Craig Thomson

[Falkor]

Yeah as he is attracted to them, does that make him ill im not sure. Just a very worrying man.

As were attracted to women but were not sick in the head.

 

[Max Paper]

Interesting, why do YOU think people do it? Does someone just wake up one morning and think it's a good idea to show a picture of their hampton to a minor?

Surely everything has a cause?

You have me here... what can i say? Mental illness is different to a physical illness such as cancer, leukemia or aids. I don't want to open a can of worms here but asking a child to show you her tits or sending her a picture of your little fella is an entirely different kettle of fish, in my opinion

 

[El Presidente]

Yeah as he is attracted to them, does that make him ill im not sure. Just a very worrying man.

Certainly it is worrying, the point about the sex offenders register is that it restricts his opportunities to have access to underage girls in person, although the internet counterbalances this.

Sacking him from his job, and giving him more time by himself on the internet, surely gives him more, rather than less, opportunities. I am sure the football fans of Scotland will take every opportunity to vocally remind him of his crime, I know we did in relation to Lee Hughes at Notts County, but he's only a murderer......

 

[El Presidente]

You have me here... what can i say? Mental illness is different to a physical illness such as cancer, leukemia or aids. I don't want to open a can of worms here but asking a child to show you her tits or sending her a picture of your little fella is an entirely different kettle of fish, in my opinion

As a parent of a teenage daughter it is something that concerns me, but I don't see how either killing Thomson or sacking him addresses the issue of what caused him to do it. Ultimately we all want the same thing, which is to reduce the frequency of such actions.

 

[Falkor]

I have said in the thread how i feel about Lee Hughes and the others. My views are extreme but i just feel very strongly about the issue.

 

[Jimbo.GRFC]

At long last Hearts a stepping stone in right direction and have suspended him, now they just have to sack the sicko.

What Hearts have done is truly correct, perhaps Oldham should take a lesson from them. As these young players come through I think clubs have a duty to control their players on twitter, facebook etc, for some reason I get the impression that some of these young players don't realise how many people can read their writings

 

[El Presidente]

What Hearts have done is truly correct, perhaps Oldham should take a lesson from them. As these young players come through I think clubs have a duty to control their players on twitter, facebook etc, for some reason I get the impression that some of these young players don't realise how many people can read their writings

What's it got to do with Oldham Jimbo?

 

[Max Paper]

i'm gonna get flamed here, but the Hughes situation, however bad it may be, is NOTHING like the Thompson situation. Hughes made a massive mistake, driving when you've had a skinfull is bad, really bad, but I can't even begin to explain the difference, in my opinion, compared to flirting with young kids. There is NO defence, it's sick and THAT is the whole point here? Alcohol is a powefull drug, but sending pictures or grooming young kids, seriously guys come on? it's MORE than a sackable offence?

 

[brightonrock]

i'm gonna get flamed here, but the Hughes situation, however bad it may be, is NOTHING like the Thompson situation. Hughes made a massive mistake, driving when you've had a skinfull is bad, really bad, but I can't even begin to explain the difference, in my opinion, compared to flirting with young kids. There is NO defence, it's sick and THAT is the whole point here? Alcohol is a powefull drug, but sending pictures or grooming young kids, seriously guys come on? it's MORE than a sackable offence?

So *hypothetically*, what would your opinion be if Hughes had been sober when he crashed his car and killed the person, or if Thompson had been pissed off his face when he did what he did?

 

[Max Paper]

So *hypothetically*, what would your opinion be if Hughes had been sober when he crashed his car and killed the person, or if Thompson had been pissed off his face when he did what he did?

Look, i'm not trying to cause an argument, but a sober Hughes knocking over and killing a civilian is not the same as a drunk man trying to show his cock to a minor. ANYONE trying to pull a kid is so, so wrong, drunk or sober, IN MY OPINION, there is NO defence. I think now is a good time for all who have commented on this post to post their opioion. Sackable offence, yes or no?

 

[Falkor]

Yes

 

[wakokid]

No. It's got nothing to do with football. If he's comitted a crime then it should be dealt with accordingly by police/courts etc, or if he is unwell then he should be given treatment, psychotherapy or whatever is needed.
If you take away his means of earning a living then he could completely go off the rails which isn't good for anyone, and US taxpayers could end up footing the bill for his early retirement.

 

[Max Paper]

He sends pictures of his penis to young girls. I'm interested in your defence for the man?

 

[wakokid]

I'm not defending him, but the sacking thing is up to his employers. It should not be made a legal requirement (which is i'm guessing where you are coming from)

 

[El Presidente]

I'm interested in your defence for the man?

No one is defending him.

