PDA

View Full Version : Yams A couple of questions for the Yams who are tuning in



Hibbyradge
25-06-2011, 09:02 AM
Would you help educate a thick old Hibby, please.

What are the mitigating circumstances surrounding Craig Thomson?

When might it be ok to groom 12 and 14 year old children for sex?

Which parts of the report below have I misunderstood?

Thanks.

Thomson used Facebook to befriend the girls then sent them vile emails.

He engaged the children in sex chat, asked them about their body parts, and asked the older girl for sex as well as sending her a picture of male genitalia.

Thomson, of Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, spoke to the younger girl about a sex act and asked her to show him her breasts on a webcam.

He pled guilty

Report. (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/18/hearts-fans-demand-sacking-of-pervert-craig-thomson-after-he-uses-internet-to-prey-on-girls-86908-23209319/)

BroxburnHibee
25-06-2011, 09:08 AM
Would you help educate a thick old Hibby, please.

What are the mitigating circumstances surrounding Craig Thomson?

When might it be ok to groom 12 and 14 year old children for sex?

Which parts of the report below have I misunderstood?

Thanks.

Thomson used Facebook to befriend the girls then sent them vile emails.

He engaged the children in sex chat, asked them about their body parts, and asked the older girl for sex as well as sending her a picture of male genitalia.

Thomson, of Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, spoke to the younger girl about a sex act and asked her to show him her breasts on a webcam.

He pled guilty

Report. (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/18/hearts-fans-demand-sacking-of-pervert-craig-thomson-after-he-uses-internet-to-prey-on-girls-86908-23209319/)

Its disgusting!

I feel physically sick that not only have they not sacked him but are now in some vile way trying to justify it.

Jim Jefferies obviously has no morals whatsoever.

Surely the SFA will have to grow a set and finally do something about this disgusting, vile, obnoxious institution.

Barney McGrew
25-06-2011, 09:11 AM
What are the mitigating circumstances surrounding Craig Thomson?

That should be getting asked of Jefferies since he was one of those who carried out the investigation.

Jay
25-06-2011, 09:29 AM
Its got nothing to do with the hearts fans. The majority of them are as disgusted with it as us.

Dunbar Hibee
25-06-2011, 09:31 AM
Its got nothing to do with the hearts fans. The majority of them are as disgusted with it as us.

There are still some ***** trying to justify it....so yes, it does have a lot to do with Hearts fans.

itchy07
25-06-2011, 09:37 AM
Now that they've decided to keep it, i wonder what it's squad number will be? Will they let him have 12 or 14, i guess he'd be happy with anything under 16. But seriously, for the first time in my life i do feel embarrassed and a little bit of pity for the fans who have spoken out against CT and VR.

Springbank
25-06-2011, 09:41 AM
There are still some ***** trying to justify it....so yes, it does have a lot to do with Hearts fans.

Correct - and the OP raises a fine question . . .

The Hearts statements have said (and CT himself made mention in his "apology") that Hearts staff INCLUDING JIM JEFFERIES investigated it, took some "MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES" into account, including outside influences, and decided that these unnamed MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES were sufficient to retain their child sex offender employee.

So, the question must be: JJ - spill the beans.

When is a sex offender mitigated Mr Jefferies???

degenerated
25-06-2011, 09:47 AM
it's all MacYam's fault, isn't it? :agree:

[IMG]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9458/macyam.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/828/macyam.jpg/)

Jay
25-06-2011, 09:51 AM
There are still some ***** trying to justify it....so yes, it does have a lot to do with Hearts fans.

Well then maybe the question should be aimed at them instead of lumping decent people in with them? If this was happening at Hibs I have no doubt we would have an element supporting their decision - I am sure as hell that I wouldnt be nor would I be happy to be associated with those who do.Sickening point scoring at its worst in my opinion.

Reaper
25-06-2011, 09:54 AM
Well then maybe the question should be aimed at them instead of lumping decent people in with them? If this was happening at Hibs I have no doubt we would have an element supporting their decision - I am sure as hell that I wouldnt be nor would I be happy to be associated with those who do.Sickening point scoring at its worst in my opinion.

:top marks

Reaper
25-06-2011, 09:56 AM
Correct - and the OP raises a fine question . . .

The Hearts statements have said (and CT himself made mention in his "apology") that Hearts staff INCLUDING JIM JEFFERIES investigated it, took some "MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES" into account, including outside influences, and decided that these unnamed MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES were sufficient to retain their child sex offender employee.

