Craig Thomson (merged threads)

[IndieHibby]

Yip, just as I thought. Go back and read the articles, then your post that I highlighted. It was the 12 year old that told her mother, not the 14 year old.

I am trying to make a point here but not very well. Let me put it another way.
I do not condone what he has done and he has been unbelievably stupid. But let me play devil's advocate here. Let's say he was chatting to the 12 year old as has already been explained and sent Dodgy photos. and she thought nothing of it and her mother just happened to see what was going on.12 year old then changes tune when mother gets police involved. Perfectly plausible. When the police start looking into this, they see he's been having similar chats with a 14 year old, who also may not have been bothered about what was being said to her. They get in contact with her and her parents, she also says she wasn't happy with What was being said coz she don't want to get in the **** with her parents.
I'm not saying this happened, but you never know. Just a different slant on what I read in the papers.
Some people on here don't seen to realise just how street smart some kids are nowadays. They grow up way too fast imo.

1. He knew their ages.
2. What relevance to the crime does the opinion of the 12 year old girl have?
3. What motivates you to construct an argument in defence of 1) and 2)?

And regardless of how 'street-smart' they are, in my experience they know how to display knowledge in an attempt to appear older and mature, but they definitely do not show wisdom.

People should not be fooled into thinking kids are grown-ups just because they know more than you about computers or new products. It's what kids do.

[Steve-O]

It seems from reading that article that they've always taken that approach and have built a mutual respect with the public.

That doesn't work here and probably never will. The guy in the article says that it's probably a result of cultural differences.

If you have hard criminals and soft punishment then I think they'll commit again.

It does cost a lot but what's the price of innocent people's freedom.

Propositioning 12 year olds for sex fully knowing their age is one worth paying for.

How do you know that? Impossible to say without trying it.

I, for one, wouldn't like us to go down the US route of wasting space in jail for stupid stuff like minor drug possession, driving offences etc.

The chances of being a victim of crime in the UK are still pretty low so who is to say the system isn't working? Pretty hard to make it perfect but I don't think things are TOO bad.

Anyway things have gone a bit off topic, happy to leave the topic here as we're never going to agree!!

[Sodje_18]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13808562

Well lets be honest, I'd rather be gay then be a dirty stinking beast :greengrin

Ohh The Jambos are paedo's :greengrin

[ArabHibee]

1. He knew their ages.
2. What relevance to the crime does the opinion of the 12 year old girl have?
3. What motivates you to construct an argument in defence of 1) and 2)?

And regardless of how 'street-smart' they are, in my experience they know how to display knowledge in an attempt to appear older and mature, but they definitely do not show wisdom.

People should not be fooled into thinking kids are grown-ups just because they know more than you about computers or new products. It's what kids do.

In answer to your 2nd point, this was in reference to FalkirkHibee who had misquoted a newspaper article.
In answer to your 3rd point, I was making the point that you can read an article in the media and make up your own story to suit your agenda by adding arms and legs to it. Sometimes known as Chinese whispers.

[Future17]

It seems from reading that article that they've always taken that approach and have built a mutual respect with the public.

That doesn't work here and probably never will. The guy in the article says that it's probably a result of cultural differences.

If you have hard criminals and soft punishment then I think they'll commit again.

It does cost a lot but what's the price of innocent people's freedom.

Propositioning 12 year olds for sex fully knowing their age is one worth paying for.

I think this could do with re-wording.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I think this could do with re-wording.

That shouldnae be funny, but, it is! :-)

[Sir David Gray]

If he's still allowed to play football why would they sack him? It'll be last months news when the season starts and the only folk who will cast it up is us when we play them. The media will soon lose interest when the next sectarian incident happens.

I've said already why Hearts should sack him. This comes under gross misconduct and is undoubtedly a sackable offence.

As I said in my original post, I'm not aware of any other profession where someone convicted of this kind of offence would keep their job.

Football seems to operate in some kind of parallel universe in terms of the way it treats players who are convicted criminals of the most serious nature.

