hearts player is a sex offender

tallaghtmick

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

Why have hearts kept him on?surely being a peado is enough for any club to get rid of a player.Not only does it bring bad publicity it also gives rival fans reason to abuse him if hes playing,also would you care if your club had a convicted sex offender playing?

flahavaj

The wording of the club's statement leads me to believe he had no idea he was talking to kids online and there was possibly some kind of set-up. The odd statement the club released earlier in the week leads me to believe there is something bigger going on in the background.

"In reaching this decision, the club accepted that there are sufficient mitigating circumstances that provide significant assurance that the player's conduct, no matter how distasteful, was the result of a grave error of judgement due to naivety and possible wrong outside influence rather than anything more sinister and it will not be repeated."

No club would knowingly keep a paedophile on its books.

Sasquatch76

flahavaj wrote: »

The wording of the club's statement leads me to believe he had no idea he was talking to kids online and there was possibly some kind of set-up. The odd statement the club released earlier in the week leads me to believe there is something bigger going on in the background.


No club would knowingly keep a paedophile on its books.

The courts didn't seem to think there were mitigating circumstances. If he was "set up" by external forces, why did he plead guilty? Should be sacked, end of.

killwill

tallaghtmick wrote: »

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

Why have hearts kept him on?surely being a peado is enough for any club to get rid of a player.Not only does it bring bad publicity it also gives rival fans reason to abuse him if hes playing,also would you care if your club had a convicted sex offender playing?

While having a "paedo" on your books, as you called him, is not ideal, he is judged on his footballing ability for the club I would imagine.

Also it sounds like he was in contact with someone who was borderline the legal age.

BTW I am not condoning anything that this player has done, just we don't really know ALL the facts so should not judge.

flahavaj

Sasquatch76 wrote: »

The courts didn't seem to think there were mitigating circumstances. If he was "set up" by external forces, why did he plead guilty? Should be sacked, end of.

I have no idea, I'm just giving my opinion based on the little evidence we have in front of us. As I said if there was any question he was a pervert and simply hadn't been unlucky then I'm sure the club would have gotten rid ASAP.

Sasquatch76

flahavaj wrote: »

I have no idea, I'm just giving my opinion based on the little evidence we have in front of us. As I said if there was any question he was a pervert and simply hadn't been unlucky then I'm sure the club would have gotten rid ASAP.

I'd like to agree, but given the club's other recent official statement, it's hard to know what they're thinking.

flahavaj

Sasquatch76 wrote: »

I'd like to agree, but given the club's other recent official statement, it's hard to know what they're thinking.

Aye, strange happenings seem to be afoot at the club.

HarryPotter41

killwill wrote: »

While having a "paedo" on your books, as you called him, is not ideal, he is judged on his footballing ability for the club I would imagine.

Also it sounds like he was in contact with someone who was borderline the legal age.

BTW I am not condoning anything that this player has done, just we don't really know ALL the facts so should not judge.

12 and 14 is not really borderline legal age

The links might give more insight into what actually happened and partly explain the Hearts reaction
http://www.scotsman.com/news/Hearts39-Craig-Thomson-guilty-of.6786618.jp
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20110624/hearts-statement_2241384_2381659

TwistsAndTurns

Mothers statement.

Thomson was a close family friend.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sunday-mail/2011/06/26/victim-s-mum-reveals-full-horror-of-hearts-star-craig-thomson-s-depravity-86908-23228208/

flahavaj

Curiouser and curiouser.

HarryPotter41

flahavaj wrote: »

Curiouser and curiouser.

Indeed, the club statement is interesting but I doubt the mafia managed to get two children that age to play along with him perving on them. Him staying in football is stupid, his life is going to be hell, and in scottish football especially I imagine at some point he will get the s***e kicked out of him.

TwistsAndTurns

I would presume the other players with family will find it hard to play with him.

baldbear

He knew the girl was 13 and sent her pictures of his mickey and he was trying to arrange to have sex with her or am i missing something? He has to get the sack. His team mates will disown him.

HarryPotter41

TwistsAndTurns wrote: »

I would presume the other players with family will find it hard to play with him.

I would say so, will make for a dreadful dressing room atmosphere. Its a strange one, people make mistakes but this seems to have been too sustained to be a mistake, seems very predatory.

flahavaj

I still maintain there is more to this than meets the eye. If the facts as presented above, with him sexually harrassing a 13 year old over the internet, while in full knowledge of her age are indeed true then fair enough, getting rid is a no-brainer. But the fact that this hasn't happeneed and the other statement from the club lead me to believe it isn't as black and white as that.

killwill

For the record, after reading more about this incident, I totally change my view. I would not be able to sit in the same dreesing room or celebrate a win with a man like that.

