Leaderboard

The post you replied to was removed because it never brought anything to the discussion and was little more than a cheap swipe, sorry. But the point is, Thomson's position was not youth coach, it was not a position which required him to have access to children at all. He would be of no risk to your children or any other children for that matter, in the course of his position at HMFC. The man has made a mistake and been punished for it. His punishment was imposed by a sheriff who through years of study of law and with ALL of the facts at disposal decided that the punishment did not require restriction on Thomson's movement in the proximity of children or contact with children. Employment law states that conviction of a crime should not be used for disciplinary procedures unless it has an effect on the ability to perform a job or has an adverse effect on the employer's business. There was no adverse effect on HMFC's business until sensastionalised journalism made easily influenced persons such as yourself rise up in mock outrage. Your kids would never have been in danger but now Thomson is unlikely to get his job back, he is unlikely to gain employment and has the next five years to spend mulling over his predicament, letting his mind run in overdrive and then disappear from the radar of all watching him, to god knows where, with god knows how many twisted thoughts running through his head for five years. Who knows he might even decide to move away from the community, which has ostrasised him, next door to you and you would never know. Maybe better to keep him busy, keep him active and work with him to change his ways. He was a stupid wee boy when he commited these offenses, he could have grown up into a footballer but now he is more likely to grow into a bitter twisted young adult.

I didn't realise that you had to have a degree in law to have an opinion worthy of consideration on a judgement. Just yesterday I was asked, by a firm of solicitors, to give an opinion on what a judgement meant operationally regarding a patent being pursued. The worth and merit of that opinion can then be discussed by those suitably qualified but the fact that it was requested must mean it has some value? If we follow your logic then, for example, only dentists should have opinions on teeth, sommeliers opinions on wine, parents opinions on children and, dare I say it, qualified coaches opinions on football. Interesting world you live in eh? For the record, any opinion you have has, in my opinion, some worth. It's good to have opinions but, more importantly the substance to back up what your opinion is based on. My opinion in this case is based on the flow of information within the public domain through all forms (and qualities) of media with particular attention being paid to the views of organisations such as Children 1st and the clear admission of guilt by Thomson. Taking this all into account and my natural instinct to protect my own as much as possible, I form the opinion I express above. What is your opinion based on?

i reckon, unless there is another CB signing, that Tel will start will tokely and proctor. he seems to like proctor a lot Releasing Munro to play Proctor instead would make zero sense. Surely we have to sign 1 experienced CB

The Smiths were unable to conceive children and decided to use a surrogate father to start their family. On the day the proxy father was to arrive, Mr. Smith kissed his wife goodbye and said, "Well, I'm off now The man should be here soon." Half an hour later, just by chance, a door-to-door baby photographer happened to ring the doorbell, hoping to make a sale. "Good morning, Ma'am", he said, "I've come to...'' "Oh, no need to explain," Mrs. Smith cut in, embarrassed, "I've been expecting you." "Have you really?" said the photographer. "Well, that's good. Did you know babies are my specialty?" "Well that's what my husband and I had hoped. Please come in and have a seat" After a moment she asked, blushing, "Well, where do we start?" "Leave everything to me. I usually try two in the bathtub, one on the couch, and perhaps a couple on the bed. And sometimes the living room floor is fun. You can really spread out there." "Bathtub, living room floor? No wonder it didn't work out for Harry and me!" "Well, Ma'am, none of us can guarantee a good one every time. But if we try several different positions and I shoot from six or seven angles, I'm sure you'll be pleased with the results." "My, that's a lot!" gasped Mrs. Smith. "Ma'am, in my line of work a man has to take his time. I'd love to be in and out in five minutes, but I'm sure you'd be disappointed with that." "Don't I know it," said Mrs. Smith quietly. The photographer opened his briefcase and pulled out a portfolio of his baby pictures. "This was done on the top of a bus," he said. "Oh my God!" Mrs. Smith exclaimed, grasping at her throat. "And these twins turned out exceptionally well - when you consider their mother was so difficult to work with." "She was difficult?" asked Mrs. Smith. "Yes, I'm afraid so I finally had to take her to the park to get the job done right. People were crowding around four and five deep to get a good look." "Four and five deep?" said Mrs. Smith, her eyes wide with amazement. "Yes", the photographer replied. "And for more than three hours, too. The mother was constantly squealing and yelling - I could hardly concentrate, and when darkness approached I had to rush my shots. Finally, when the squirrels began nibbling on my equipment, I just had to pack it all in." Mrs. Smith leaned forward. "Do you mean they actually chewed on your, um..equipment?" "It's true, Ma'am, yes. Well, if you're ready, I'll set-up my tripod and we can get to work right away." "Tripod?" "Oh yes, Ma'am. I need to use a tripod to rest my Canon on. It's much too big to be held in the hand very long." Mrs. Smith fainted.