People like Lee Hughes and Marlon King have all served quite lengthy prison sentences for very serious crimes and yet both found new clubs almost immediately after their release.

In the real world, this just doesn't happen and if Joe Bloggs was found guilty of grooming girls as young as 12 over the internet, he would be sacked on the spot by his employer and would not get any other job that required a candidate to undergo a background check.

I really don't think that this will be dismissed quite as easily as you think, either.

I believe that there are lots of parents within the Hearts support who will not go back to Tynecastle, if Thomson remains at the club. I know I wouldn't be anywhere near Easter Road if this was Hibs we were talking about.

Fans from across Scotland will target Thomson forever more, if he stays at Hearts. I think his life will be made to be quite intolerable, so much so that even if Hearts don't think they need to sack him, they probably should release him for his own sake, if nothing else.


Yip, just as I thought. Go back and read the articles, then your post that I highlighted. It was the 12 year old that told her mother, not the 14 year old.

I am trying to make a point here but not very well. Let me put it another way.
I do not condone what he has done and he has been unbelievably stupid. But let me play devil's advocate here. Let's say he was chatting to the 12 year old as has already been explained and sent Dodgy photos. and she thought nothing of it and her mother just happened to see what was going on.12 year old then changes tune when mother gets police involved. Perfectly plausible. When the police start looking into this, they see he's been having similar chats with a 14 year old, who also may not have been bothered about what was being said to her. They get in contact with her and her parents, she also says she wasn't happy with What was being said coz she don't want to get in the **** with her parents.
I'm not saying this happened, but you never know. Just a different slant on what I read in the papers.
Some people on here don't seen to realise just how street smart some kids are nowadays. They grow up way too fast imo.

OK, it was the 12 year old who told her mother and not the 14 year old. However, with regards to the 14 year old, the article in the Daily Record goes on to state;

"After she turned 14, he made her uncomfortable by telling her he wanted to have sex with her."

I may be wrong here but I think it's the behaviour he showed towards the younger girl, the girl he had known personally since she was very young, that got him into such serious bother. If a guy of around 18/19 was having that kind of contact with a 14 year old girl, he would probably still have got arrested but I doubt if he would have been placed on the sex offender register for five years for that offence alone.

It's his conduct towards the 12 year old that will have really got him into trouble.

Anyway apart from anything else, even if your slant on things is correct, it is totally irrelevant. In the eyes of the law, it doesn't matter even supposing the two girls loved the attention they were getting from Thomson and instigated the whole thing, what he was doing was highly illegal and he should have realised that and acted accordingly.

[ArabHibee]

It's not totally irrelevant. It's proving the point that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers. Have you ever had any of your family in the paper because I have on a couple of occasions and the pish that was written was unbelieveable to the point of totally fabricated.

[EH6 Hibby]

Why has there still no news of this guy being sacked? It really does seem as though they're not going to do it. :confused:

[Jack]

It's not totally irrelevant. It's proving the point that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers. Have you ever had any of your family in the paper because I have on a couple of occasions and the pish that was written was unbelieveable to the point of totally fabricated.

I'll believe the court of law then.

Guy of 19 grooming two girls of 12 & 14. Guilty.

[Sir David Gray]

It's not totally irrelevant. It's proving the point that you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers. Have you ever had any of your family in the paper because I have on a couple of occasions and the pish that was written was unbelieveable to the point of totally fabricated.

I know the media can embellish things to create headlines etc but the fact is, Craig Thomson was found guilty, in a court of law, of grooming two underage girls and he asked at least one of them to have sex with him.

He was convicted and placed on the sex offender register for the next five years.

Those are the facts of this case and they are extremely damning.

Every other detail of what might or might not have taken place is rather insignificant, I would say.

He hasn't been found guilty because of what headline writers for the Daily Record and The Sun have written about him, he was convicted because of the evidence which was produced in court and because of what legal experts said during the case.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

It'll be last months news when the season starts and the only folk who will cast it up is us when we play them. The media will soon lose interest when the next sectarian incident happens.