Whats the story with the Hearts statement, it doesnt make sense.Its as if it was written by someone with poor English, how can a professional club release that?

killwill

Alayna Puny Stringer wrote: »

Whats the story with the Hearts statement, it doesnt make sense.Its as if it was written by someone with poor English, how can a professional club release that?

It was a politician's statement, releasing a statement about a dodgy subject, without mentioning anything about said subject!!!

Jelle1880

I was written by their owner I think, Romanov.

Can't believe he hasn't been sacked.

tallaghtmick

flahavaj wrote: »

I still maintain there is more to this than meets the eye. If the facts as presented above, with him sexually harrassing a 13 year old over the internet, while in full knowledge of her age are indeed true then fair enough, getting rid is a no-brainer. But the fact that this hasn't happeneed and the other statement from the club lead me to believe it isn't as black and white as that.

when someone pleads guilty and judge finds him to be guilty enough to be put on the register its as plain as day.

flahavaj

tallaghtmick wrote: »

when someone pleads guilty and judge finds him to be guilty enough to be put on the register its as plain as day.

If you actually read the very post you quoted you'd see that if thats the case then he should be gotten rid of.

I think there is more to this story than meets the eye though. What that is, I'm not sure yet, but that very strange club statement from a few days ago, coupled to this suggests to me this isn't the last we have heard of Hearts and their off-pitch shennanigans this season.

HarryPotter41

flahavaj wrote: »

If you actually read the very post you quoted you'd see that if thats the case then he should be gotten rid of.

I think there is more to this story than meets the eye though. What that is, I'm not sure yet, but that very strange club statement from a few days ago, coupled to this suggests to me this isn't the last we have heard of Hearts and their off-pitch shennanigans this season.

Whatever else is behind the scenes, he has admitted the offence, knowingly chased the two girls. There is no defence for him continuing playing at the club.

tallaghtmick

flahavaj wrote: »

If you actually read the very post you quoted you'd see that if thats the case then he should be gotten rid of.

I think there is more to this story than meets the eye though. What that is, I'm not sure yet, but that very strange club statement from a few days ago, coupled to this suggests to me this isn't the last we have heard of Hearts and their off-pitch shennanigans this season.

of course every club is gonna come out and defend a player,sure romanov himself is an absolute nutjob so no surprises there that the player is being defended.

flahavaj

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Whatever else is behind the scenes, he has admitted the offence, knowingly chased the two girls. There is no defence for him continuing playing at the club.

If thats what emerged in court then I agree 100%.

HarryPotter41

flahavaj wrote: »

If thats what emerged in court then I agree 100%.

Read the link on my previous post in relation to the case

Dave!

He was friends with them on Facebewk, and was interacting with one of them by webcam, so he knew their age.

Therefore anything sexual at all is reprehensible, and he should be sacked.

UglyBolloxFace

flahavaj wrote: »

I still maintain there is more to this than meets the eye. If the facts as presented above, with him sexually harrassing a 13 year old over the internet, while in full knowledge of her age are indeed true then fair enough, getting rid is a no-brainer. But the fact that this hasn't happeneed and the other statement from the club lead me to believe it isn't as black and white as that.

You appear to be looking for some sort of conspiracy or excuse where there isn't one to be found at all.

Here is why he has not been sacked:

Thomson has been on the books of Hearts since he was a kid. This means they have pumped plenty of time and effort into his development. And he is actually a good player, so they're not just going to tear up his contract.

If they sacked him, what would the Club get out of it? Nothing, absolutely nothing. They would be at a loss after the resources they've spent on him. So to put it bluntly, this decision is about money and only money, nothing else.

People seem to be forgetting that he has actually been convicted - he has been fined and put on the Sexual Offender's List for 5 years. He should be ashamed of himself and have the good grace to at least attempt to tender his resignation - how any of the other players can continue to share a dressing room with him is beyond me.

The Davestator

Agree with the a above. He's been found guilty and received his punishment. The club can decide to keep him or sack him but as above has said, theyve spent a lot on his development.

