportsman bit - what if this were a young trainee teacher? Engaging in inappropriate online activity with pupils - how is it any different? It absolutely has to be seen that action is taken against people like this. And if you are someone in the public eye, inevitably the fall out will be more public too. No one elses fault but his own.

Had a read of the Hearts fc forum over the weekend to find out about this. Apparently the lad thought he could get away with not telling the club what had happened. He turned up for his court appearances at the last minute & hid at the back hoping no one would recognise him. He sounds like an absolute div.

Hearts are an odd club at the best of times. Consensus among the fans seems to be that he'll be left in the reserves and quietly shipped out at the end of his contract.

Still not good enough really

"The fact that the Hearts chairman has seen fit to state in the press that it is all a big misunderstanding and that he was led astray and its all a big conspiracy against the club is utter bollox"

Yes but Romanov is absolutely deluded and completely insane so I wouldn't take his response as the accepted standard.

FWIW I think that he should have been punished more harshly by the courts. But as he is not going to be jailed I don't see why the club should fire him if they don't want to. They are a commercial entity and have obviously decided that the loss of this asset would hurt them more financially than any potential loss of sponsorship/support.
Personally I wouldn't want a player on the sex offenders register at my club but I don't agree with people who feel football clubs have a moral responsibility to the public at large due to young boys idolising footballers or that footballers should be held to a different standard because some people view them as role models.

"what if this were a young trainee teacher? Engaging in inappropriate online activity with pupils - how is it any different?"
Well it's different because near constant contact with children during the working day is a necessity for a teacher. To continue being a professional footballer he need not ever be around children U16 to fulfill his professional obligations and he will certainly never need unsupervised contact.

MQ - I see my prev comment can be misleading - what i was trying to imply was that it was the same sort of abuse of trust, because he was coaching PE in the girls school school, that it would be if he were a trainee (PE) teacher absuing that same level of responsibility and trust.

I agree he does not necessarily have to come into dircet contact with kids like this while maintaining his careeer as a pro sportsman, but I still think he's getting away too lightly for what he did

ah i see what you mean. I'd agree his coaching role is relevant to the issue of abuse of trust etc. I certainly think that this factor only adds to the weight of the argument that he should have been jailed and I doubt anyone would argue against him never being allowed to hold such a role.
So I completely agree with you wrt his coaching role, but still see no reason why he should automatically be fired from his club although it is what I would like to see.
Incidentally "Mac B" (sp) drinks company have withdrawn their sponsorship of Hearts FC as a result of their decision to stand by him.

Local plumbing firm have also withdrawn their sponsorship

Pentland primary pulled out of a visit to the training grounds as well, with the backing of Edinburgh Council
local.stv.tv/edinburgh/news/260291-council-calls-for-hearts-to-reconsider-their-decision-to-keep-on-craig-thomson/

edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Sponsor-set-to-pull-plug.6792374.jp

and Hearts have announced they've suspended Mr Thomson
edinburghnews.scotsman.com/heartofmidlothianfc/Hearts-suspend-sex-shame-star.6792460.jp

Thanks for that extra info ratspeaker, I'm glad to see people are pulling their heads out of their arses after all. It boggles me why some people are willing to accept the excuse that he was "naive" etc, what an utterly ridiculous thing to say! As I said before unless he has some learning disability (and that hasn't been stated) then surely he understands that it is inappropriate to behave sexually towards such young girls? If he hadn't been caught he probably would have continued and perhaps done something more serious. It pisses me off that this sort of offense is pretty much seen as no big deal, perhaps on a par with shoplifting. It is not minor, it will affect those girls and their families for a long time and brings huge dishonour on his club.

Glad the perv has been suspended. I doubt even Romanov can cope with sponsorship being withdrawn, no matter how much he llikes his adverse publicity