So, the question must be: JJ - spill the beans.

When is a sex offender mitigated Mr Jefferies???

Apologies if incorrect but was it not Fat Jum that suspended him? Romanov then stepped in to 'deal' with the matter and stated he found nothing stopping Thomson resuming his career and ordered him back to training?

Jack
25-06-2011, 10:24 AM
Hearts investigation reveals nothing of importance that requires action to be taken.

Police investigation and subsequent court action proves he's guilty.

Only the morally corrupt could come up with the answer Hearts did.

Removed
25-06-2011, 11:01 AM
it's all MacYam's fault, isn't it? :agree:

[IMG]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/9458/macyam.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/828/macyam.jpg/)

:faf:

hibbymark
25-06-2011, 11:02 AM
looks like they will have to tear up their songbook when they play Celtic now that big Jim knew. That animal makes Zemmamas mrs look like a milf!!

Steve-O
25-06-2011, 11:38 AM
Aren't the Judge's Sentencing Notes available on request? I'd be interested to read these rather than the Daily Record's version of events. Only then would we know the (entire) truth.

ArabHibee
25-06-2011, 11:45 AM
Aren't the Judge's Sentencing Notes available on request? I'd be interested to read these rather than the Daily Record's version of events. Only then would we know the (entire) truth.

:agree:

Dunbar Hibee
25-06-2011, 11:54 AM
Well then maybe the question should be aimed at them instead of lumping decent people in with them? If this was happening at Hibs I have no doubt we would have an element supporting their decision - I am sure as hell that I wouldnt be nor would I be happy to be associated with those who do.Sickening point scoring at its worst in my opinion.

There's decent people in the Hearts support?!?! First I heard.:wink:

Removed
25-06-2011, 11:58 AM
There's decent people in the Hearts support?!?! First I heard.:wink:

Surprisingly, yes. Even I know 2 :wink:

ArabHibee
25-06-2011, 12:08 PM
Surprisingly, yes. Even I know 2 :wink:
I know 1. But they're going to see JLS next week so now I'm not so sure about them.:rolleyes:

ecosse
25-06-2011, 01:33 PM
like most decent people the vast majority of hearts fans are unhappy about this situation,but untill anyone can get a hold of all the facts all anyone can do is go on what the papers say.
i dont know anyone personally who wants him to stay at the club and i wont be back at tynie till he`s shown the door

hibiedude
25-06-2011, 01:41 PM
Well then maybe the question should be aimed at them instead of lumping decent people in with them? If this was happening at Hibs I have no doubt we would have an element supporting their decision - I am sure as hell that I wouldnt be nor would I be happy to be associated with those who do.Sickening point scoring at its worst in my opinion.

:top marks

Great Reply

Brebners Bookie
25-06-2011, 03:36 PM
like most decent people the vast majority of hearts fans are unhappy about this situation,but untill anyone can get a hold of all the facts all anyone can do is go on what the papers say.
i dont know anyone personally who wants him to stay at the club and i wont be back at tynie till he`s shown the door


Or the courts.

Hibbyradge
25-06-2011, 05:27 PM
Well then maybe the question should be aimed at them instead of lumping decent people in with them? If this was happening at Hibs I have no doubt we would have an element supporting their decision - I am sure as hell that I wouldnt be nor would I be happy to be associated with those who do.Sickening point scoring at its worst in my opinion.

The question is aimed at them.

Jay
25-06-2011, 05:45 PM
The question is aimed at them.

It doesnt say that so thank you for clarifying

Removed
25-06-2011, 05:47 PM
It doesnt say that so thank you for clarifying

I thought the thread title gave it away. I don't think the radge edited it.

Jay
25-06-2011, 06:16 PM
I thought the thread title gave it away. I don't think the radge edited it.

:confused: A couple of questions for the yams that are tuning in

doesnt say to me its for the ones who stand by the club. Whatever, this is not what the threads about and the only answers Mr radge has is from us bickering so it looks pointless anyway.

son of haggart
25-06-2011, 08:29 PM
Would you help educate a thick old Hibby, please.

What are the mitigating circumstances surrounding Craig Thomson?

When might it be ok to groom 12 and 14 year old children for sex?

Which parts of the report below have I misunderstood?

Thanks.