Guy:Incognito

Have the groups like the one represented by the Scottish woman thats been all over the radio to protested about everyone else thats been put on the sex offenders register and demanded they be sacked too? Or just this one cos he's a footballer?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Have the groups like the one represented by the Scottish woman thats been all over the radio to protested about everyone else thats been put on the sex offenders register and demanded they be sacked too? Or just this one cos he's a footballer?

To be fair its probably because he is a footballer that its so prominent.
He is a footballer and therefore open to scrutiny he also will attract daft young lassies and if he had a brain and not a fascination with young females then he wouldn't be in this bother the guy will cop it big time at every ground he plays at

Even on the Hearts forums the majority seen to favour him getting sacked

tallaghtmick

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Even on the Hearts forums the majority seen to favour him getting sacked

The same came from a prominent politician and hearts fan,he's at a loss as to why hearts have kept him on.

Neil3030

He plead guilty to the offence and was handed a punishment which the court in question deemed appropriated.

Why, exactly, should he be sacked? People are getting a bit hysterical over this tbf.

Jelle1880

Neil3030 wrote: »

He plead guilty to the offence and was handed a punishment which the court in question deemed appropriated.

Why, exactly, should he be sacked? People are getting a bit hysterical over this tbf.

So because he's been punished in court he shouldn't be sacked by the club ?
I would suggest that the conviction is even more reason to get rid of him.

Handsome Bob

Neil3030 wrote: »

He plead guilty to the offence and was handed a punishment which the court in question deemed appropriated.

Why, exactly, should he be sacked? People are getting a bit hysterical over this tbf.

Putting the should he be sacked debate aside for a second, he's already in an unplayable situation. I can't see the dressing room being willing to play along side him. There will always be a level of mistrust and disgust, so for the sake of team morale and performance, he has to go. Whether that should be achieved by sacking him I don't know, but I don't see any other club willing to pay a fee for him.

stovelid

Unfortunate for everybody involved but lets face it: chant material gold of this calibre comes only once every blue moon.

Get to it, people.

Neil3030

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So because he's been punished in court he shouldn't be sacked by the club ?
I would suggest that the conviction is even more reason to get rid of him.

Would you extend this argument to include anyone who is convicted of any crime? If so, then fair enough, but I would disagree with how useful that will be in the overall scheme of things. Alienating criminals will only heighten the liklihood that they will reoffend. Ultimately, courts are where criminals should be punished, not the workplace or anywhere else.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Putting the should he be sacked debate aside for a second, he's already in an unplayable situation. I can't see the dressing room being willing to play along side him. There will always be a level of mistrust and disgust, so for the sake of team morale and performance, he has to go. Whether that should be achieved by sacking him I don't know, but I don't see any other club willing to pay a fee for him.

They probably won't accept him, but that remains to be seen. I suppose there are two arguments here - (1) the one you raise regarding the tenability of his future employment at Hearts and (2) the more close minded argument of "he's a sex offender/criminal, he shouldn't be allowed keep his job." It's the latter I'd take issue with, as it really helps nobody to alienate criminals. The most important thing is to reduce the liklihood of him reoffending, and to this end, he requires support and rehabilitation, not marginalisation.

HarryPotter41

Neil3030 wrote: »

He plead guilty to the offence and was handed a punishment which the court in question deemed appropriated.

Why, exactly, should he be sacked? People are getting a bit hysterical over this tbf.

Football is followed in large numbers by children, Hearts is a small club where fans would have a fair degree of access to players. Therefore their players will be held as role models by a large number of younger people. Its down to the profession hes in, if he was a factory worker it would be not be as difficult a situation.

There could also be an argument that he could re-offend more easily because the above would mean he could still come into contact with children easily. Are teachers convicted of sex offences allowed continue teaching on the basis of "they have been punished"?

Jelle1880

Neil3030 wrote: »

Would you extend this argument to include anyone who is convicted of any crime? If so, then fair enough, but I would disagree with how useful that will be in the overall scheme of things. Alienating criminals will only heighten the liklihood that they will reoffend. Ultimately, courts are where criminals should be punished, not the workplace or anywhere else.

It depends on the contract that is in place between him and his employer, but also on the offence commited.
For a petty shoplifting charge I wouldn't want him sacked.
But this is a bit worse than that imo.

I read om JamboKickback about a guy who works for a school who every year go to Hearts as a school-trip.
They will now cancel that until he is removed from the club.

edit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13927452

Drinks company macb has withdrawn its support as the official water sponsor of football club Hearts.