Like any valuation it goes up and down, and you've got to time your move correctly. Demand too much and the other party might find it too hard to swallow. By all accounts he's quite a handful, but I hope the pressure of a bigger club doesn't make him flop. Competition for places is always tough, but I'm sure if anyone is able to force his way in, it's him.

Depends on how desperate the woman who's paying really is. ...and how old and firm it is.

Depends on how desperate the woman who's paying really is.

To cheer us up, here's a reminder of what we'll be "missing".

This is all local to us down here. He went to our school and some of our girls were involved or knew the ones who were. Jefferies was furious with him when it broke last year and he sent the player down to England to take the heat off. I suspect Jefferies didn't want him back and as somebody mentioned, his principles will come into play sooner or later.

I agree that he should be suspended now pending an internal enquiry into his suitability to carry on in his position, given the fact the club are losing money through sponsorship and possible future fans due to the schools refusal to carry on with training days but the sherriff in the case stated that he was not considered a risk to children and imposed no restrictions on his working with children or vunerable adults. Also, there is a precident in law that everyone is innocent until proved guilty so if he was suspended when charged pending an internal inquiry and that inquiry forced his dismissal what would have happened if he had been found innocent? There are too many people with ill informed opinions ready to wreck careers. Public opinion, based on cherry picked facts and sensationalised journalism, is what has forced sponsors to withdraw. The legal expert who sat over the case decided on this man's ability to work with children but the tabloids, driven by sales, forced public opinion to drive him out of his career. Normally quite sympathetic to the viewpoint that tabloid journalism is an irresponsible vehicle that causes harm. Not in this case. As far as I'm concerned we have much to thank the "rags" for as they contributed significantly to having the abuser removed. As for the issue of legal fact, it is quite clear to me that the accused plead guilty to the charges that are well documented in the public domain. The judge punished accordingly and deem it necessary to place the guilty party on the SOR for a period of at least five years. For me, the case is quite clear: Charge, admission, guilt, punishment. No grey area for the tabloids to be allowed to manipulate, only public outrage at the stance and arrogance of both the guilty party and his employers. The tabloids have been the vehicle for this to be aired, not the driver. It appears that further cases are now being investigated with the likelihood of new charges a possibility. Are they down to the tabloids giving victims the confidence to come forward? I have not read the full judgement but will. If, as is suggested the judge has deemed him worthy of continuing to be in contact with children I will, as a parent of four, be very disappointed. If I thought, at any stage in their developing life, that my children were to be in contact with such an individual as the guilty party I would have them removed. No debate, no discussion, out. Suggest most parents feel exactly the same. I have no sympathy for Thomson. If his career is over, I suggest he looks in a mirror and he will clearly see the person who is responsible.

Me plus the beer monster

well we had someone recording match footage when we were in the 1st Division for free in their own time, so there are fans willing to help the cause. If the club feel they dont have the money for such things well its not wonder kids support other clubs! Not having a go at you mate, im just want my club to succeed so badly! Engaging supporters is absolutely paramount for a club like ICT these days.

Whilst I wish Adam all the best, I am disappointed he's opted for B'ham City. It's not so much that I am a Villa man myself, but because at Birmingham he will be playing alongside the odius Marlon King.

I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with you on this one and also your previous quote. Lets get one thing straight he (Thompson) took away his prospects when he did what he did, a disgusting act that should in no way be condoned or glorified or glossed over. I like many others on this post will not apologise for calling for him to be sacked and nor do I think that our outcry has been caused by the media. Whatever way you look at it it would have became public knowledge and there would have been the same outpouring as there has been regardless of how it was portayed. Why are you focusing on him and his position and his mental health and helping him overcome his problems, all too often the people in authority or think they know better due to years of studying from books proclaim that the convicted is in fact the victim, read your post and basically that's how it reads. He is not the victim, he is the convicted of a sick crime that should not be shyed away from. Lets take a moment to think about the actual victims of this and how they feel and how they felt during the ordeal, children manipulated by an adult who should know better and have values but clearly he doesn't. Why should he be allowed to continue as normal??? He should be allowed to continue as normal because A, the courts have dealt with this matter and it has nothing to do with you whether he remains in a job or not, you and many others are mearly seeking to extend his punishment by driving his employers into finishing his career. If the courts decided he was a danger to children and should not be allowed within a set proximity to them then that would be their decision. B, extracted from http://www.acas.org.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=1043 Everyone who has called for this young man's dismissal are no better than non violent vigilantes, who should have a little more regard for the law.