Another Hearts player misbehaving

[marks]

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.

Edited July 1, 2011 by marks

[Sorted]

Thanks for apology, appreciate it.

"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."

Apart from the remark that I am one of those "easily influenced persons" who "rise up in mock rage", the above is the part of your post which really contradicts your position. If I am understanding you properly (apologies if not) what you are saying is that unless we allow him to continue as normal he presents a risk. Read what you have written and explain to me why is does not give cause for concern?

[marks]

Sorry, I do not know what you want from me, what is giving you cause for concern from my post?

I am saying that if he was allowed to continue as normal he could have a better chance to move on from this issue and work through his problems but by taking away all of his prospects it is possible that he could be forced into a position where is mental health is adversely affected and where helping him overcome his problems would be made harder.

[marks]

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?

Perhaps some have been given the courage to come forward or perhaps they have sniffed some criminal injuries compensation, one thing is for sure though, it will not be down to you or me to decide but qualified persons directing a jury of his peers.

[+MrCaleyjag]

Sorry, I do not know what you want from me, what is giving you cause for concern from my post?

I am saying that if he was allowed to continue as normal he could have a better chance to move on from this issue and work through his problems but by taking away all of his prospects it is possible that he could be forced into a position where is mental health is adversely affected and where helping him overcome his problems would be made harder.

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??? Do you have children, if you do would you still have the same view if it were them that were the victims?

Edited July 1, 2011 by MrCaleyjag

[marks]

Sorry, I do not know what you want from me, what is giving you cause for concern from my post?

I am saying that if he was allowed to continue as normal he could have a better chance to move on from this issue and work through his problems but by taking away all of his prospects it is possible that he could be forced into a position where is mental health is adversely affected and where helping him overcome his problems would be made harder.

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

If an employee is charged with, or convicted of a criminal offence this is not normally in itself reason for disciplinary action. Consideration needs to be given to what effect the charge or conviction has on the employee?s suitability to do the job and their relationship with their employer, work colleagues and customers.

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.

[marks]

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.

Simply because pedofilia is recognised as a mental health issue, would you rather he recieved no help and his condition continued or would you just prefer he was put to death? Why makee a problem worse when it is recognised that it can be treated?

[+MrCaleyjag]

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.

Simply because pedofilia is recognised as a mental health issue, would you rather he recieved no help and his condition continued or would you just prefer he was put to death? Why makee a problem worse when it is recognised that it can be treated?

I'm certainly not saying that he should be put to death, you wrote that not me and nor am I intimating that he should not get the help you are suggesting he should, I do however think that now-a-days those in positions are all to quick to jump and say that everything is to do with mental health problems. Can it be treated, no I don't think so. Once someone has these thoughts especially in terms of peadophillia it is very difficult to change their views and thoughts.

Yes the courts have dealt with it but I bet you if you took 5 judges and asked them to sit on the case they all would have gave out slightly different judgements, just because one person or a couple of so called professional say that he doesn't pose a risk doesn't mean that they are correct. Anyone can sit with psycologists and whoever else was brought in to assess him and say they are very sorry and it is not in their character or nature and they won't do it again etc etc but do they really mean it?

And yes when he is in a position like he is where children can idolise him and go to watch him play football I do think it's not an environment where he should be placed.

The main outcry from this whole episode has come from the way that the club have reacted to it and how they have protrayed it to the media themselves and their ridiculous way of dealing with it, they are almost just as bad as he is with some of the statements they have come away with!!

[marks]

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.

Simply because pedofilia is recognised as a mental health issue, would you rather he recieved no help and his condition continued or would you just prefer he was put to death? Why makee a problem worse when it is recognised that it can be treated?

I'm certainly not saying that he should be put to death, you wrote that not me and nor am I intimating that he should not get the help you are suggesting he should, I do however think that now-a-days those in positions are all to quick to jump and say that everything is to do with mental health problems. Can it be treated, no I don't think so. Once someone has these thoughts especially in terms of peadophillia it is very difficult to change their views and thoughts.

Yes the courts have dealt with it but I bet you if you took 5 judges and asked them to sit on the case they all would have gave out slightly different judgements, just because one person or a couple of so called professional say that he doesn't pose a risk doesn't mean that they are correct. Anyone can sit with psycologists and whoever else was brought in to assess him and say they are very sorry and it is not in their character or nature and they won't do it again etc etc but do they really mean it?

And yes when he is in a position like he is where children can idolise him and go to watch him play football I do think it's not an environment where he should be placed.

The main outcry from this whole episode has come from the way that the club have reacted to it and how they have protrayed it to the media themselves and their ridiculous way of dealing with it, they are almost just as bad as he is with some of the statements they have come away with!!

You must have spent over a decade in further education to gain your expertese in law, psychology and morality. You my friend have to be respected.

Maybe you could share some of your thoughts on this piece, I know it's wikipedia but you could perhaps indulge me in explaining why some of the cited parts of it are, in your opinion nonsense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedofilia

Edited July 1, 2011 by marks

[+MrCaleyjag]

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.