I very much doubt this will be the case, particularly when it comes to opposition fans. It'll probably cause bother amongst those of a Yammish persuasion too.

[ArabHibee]

I know the media can embellish things to create headlines etc but the fact is, Craig Thomson was found guilty, in a court of law, of grooming two underage girls and he asked at least one of them to have sex with him.
He was convicted and placed on the sex offender register for the next five years.
Those are the facts of this case and they are extremely damning.
Every other detail of what might or might not have taken place is rather insignificant, I would say.
He hasn't been found guilty because of what headline writers for the Daily Record and The Sun have written about him, he was convicted because of the evidence which was produced in court and because of what legal experts said during the case.
I'm not going to pursue this anymore on this thread (PM me if you want) because it looks like I have no issue with what this lad did (which I do) but you are spectacularly missing the point I am trying to make.

[Betty Boop]

I know the media can embellish things to create headlines etc but the fact is, Craig Thomson was found guilty, in a court of law, of grooming two underage girls and he asked at least one of them to have sex with him.

He was convicted and placed on the sex offender register for the next five years.

Those are the facts of this case and they are extremely damning.

Every other detail of what might or might not have taken place is rather insignificant, I would say.

He hasn't been found guilty because of what headline writers for the Daily Record and The Sun have written about him, he was convicted because of the evidence which was produced in court and because of what legal experts said during the case.

He pleaded guilty, to two of the three charges. I would imagine that if the case had went to trial, and the two wee girls had to have given evidence, the consequences for Thomson would have been a custodial sentence.

[Dashing Bob S]

Hearts now have the full set. Manager, player, supporters all convicted in the courts of sexual contact with minors. One incident even took place in their own stadium.

When the man at the top describes such behaviour as "heroic" you have to start asking some serious questions about what is going on over there.

Not quite the full set. The board should be stepping up to the mark and playing their part, leading by example.

It's all very well to endorse the behaviour of management and playing staff in this area (though not fans) but I feel that the board could lose credibility with the Gorgie fanbase if one of their members isn't convicted for noncing soon.

Sort it out Vlad.

[greenlex]

I dont think he will be a hearts player by the end of the week.

[Www1875hfc]

I dont think he will be a hearts player by the end of the week.

:agree: I Think you are correct. :wink:

[Part/Time Supporter]

Daily Record reports that Hearts knew about Thomson's perverted actions but did nothing to stop it.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2011/06/21/revealed-hearts-were-warned-about-kiddie-sex-shame-player-craig-thomson-six-months-before-arrest-86908-23216042/

[Saorsa]

Daily Record reports that Hearts knew about Thomson's perverted actions but did nothing to stop it.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2011/06/21/revealed-hearts-were-warned-about-kiddie-sex-shame-player-craig-thomson-six-months-before-arrest-86908-23216042/Now why doesn't that surprise me about that despicable club :agree:

[H18sry]

REVEALED: Hearts were warned about kiddie sex shame player Craig Thomson six MONTHS before arrest


HEARTS bosses were warned about child sex pervert Craig Thomson's behaviour six months before he was arrested, the Record can reveal.

The Gorgie club received a complaint from a parent raising concerns about the player's online activities.

But although officials warned the 20-year-old about his behaviour, they let him continue to teach PE in local primary and secondary schools.

And he was left unchecked to continue preying on young girls on the internet.

Even after charges were brought against Thomson, he continued to represent Hearts at events involving children.

The player was photographed signing club shirts for youngsters to publicise kids' charity Barnardo's.

Last Friday, Thomson was fined £4000 after he admitted indecent behaviour towards two girls aged 12 and 14.

The Record can reveal that Thomson did not tell Hearts chief executive David Southern or manager Jim Jefferies, who were both out of the country, that he was due in court. Thomson also tried to dodge publicity by waiting until the last minute to appear in the dock, then sitting at the back of the court in the hope that no one would recognise him.