The move comes after the club said it would not sack player Craig Thomson, who has been convicted of grooming two young girls on the internet.

The flavoured spring water firm said that as "a company with strong family values" it was left with no choice but to withdraw its support.

The sponsorship deal is worth more than £5,000 to the Edinburgh club.

A spokesman for Hearts said the club had no comment to make on the withdrawal of the sponsorship agreement.

The charity Children 1st earlier called on Hearts to dismiss Thomson after he was placed on the sex offenders register.

The 20-year-old was fined £4,000 for his lewd, libidinous and indecent behaviour towards two girls, aged 12 and 14, over the internet.

Hearts said it was keeping the player because there were "mitigating circumstances" which provided assurance his conduct would not be repeated.

A spokeswoman for macb said: "As a company with strong family values, we are left with no choice but to terminate our relationship with the Hearts football club.

"Along with countless others, fans and co-sponsors alike, we are extremely disappointed with the club's handling of this situation and as a result can no longer continue our support."

Last week Thomson issued an apology via the club website, saying he was "fully aware" that he had "let everyone down".

On Monday, manager Jim Jefferies said he was determined to prevent the case becoming a "sideshow" which affected the rest of his team.

"You don't want your club to be associated with anything like this," he said.

"You accept as a manager that you'll have to deal with problems along the road. But I have to be honest and say I've never felt like this.

"There's a big part of me that is sorry the player got involved because I knew what the reaction would be and he can't have any complaints because it was a bad, bad thing he did. He has made a grave error."

Neil3030

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Football is followed in large numbers by children, Hearts is a small club where fans would have a fair degree of access to players. Therefore their players will be held as role models by a large number of younger people. Its down to the profession hes in, if he was a factory worker it would be not be as difficult a situation.

There could also be an argument that he could re-offend more easily because the above would mean he could still come into contact with children easily. Are teachers convicted of sex offences allowed continue teaching on the basis of "they have been punished"?

Feel free to update me on any information I've missed out on, but didn't this guy commit his offence over the Internet? What exactly will sacking him achieve? What do you expect to happen from cutting a guy off from his livelihood, marginalising and alienating him from society and sending him away like a leper who the entire world hates? Is this really going to decrease the liklihood that he will reoffend?

Neil3030

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It depends on the contract that is in place between him and his employer, but also on the offence commited.
For a petty shoplifting charge I wouldn't want him sacked.
But this is a bit worse than that imo.

I read om JamboKickback about a guy who works for a school who every year go to Hearts as a school-trip.
They will now cancel that until he is removed from the club.

edit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13927452

Well now we're in the area of the tenability of his position and I can appreciate the position that the club may be forced to take. My issue is with the "arrrrrgh, he's on the sex offender's register - SACK HIM! SACK HIM!" mentality, which really helps nobody, not least the liklihood that he will reoffend.

jmayo

Neil3030 wrote: »

He plead guilty to the offence and was handed a punishment which the court in question deemed appropriated.

Why, exactly, should he be sacked? People are getting a bit hysterical over this tbf.

Because in a fair few instances people lose their jobs if they have been found guilty of a crime or an illegal offense.
AFAIK most airlines fire pilots who have been found guilty of drunken driving.

This is a major offense and he even admitted he was guilty in court.
He has been placed on the sex offenders list.
Soccer players and soccer clubs have links with youth and community groups.
He probably comes into contact with minors.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Putting the should he be sacked debate aside for a second, he's already in an unplayable situation. I can't see the dressing room being willing to play along side him. There will always be a level of mistrust and disgust, so for the sake of team morale and performance, he has to go. Whether that should be achieved by sacking him I don't know, but I don't see any other club willing to pay a fee for him.

That was what I was thinking.
He is a liability now to the team.
They can't seriously play him since he becomes a focus for the opposition.
Imagine the barracking he will get from opposition fans and players.
Imagine the barracking his team mates will get and sooner or later there will be brawls on the pitch involving him and/or his team mates.

Neil3030 wrote: »

Feel free to update me on any information I've missed out on, but didn't this guy commit his offence over the Internet?
What exactly will sacking him achieve?

I think most companies have some rules about the behaviour of their employees.
It doesn't matter if the offense took place on his own time, he was/is a representative of the club.
Would you want a TV reporter/program presentator who had done this to be still allowed broadcast every week ?