Simply because pedofilia is recognised as a mental health issue, would you rather he recieved no help and his condition continued or would you just prefer he was put to death? Why makee a problem worse when it is recognised that it can be treated?

I'm certainly not saying that he should be put to death, you wrote that not me and nor am I intimating that he should not get the help you are suggesting he should, I do however think that now-a-days those in positions are all to quick to jump and say that everything is to do with mental health problems. Can it be treated, no I don't think so. Once someone has these thoughts especially in terms of peadophillia it is very difficult to change their views and thoughts.

Yes the courts have dealt with it but I bet you if you took 5 judges and asked them to sit on the case they all would have gave out slightly different judgements, just because one person or a couple of so called professional say that he doesn't pose a risk doesn't mean that they are correct. Anyone can sit with psycologists and whoever else was brought in to assess him and say they are very sorry and it is not in their character or nature and they won't do it again etc etc but do they really mean it?

And yes when he is in a position like he is where children can idolise him and go to watch him play football I do think it's not an environment where he should be placed.

The main outcry from this whole episode has come from the way that the club have reacted to it and how they have protrayed it to the media themselves and their ridiculous way of dealing with it, they are almost just as bad as he is with some of the statements they have come away with!!

You must have spent over a decade in further education to gain your expertese in law, psychology and morality. You my friend have to be respected.

Maybe you could share some of your thoughts on this piece, I know it's wikipedia but you could perhaps indulge me in explaining why some of the cited parts of it are, in your opinion nonsense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedofilia

Am I missing something in my post where I actually said this? I questioned it, I didn't actually say i thought it was nonsense. I don't think my education or my morality comes into it, you don't have to spend a decade in further educational to have an expertese in morality. Morally what he did was wrong, end of, it can't be condoned nor can it be defended that's my point also.

Thanks for the link though, it was very informative.

I also notice that you have still not answered one of my previous questions or did you choose to gloss over it as it might contradict everything you have said or throw a different spin on your thoughts. I don't think you are necessarily wrong with everything that you are saying all I have focussed my thoughts on are what he did, the fact he is guilty, tried to ask how the victims come out of this and the role of his employer but you want to focus on him and how it affects him, did he think about how his actions affected the victims?

[marks]

Am I missing something in my post where I actually said this? I questioned it, I didn't actually say i thought it was nonsense. I don't think my education or my morality comes into it, you don't have to spend a decade in further educational to have an expertese in morality. Morally what he did was wrong, end of, it can't be condoned nor can it be defended that's my point also.

Thanks for the link though, it was very informative.

I also notice that you have still not answered one of my previous questions or did you choose to gloss over it as it might contradict everything you have said or throw a different spin on your thoughts. I don't think you are necessarily wrong with everything that you are saying all I have focussed my thoughts on are what he did, the fact he is guilty, tried to ask how the victims come out of this and the role of his employer but you want to focus on him and how it affects him, did he think about how his actions affected the victims?

"Can it be treated, no I don't think so."

I am sorry I took this statement to mean that you thought that there was no way of treating this mental health issue.

"I do however think that now-a-days those in positions are all to quick to jump and say that everything is to do with mental health problems"

I also took this to mean that you were sceptical that someone who has a sexual attraction to minors does not have something wrong with them mentally. Again if not, i apologise.

Now to answer your question, I am not a psychologist and I have not spoken to Thomson so I have now idea if he has psychopathic tendancies (the ability to act without empathy towards others, psychopathy is not restricted to inherintly evil people read Flipnosis by Kevin Dutton it is very informative) so I cannot comment at all on his thought process whilst he carried out these crimes. I am focusing on what I can form an opinion on and I feel that forcing a man into a worse position than he is in will ultimately make the job of dealing with his problems a lot harder and may even increase his problems to a stage where he becomes more of a risk thean he currently is.

Like I said too many people with ill informed opinions ready to force their way of thinking without thinking of the potential consequences.

[Sorted]

It is very interesting that you are able to judge the level of information and expertise that any poster has. What makes you believe that I express "ill informed opinions"? How do you know the "potential consequences" of these opinions?

I am surprised that it is you, the poster who has chosen to defend Thomson and his right to remain in employment. the poster that has sought to mitigate his behaviour and the likelihood of re-offence, that has introduced paedophilia into the debate. Why have you deemed this necessary when others have not? Are you linking Thomson's crimes to paedophilia?

Once again, this totally undermines your own argument. You have adopted the stance that he is a "silly wee boy" that has "made a mistake" and needs support and guidance not exclusion form society. Then you, not anyone else, chose to associate the "silly wee boy" that has "made a mistake" with paedophilia Little wonder people have concern eh?

For the record for every individual working within the mental health sector (public and private) that believes that paedophilia can be treated, there are at least two that believe it can only be managed. No cure just control.

I'll leave you to work out the merit or value of my opinion and whether it is based on over 25 years working in this field or just a hunch. I will not try to judge you through your posts though it would be very easy to do so.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Sorted

[marks]

It is very interesting that you are able to judge the level of information and expertise that any poster has. What makes you believe that I express "ill informed opinions"? How do you know the "potential consequences" of these opinions?

