At long last Hearts as stepping the in right direction and have suspended him, now they just have to sack the sicko.
Don't be so judgemental. We've all made honest mistakes.
I mean who hasn't sent the odd picture of their Johnson to a 12 year old girl?
I'm not defending the bloke one bit and what he did is totally wrong, but what were the circumstances in which he sent the pictures? Did the two girls in question look sixteen years old?
I've not heard much detail about the case bar the odd snippet on the radio.
The 12 year old he has known most her life, and the 14 year old her date of birth was on the facebook account he was grooming her on.
Well then it doesn't seem there any mitigating circumstances at all.
Hearts have now done the correct thing in suspending him.
I wonder how many companies would instantly dismiss a person if they had done such a thing?
I'm not defending the bloke one bit and what he did is totally wrong, but what were the circumstances in which he sent the pictures? Did the two girls in question look sixteen years old?
I've not heard much detail about the case bar the odd snippet on the radio.
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.
the circumstances do no sound very mitigating at all. What a fool. Was he really grooming them or was it a one off, stupid act trying to be funny?
Don't be so judgemental. We've all made honest mistakes.
I mean who hasn't sent the odd picture of their Johnson to a 12 year old girl?
I wonder how many companies would instantly dismiss a person if they had done such a thing?
In reply to Edna, most employment contracts would stipulate that offences that are obligatory to disclose are precisely that, disclosed. Therefore, a failure to do so would be a sacking offence anyway.