A source close to the family of one of Thomson's young victims said the player had volunteered to work at local primary and secondary schools.

She said: "Craig was good friends with one of the girls he preyed on. He helped teach her PE at her high school.

"He was very keen to be involved with the kids' football.

"The pupils treated him like a hero. He would ask the first-year girls if they had PE and he got to know their timetables."

She added: "I know at least one parent who went to Craig's door to confront him about pestering his daughter.

"But he just denied it. I'm really glad he's been caught and the club must sack him. He's an arrogant young man who thought he could get away with it."

In May, a mum of two young Hearts fans let her kids get their shirts signed by Thomson and teammate Ryan McGowan and have their photograph taken with them at an autograph session in a Barnardo's shop.

She didn't know Thomson was facing trial over sex offences.

Her husband said: "When I explained the situation to my wife, she was furious. What on earth were Hearts thinking about letting him continue to represent the club at events involving kids?" Barnardo's said Hearts had not told them about the court case.

Thomson, of Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, was charged with lewd and libidinous behaviour in September 2010.

Prosecutors at Edinburgh Sheriff Court told last week how the talented right-back sent the girls pictures of male private parts, asked one of them for sex and made lewd comments about their bodies.

Both Hearts and the SFA refused to comment.

[ArabHibee]

Daily Record reports that Hearts knew about Thomson's perverted actions but did nothing to stop it.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2011/06/21/revealed-hearts-were-warned-about-kiddie-sex-shame-player-craig-thomson-six-months-before-arrest-86908-23216042/

And they all come piling out of the woodwork. How surprising......................:rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

And they all come piling out of the woodwork. How surprising......................:rolleyes:

And what does this post mean? - that the story should just go away quietly and die, and the fact that there would appear to be evidence of Hearts negligence shouldnt be reported?

Never mind Thomson, if the Record story is true, Hearts should be absolutely hammered for their behaviour.

As anyone involved in youth football will know, the requirements re-disclosure/child protection are pretty rigorous if you have pretentions to be a well run club. While there has to be a presumption of innocence, there is also a duty of care to children which is equally important.

If Hearts knowingly allowed Thomson access to children, whilst working under the direction and authority of HMFC while there was a case pending and a complaint in place, they have been in massive dereliction of that duty.

I would be saying this if it was Hibs by the way, but the fact its Hearts - a club who seem to be entirely morally bankrupt on every level they can be - should come as nothing of a surprise.

[RyeSloan]

And what does this post mean? - that the story should just go away quietly and die, and the fact that there would appear to be evidence of Hearts negligence shouldnt be reported?

Never mind Thomson, if the Record story is true, Hearts should be absolutely hammered for their behaviour.

As anyone involved in youth football will know, the requirements re-disclosure/child protection are pretty rigorous if you have pretentions to be a well run club. While there has to be a presumption of innocence, there is also a duty of care to children which is equally important.

If Hearts knowingly allowed Thomson access to children, whilst working under the direction and authority of HMFC while there was a case pending and a complaint in place, they have been in massive dereliction of that duty.

I would be saying this if it was Hibs by the way, but the fact its Hearts - a club who seem to be entirely morally bankrupt on every level they can be - should come as nothing of a surprise.

Bang on TC.

I really really can't believe Hearts have not seen fit to comment on these events yet. At the very least a:
"these actions are far removed from the conduct expected of our employees and as a consequence he has been suspended pending further discussion within the club"

But total silence? Are they hoping it will just go away cause if they are there is no chance....the few Jambos I have spoken to are quite determined that they want him gone as well.

[ArabHibee]

And what does this post mean? - that the story should just go away quietly and die, and the fact that there would appear to be evidence of Hearts negligence shouldnt be reported?

Never mind Thomson, if the Record story is true, Hearts should be absolutely hammered for their behaviour.

As anyone involved in youth football will know, the requirements re-disclosure/child protection are pretty rigorous if you have pretentions to be a well run club. While there has to be a presumption of innocence, there is also a duty of care to children which is equally important.