Neil3030 wrote: »

Actually this is probably just one step down from being a rapist.
What do you expect to happen from cutting a guy off from his livelihood, marginalising and alienating him from society and sending him away like a leper who the entire world hates? Is this really going to decrease the liklihood that he will reoffend?

Ah FFS what absolute tripe.
This isn't a case where he is a nobody who comes to fix the pumbing or sits at a desk taking calls.
The guy is out on a pitch with a number on his back in front of x thousand of people, all of whom at this stage know what he did.
It is inconceivable that he can continue as if nothing had happened.
Even if the club are trying to get some of the money back they spent on him, they never will because no one will hire the guy now.
He could go play in Australia/Azerberjan/Egypt but someone would find the information on the net in five minutes.

His career is finished.
He can't even become a coach since he would never be let near children.

Fizman

Neil3030 wrote: »

Feel free to update me on any information I've missed out on, but didn't this guy commit his offence over the Internet? What exactly will sacking him achieve? What do you expect to happen from cutting a guy off from his livelihood, marginalising and alienating him from society and sending him away like a leper who the entire world hates? Is this really going to decrease the liklihood that he will reoffend?

He dug his own hole. This one in particular is more canyon-like. He should no longer be in such a public position with such financial rewards. Morally, keeping him on the books is just wrong. The club need to set the tone here. It is beyond comprehension how the club expect their other players to fully comply with this guy on and off the pitch, regardless of how much they spent on his development, not to mention how this looks in the eyes of their fans.

seafood dunleavy

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

To be fair its probably because he is a footballer that its so prominent.
He is a footballer and therefore open to scrutiny he also will attract daft young lassies and if he had a brain and not a fascination with young females then he wouldn't be in this bother the guy will cop it big time at every ground he plays at

Even on the Hearts forums the majority seen to favour him getting sacked

Funny that the Hearts fans are now taking a serious attitude to child abuse when they would previously sing and laugh about it in every game against Celtic.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

seafood dunleavy wrote: »

Funny that the Hearts fans are now taking a serious attitude to child abuse when they would previously sing and laugh about it in every game against Celtic.

If your talking about what I think you are this guy is going to get it ten times worse at every ground he plays at as I have previously stated

seafood dunleavy

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If your talking about what I think you are this guy is going to get it ten times worse at every ground he plays at as I have previously stated

I know he will. Fair enough if he is just booed but if songs were made up to laugh and poke fun about it next season just to wind up opposition fans, it would be wrong.

doncarlos

seafood dunleavy wrote: »

I know he will. Fair enough if he is just booed but if songs were made up to laugh and poke fun about it next season just to wind up opposition fans, it would be wrong.

Have you ever been to a football match before?

seafood dunleavy

doncarlos wrote: »

Have you ever been to a football match before?

So you think it's acceptable for child abuse to be used as a wind up tool? Of course I have and I know these things happen. Just don't think child abuse is something to be laughed at and used like that.

_blank_

seafood dunleavy wrote: »

So you think it's acceptable for child abuse to be used as a wind up tool? Of course I have and I know these things happen. Just don't think child abuse is something to be laughed at and used like that.

It's different in a ground.

Personally, I've abused a player up and down a sideline after "mental issues" were rumoured.

He later bought me pints.

seafood dunleavy

Des wrote: »

It's different in a ground.

Personally, I've abused a player up and down a sideline after "mental issues" were rumoured.

He later bought me pints.

True enough it is. I've done it myself but just certain things I wouldn't sing about.

HarryPotter41

Neil3030 wrote: »

Feel free to update me on any information I've missed out on, but didn't this guy commit his offence over the Internet? What exactly will sacking him achieve? What do you expect to happen from cutting a guy off from his livelihood, marginalising and alienating him from society and sending him away like a leper who the entire world hates? Is this really going to decrease the liklihood that he will reoffend?

Over the internet yes, he wanted to meet them, one of them was actually the sister of a friend of his so he knew the girl personally. His work means that he is in a situation week in week out where there are children. What if he was to manage to find out any info from them and them on facebook and groom them again?? would that be okay with you because he has been punished already. Its the area he works in as I have said before that is the issue.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Sorry but some of the stuff I am reading on here is unbelievable.

In case anyone is in any doubt this guy has been convicted and placed on the Sex Offenders Registrar Of course he shouldn't be kept on Hearts as a football club should be leading by example and show that people like him are not acceptable in a civilised society

Having seen the damage to families people like him can cause I am amazed anyone can contemplate defending him its unbelievable