 

[brightonrock]

Look, i'm not trying to cause an argument, but a sober Hughes knocking over and killing a civilian is not the same as a drunk man trying to show his cock to a minor. ANYONE trying to pull a kid is so, so wrong, drunk or sober, IN MY OPINION, there is NO defence. I think now is a good time for all who have commented on this post to post their opioion. Sackable offence, yes or no?

I wasn't trying to stir, was just wondering whether your justification was based on sobriety or intent. He is a disgrace, in 150+ posts so far no-one has justified or approved of what he's done. The argument is not over "approval" of his undoubtedly sick actions. But Newhaven and Terry throwing accusations around is based on their self-righteous moral crusade and not an objective assessment of the facts, of which they know only what they've been told by the media.

FWIW I do think he should be sacked, yes. His position is, as politicians would describe, 'untenable'. But if another club wants to employ him and he wants to PROVE that his actions were misguided and stupid (as he claims) rather than predatory and vile (as is painted), then so be it, that club takes it upon themselves and he has to bear the cross of thousands of people screaming at him from the terraces. However, members of NSC appointing themselves judge, jury and executioner is IMO idiotic and blinkered. Lynch mob mentality brings out the worst in human beings, and I don't belong to the 'eye for an eye' school of thought.

 

[Jambo Seagull]

i'm gonna get flamed here, but the Hughes situation, however bad it may be, is NOTHING like the Thompson situation. Hughes made a massive mistake, driving when you've had a skinfull is bad, really bad, but I can't even begin to explain the difference, in my opinion, compared to flirting with young kids. There is NO defence, it's sick and THAT is the whole point here? Alcohol is a powefull drug, but sending pictures or grooming young kids, seriously guys come on? it's MORE than a sackable offence?

You cannot be serious. The only person who was presented with the whole facts in this case was the judge. He fined Thomson £4k and because this was a crime of a sexual nature,had to put him on the Sex Offenders Register. He decided that the shortest period available on the SOR was sufficient. He did not restict his liberty in any other way. He didnt impose a restriction on Thomson having contact with minors. I know for a fact that there were no journalists in court when he was sentenced. The Sheriff heard the whole facts and the mitigating circumstances and made his decision accordingly. Thomson was prosecuted on a summary complaint, not indictment which means the longest sentence he could have recived would be six months jail. The Crown therefore took the view that, while these were very serious offences, they were not so serious to merit at their worst a lengthy custodial sentence. The press up here have had a field day. These offences took place between the ages of 17 and 19. He has made a massive mistake. He is almost certainly going to lose his livelihood and will need to move away from Edinburgh and (at this rate) the whole of the UK. And yet for some people this still isn't enough. What do you people want? A public execution? Chemical castration? And how is sending a picture of your tadger to a 14 year old and a 12 year old far worse than killing someone? I despair. I really do.

Oh and before some arsehole with a pitchfork accuses me of condoning his actions, I'm not condoning his actions. He's been punished for them and rightly so. But please, a sense of proportion, ffs.

 

[Mackenzie]

You cannot be serious. The only person who was presented with the whole facts in this case was the judge. He fined Thomson £4k and because this was a crime of a sexual nature,had to put him on the Sex Offenders Register. He decided that the shortest period available on the SOR was sufficient. He did not restict his liberty in any other way. He didnt impose a restriction on Thomson having contact with minors. I know for a fact that there were no journalists in court when he was sentenced. The Sheriff heard the whole facts and the mitigating circumstances and made his decision accordingly. Thomson was prosecuted on a summary complaint, not indictment which means the longest sentence he could have recived would be six months jail. The Crown therefore took the view that, while these were very serious offences, they were not so serious to merit at their worst a lengthy custodial sentence. The press up here have had a field day. These offences took place between the ages of 17 and 19. He has made a massive mistake. He is almost certainly going to lose his livelihood and will need to move away from Edinburgh and (at this rate) the whole of the UK. And yet for some people this still isn't enough. What do you people want? A public execution? Chemical castration? And how is sending a picture of your tadger to a 14 year old and a 12 year old far worse than killing someone? I despair. I really do.

Oh and before some arsehole with a pitchfork accuses me of condoning his actions, I'm not condoning his actions. He's been punished for them and rightly so. But please, a sense of proportion, ffs.

This.

 

[brunswick]

hard punishment does not fix things.....it is like pruning a tree when one needs to look at the roots.

 

[terry1]

As a parent of a teenage daughter it is something that concerns me, but I don't see how either killing Thomson or sacking him addresses the issue of what caused him to do it. Ultimately we all want the same thing, which is to reduce the frequency of such actions.

So you think he should keep his job?