If Hearts knowingly allowed Thomson access to children, whilst working under the direction and authority of HMFC while there was a case pending and a complaint in place, they have been in massive dereliction of that duty.

I would be saying this if it was Hibs by the way, but the fact its Hearts - a club who seem to be entirely morally bankrupt on every level they can be - should come as nothing of a surprise.

You answered your own question.
Whilst what you say is completely correct (if Hearts knew, then they are completely out of order allowing him to have contact with children) but did they know? I'm surprised you would unblinkingly believe anything written in that rag of a paper:



REVEALED: Hearts were warned about kiddie sex shame player Craig Thomson six MONTHS before arrest
By who?


HEARTS bosses were warned about child sex pervert Craig Thomson's behaviour six months before he was arrested, the Record can reveal.
Again, by who?


The Gorgie club received a complaint from a parent raising concerns about the player's online activities.
As above.


But although officials warned the 20-year-old about his behaviour,
Did they? Have the Daily ****** quoted a spokesperson from HMFC in their article? No.


The Record can reveal that Thomson did not tell Hearts chief executive David Southern or manager Jim Jefferies, who were both out of the country, that he was due in court.

Probably true, but I'm guessing that he told someone from the club, possibly whoever was in charge whilst Southern and Jeffries were on holiday? Sensationalism at its best.


A source close to the family of one of Thomson's young victims

:rolleyes:


In May, a mum of two young Hearts fans let her kids get their shirts signed by Thomson and teammate Ryan McGowan and have their photograph taken with them at an autograph session in a Barnardo's shop.

She didn't know Thomson was facing trial over sex offences.

Her husband said: "When I explained the situation to my wife, she was furious. What on earth were Hearts thinking about letting him continue to represent the club at events involving kids?" Barnardo's said Hearts had not told them about the court case.
And the relevance of the above quote? Enraged mother.

One thing I am not trying to do here is detract from what Thomson has been convicted of but make people realise you shouldn't believe all you read in the media, especially tabloids. Its all smoke and mirrors - a source said this, a close friend of the family said that. :blah:

[Twa Cairpets]

You answered your own question.
Whilst what you say is completely correct (if Hearts knew, then they are completely out of order allowing him to have contact with children) but did they know? I'm surprised you would unblinkingly believe anything written in that rag of a paper:

I dont, that why I said if.

I'm not condoning the standard of reporting in the Record, but if there is an element of truth in the relevant areas of the report, especially the area about Hearts knowing or receiving a complaint, then they have been massively lax in their responsibilities.

If the report is total bollocks, then the Record should be hammered every bit as much as Hearts if they've derelict in their duty.

[ArabHibee]

I dont, that why I said if.

I'm not condoning the standard of reporting in the Record, but if there is an element of truth in the relevant areas of the report, especially the area about Hearts knowing or receiving a complaint, then they have been massively lax in their responsibilities.

If the report is total bollocks, then the Record should be hammered every bit as much as Hearts if they've derelict in their duty.

Hold the front page, AH agrees with a TC post for the first time EVER!! :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

I dont, that why I said if.

I'm not condoning the standard of reporting in the Record, but if there is an element of truth in the relevant areas of the report, especially the area about Hearts knowing or receiving a complaint, then they have been massively lax in their responsibilities.

If the report is total bollocks, then the Record should be hammered every bit as much as Hearts if they've derelict in their duty.

I wonder who is actually in charge of HR at a football club. Could it be that this is an area that Hearts have completely disregarded? It's such an odd profession that it might be that the approach is to deal with sh*t when it hits the fan.

[Steve-O]

Sorry but as ArabHibee points out, that Record article is full of sensationalist pish.

A complaint was apparently made to the club about his 'online behaviour', whatever that means. Surely if this complaining mother was really concerned she'd have gone to the police?

It says Hearts warned him. Not sure what else they could've done at that stage without any further evidence, and probably Thomson's word that either he hadn't done anything, or he would cut it out.