I am surprised that it is you, the poster who has chosen to defend Thomson and his right to remain in employment. the poster that has sought to mitigate his behaviour and the likelihood of re-offence, that has introduced paedophilia into the debate. Why have you deemed this necessary when others have not? Are you linking Thomson's crimes to paedophilia?

Once again, this totally undermines your own argument. You have adopted the stance that he is a "silly wee boy" that has "made a mistake" and needs support and guidance not exclusion form society. Then you, not anyone else, chose to associate the "silly wee boy" that has "made a mistake" with paedophilia Little wonder people have concern eh?

For the record for every individual working within the mental health sector (public and private) that believes that paedophilia can be treated, there are at least two that believe it can only be managed. No cure just control.

I'll leave you to work out the merit or value of my opinion and whether it is based on over 25 years working in this field or just a hunch. I will not try to judge you through your posts though it would be very easy to do so.

You stated that you were unfamiliar with the full details of the case, illinformed.

You are judging the potential consequences by saying he should be sacked, it is all guess work on both sides of the debate. How do you know that sacking him will make him less of a risk? I have stated why I believe keeping him employed would help with his treatment.

Paedofilia is the sexual attraction to adolecents, Thomson made that link through his actions, not me.

He was an 18 year old at the time of the offences, the offences were a silly thing to do, I don't know about you but I believe no matter how much an 18 year old has lived they still have a lot of growing up to do, hence my description of him being a "silly wee boy" at the time.

You allude to having experience in the mental helth proffession, you tell me whether it would be easier to treat a person with one mental health issue by adding the problem of taking away their livelyhood, by giving them more to worry about, by possibly driving them further into depression.

I never defended his actions, they were wrong, no arguement there but he has been punished by the courts what gives anyone else the right to add to that punishment?

Edited July 2, 2011 by marks

[The Mantis]

Paedofilia is the sexual attraction to adolecents

Without bothering to look at the link, I'm pretty sure that paedophilia (insert all American/non-classically trained spelling variations here) is the abuse of pre-pubescent children.

I'm not trying to defend Thomson in the least when I say that these girls would be post-puberty and sexually aware. It's alleged that more girls were involved and Thomson was prosecuted only on the basis of abusing the two girls. Obviously these images would have been circulated fairly freely and some of the girls would have seen it as a bit of a laugh. It's likely that many boys would have seen the images too. A quick scan of Facebook will reveal, if anybody was unaware, just how sexualised modern teenagers are.

But however sophisticated these modern teenagers think they are, that's what the law is for: to protect minors against the likes of Thomson. In my line of work, teenagers passing explicit images, by phone or otherwise, are deemed to be at risk, and I would be obliged to report any instances of this.

[Renegade]

I see he's offski now. The footballing wilderness awaits I reckon.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Renegade

[Yngwie]

What, County?

Maybe he'll be able to stay in the game in some for or other until the public have forgiven him. Perhaps do some scouting, what with his eye for young talent?

But seriously, he needs to get out of Scotland if he wants to rebuild his career.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Yngwie

[ilpadrino]

I heard yesterday that he was very excited about a move to Falkirk.

[Alex MacLeod]

A lot of debate on whether or not he should keep his job. Forgetting the nature of this crime for a moment and looking at crime in general why should a criminal not have to suffer the consequences of his or her actions. Many people have lost jobs, family etc because of a criminal act. Professional drivers who commit offences that result in loss of licence is a classic example. We may just be talking very minor offences that result, through the totting up system, in a ban. No licence, no job. Life wrecked. Even after the ban is served the person may have difficulty securing this line of employment. Conviction for fraud and its unlikely any finance house will employ. Theft and most business's will say no. These can be the consequences of crime, no matter how serious or trivial some may think it.

The message in all this should not be 'commit a sex offence and we'll debate whether or not you keep your job'. The message should be 'commit a crime and your life and career could be destroyed forever'.

[Kirishima]

It's a consequence. Life is full of them. He damaged kids and thus he loses his job. He is a footballer, his job is to attract and entertain fans, sell shirts, attract sponsors...if he was a web designer or administrator he would not have lost his job, in all likelihood. I fail to see why there is such a vehement defence here, however balanced it may be.

[PullMyFinger]

It appears CT has wormed his way into McDiarmid Park. I will not be attending games there and I hope they get relegated.

[+MrCaleyjag]

It appears CT has wormed his way into McDiarmid Park. I will not be attending games there and I hope they get relegated.

I can't find anything regards this and hasn't been mentioned on the radio yet, where did you hear this from? Nothing on their website either, I hope it's not true

[PullMyFinger]

It appears CT has wormed his way into McDiarmid Park. I will not be attending games there and I hope they get relegated.

I can't find anything regards this and hasn't been mentioned on the radio yet, where did you hear this from? Nothing on their website either, I hope it's not true

Things aren't always how they appear, thank goodness.

Craig Thomson has stepped up from the Super Js U16 squad.

[Renegade]

He's been arrested again apparently.