Still, it's a bit surprising they've not acted following the actual convictions, but I am guessing that they know the full story, and the not rations that we are all working from.

[Twa Cairpets]

Sorry but as ArabHibee points out, that Record article is full of sensationalist pish.

A complaint was apparently made to the club about his 'online behaviour', whatever that means. Surely if this complaining mother was really concerned she'd have gone to the police?

It says Hearts warned him. Not sure what else they could've done at that stage without any further evidence, and probably Thomson's word that either he hadn't done anything, or he would cut it out.

Still, it's a bit surprising they've not acted following the actual convictions, but I am guessing that they know the full story, and the not rations that we are all working from.

The full story being that he pleaded guilty?

Even if every word of the Record article is pish, HMFC are now guilty of being seen to condone the actions of their player. Either he did not let his employers know of the pending trial - therefore putting them in a position of allowing (and indeed potentially actively encouraging) him to be in contact with kids through his work, or he did tell them and they still let that happen. If it was the former he should be sacked instantly for gross misconduct, never mind the fact he was founf guily; if it was the latter, Hearts should be absolutely hammered for allowing him to continue ot be around children.

The fact that this long after the fact he is still an employee, operating (it would seem) without any censure is appaling.

I'm pretty liberal in my views of personal rights, innocent-until-proven guilty and the like, and also highly skeptical of reporting within the red tops in particular, but the facts in the case, as opposed to the conjecture, are such that the stance that Hearts are taking (regardless of whether or not they know the "full story") is staggering, never mind "a bit surprising"

[H18sry]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/23/child-sex-pervert-footballer-craig-thomson-banned-from-hearts-86908-23221296/

[Woody1985]

"Jefferies really didn't have a clue what was going on with the player and didn't know he was at court.

I find this really hard to believe. I think this is a smoke and mirrors comment. He didn't know that he was at court THAT DAY is how it reads to me.

Was he not charged months back? How could they have missed that and the club as a whole not know he was going to be in court?

It sounds like Vlad might be trying to salvage something from this situation, probably monetry, if he's needed to sign this off and come to Scotland.

[ArabHibee]

The full story being that he pleaded guilty?

Even if every word of the Record article is pish, HMFC are now guilty of being seen to condone the actions of their player. Either he did not let his employers know of the pending trial - therefore putting them in a position of allowing (and indeed potentially actively encouraging) him to be in contact with kids through his work, or he did tell them and they still let that happen. If it was the former he should be sacked instantly for gross misconduct, never mind the fact he was founf guily; if it was the latter, Hearts should be absolutely hammered for allowing him to continue ot be around children.

The fact that this long after the fact he is still an employee, operating (it would seem) without any censure is appaling.

I'm pretty liberal in my views of personal rights, innocent-until-proven guilty and the like, and also highly skeptical of reporting within the red tops in particular, but the facts in the case, as opposed to the conjecture, are such that the stance that Hearts are taking (regardless of whether or not they know the "full story") is staggering, never mind "a bit surprising"
You can't instantly sack someone, its against employment law. What I will agree with you in, is that he should have been instantly suspended from his job when he was convicted, pending a disciplinary meeting, not nearly a week later. That's where Hearts are very much in the wrong.

[lyonhibs]

You can't instantly sack someone, its against employment law. What I will agree with you in, is that he should have been instantly suspended from his job when he was convicted, pending a disciplinary meeting, not nearly a week later. That's where Hearts are very much in the wrong.

There are certain things that one can still be instantly dismissed for I believe.

Gross misconduct, breach of contract, stealing etc.

Not entirely sure which one "Being a horrid sexual predator" comes under, but Thomson should be out on his ear, contract terminated etc ASAP.

[CropleyWasGod]

You can't instantly sack someone, its against employment law. What I will agree with you in, is that he should have been instantly suspended from his job when he was convicted, pending a disciplinary meeting, not nearly a week later. That's where Hearts are very much in the wrong.

Yes you can.

http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/employment-law/discipline-and-grievance/gross-misconduct-16-faqs#3

I know that this is an English website, but Employment Law is broadly the same across the UK.

[lapsedhibee]

There are certain things that one can still be instantly dismissed for I believe.

Gross misconduct, breach of contract, stealing etc.

Not entirely sure which one "Being a horrid sexual predator" comes under.

Stealing people's childhood.

[ArabHibee]

Yes you can.

http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/employment-law/discipline-and-grievance/gross-misconduct-16-faqs#3

I know that this is an English website, but Employment Law is broadly the same across the UK.
No you can't. Think we're getting a wee bit mixed up here. Let me explain. You have to have a disciplinary meeting, you can't just pull someone in and sack them on the spot for gross misconduct. You have to give notice of said meeting, normally in writing and I think 48 hours notice. That's why most folk get suspended, pending a disciplinary. So the use of the word "instant" is wrong.

[Twa Cairpets]

No you can't. Think we're getting a wee bit mixed up here. Let me explain. You have to have a disciplinary meeting, you can't just pull someone in and sack them on the spot for gross misconduct. You have to give notice of said meeting, normally in writing and I think 48 hours notice. That's why most folk get suspended, pending a disciplinary. So the use of the word "instant" is wrong.

I think you are bandying semantics here a bit. You can "dismiss" someone for gross misconduct -it essentially means getting them off the premises and advising them of the disciplinary procedure that will be put in place. I've had to do it myself in the past for a staff member who lamped someone in the staff canteen! There is a procedure to follow, sure, but the effect is the same. They are under notice of dismissal, and it the whole process - action, investigation, appeal can be gone through very quickly. To the very best of the information coming out of Tynecastle,this hasnt been done quickly enough.

At the very, very least, Hearts have missed the opportunity to retain a bit of moral high ground by saying something along the lines of "an employee has been suspended in line with out disciplinary procedures pending the application of due process in accordance with employment law".

[Twa Cairpets]

As per thread on mainboard, looks like Hearts have confirmed he is staying.

An obscene decision

[Beefster]

If Hearts were going to bin him, why would it need Vlad to fly in?

The age of consent in Lithuania used to be 14 so perhaps Vlad doesn't see much of an issue with what Thomson has done.

At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I knew something was up with the 'we need to wait until Vlad arrives' chat....

[EH6 Hibby]

As per thread on mainboard, looks like Hearts have confirmed he is staying.

An obscene decision

But not a surprising one. I had a strong suspicion that this was going to happen when it took so long for any news to come out from Tynecastle.

[Betty Boop]

At the risk of blowing my own trumpet, I knew something was up with the 'we need to wait until Vlad arrives' chat....

Call me naive, but I was shocked. :rolleyes:

[hibsbollah]

Call me naive, but I was shocked. :rolleyes:

Me too. He's trumped everything hes ever done before this time.

[ArabHibee]

I think you are bandying semantics here a bit. You can "dismiss" someone for gross misconduct -it essentially means getting them off the premises and advising them of the disciplinary procedure that will be put in place. I've had to do it myself in the past for a staff member who lamped someone in the staff canteen! There is a procedure to follow, sure, but the effect is the same. They are under notice of dismissal, and it the whole process - action, investigation, appeal can be gone through very quickly. To the very best of the information coming out of Tynecastle,this hasnt been done quickly enough.

At the very, very least, Hearts have missed the opportunity to retain a bit of moral high ground by saying something along the lines of "an employee has been suspended in line with out disciplinary procedures pending the application of due process in accordance with employment law".

I'm not bandying about semantics, I'm stating a fact.
As you say you can get someone off your premises immediately after an incident has occurred, by suspending them pending a disciplinary meeting, not 'dismissing' them. You say that you had to deal with this in your work. If you said to the person in question that you were 'dismissing them for gross misconduct' then all I can say is that you are very lucky that the person in question didn't bring that up at a tribunal as your company would have been hauled over the coals for that.
But hey, try telling me how to do the job I've been doing for the last 5 years until very recently. As always - you know best!