Thomson used Facebook to befriend the girls then sent them vile emails.

He engaged the children in sex chat, asked them about their body parts, and asked the older girl for sex as well as sending her a picture of male genitalia.

Thomson, of Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, spoke to the younger girl about a sex act and asked her to show him her breasts on a webcam.

He pled guilty

Report. (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/18/hearts-fans-demand-sacking-of-pervert-craig-thomson-after-he-uses-internet-to-prey-on-girls-86908-23209319/)

That's theree questions I think


my answers would be

1. No idea as no one has published them
2. It would never be ok
3. I'm not sure as I can't read your mind, but I understand the daily record's words perfectly well. As far as I am aware he pled guilty to The "lewd, libidinous and indecent behaviour towards two girls, aged 12 and 14, over the internet" - teh record publishes more details in its report. Not sure if these are from the court or from the record's own journalist's investigations?

Jamesie
25-06-2011, 08:36 PM
Aren't the Judge's Sentencing Notes available on request? I'd be interested to read these rather than the Daily Record's version of events. Only then would we know the (entire) truth.

The Sheriff's notes aren't available but you would have expected anything that mitigated the offence to have been put forward in the verbal plea in mitigation that Thomson's solicitor would have delivered.

Kevvy1875
25-06-2011, 09:00 PM
Any Yams seen the new signing?.....THATS what I want to know:agree:

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/270981_2144067206370_1386942703_32500207_5436106_n .jpg

modsquad
25-06-2011, 09:15 PM
I think most of us 'yams' are not happy with the decision to keep CT at the club.

In relation to Jeffries, the same red top which reported the incident, also reported Jeffries had suspended him from the club so he was clearly unhappy and uncomfortable with the situation.

How much input Jeffries had in relation to the final decision which kept CT at the club, I have no idea.

As an officer of the law in England, its safe to say that both Prosecution and defence lawyers are more than capable of presenting facts and twisting them to suit them or their clients purpose.

The fact CT pleaded guilty means that the 'mitigating factors' would never have come out in open court. The PF would also have submitted a report in which the account CT gave when questioned will have been covered. The judge will have seen this and must have felt there was enough 'mitigation' to stop a custodial sentance. I'm also not sure under Scottish Law whether the crime he pleaded guilty to does actually carry a custodial.

My personal opinion is that Hearts should have sacked him but without knowing legally what CTs rights are under employment law, I'm not sre if that would be an option. If its not, let him rot in the reserves until his contract is up.

If the lad had anything about him, he would ask the club to release him to prevent further embarrassment.

The one thing I can guarantee is that he will receive a hostile welcome from Hearts fans when he walks on the pitch.

Jonnyboy
25-06-2011, 09:18 PM
I think most of us 'yams' are not happy with the decision to keep CT at the club.

In relation to Jeffries, the same red top which reported the incident, also reported Jeffries had suspended him from the club so he was clearly unhappy and uncomfortable with the situation.

How much input Jeffries had in relation to the final decision which kept CT at the club, I have no idea.

As an officer of the law in England, its safe to say that both Prosecution and defence lawyers are more than capable of presenting facts and twisting them to suit them or their clients purpose.

The fact CT pleaded guilty means that the 'mitigating factors' would never have come out in open court. The PF would also have submitted a report in which the account CT gave when questioned will have been covered. The judge will have seen this and must have felt there was enough 'mitigation' to stop a custodial sentance. I'm also not sure under Scottish Law whether the crime he pleaded guilty to does actually carry a custodial.

My personal opinion is that Hearts should have sacked him but without knowing legally what CTs rights are under employment law, I'm not sre if that would be an option. If its not, let him rot in the reserves until his contract is up.

If the lad had anything about him, he would ask the club to release him to prevent further embarrassment.

The one thing I can guarantee is that he will receive a hostile welcome from Hearts fans when he walks on the pitch.

Good but it'll be nothing compared to what he'll face elsewhere

Pedantic_Hibee
25-06-2011, 09:21 PM
Good but it'll be nothing compared to what he'll face elsewhere

Yep, I'm ready to set myself alight in the East Stand in protest during the next derby at E.R.

That'll teach him :agree:

Kaiser1962
25-06-2011, 09:25 PM
The Sheriff's notes aren't available but you would have expected anything that mitigated the offence to have been put forward in the verbal plea in mitigation that Thomson's solicitor would have delivered.

This would surely take place before any pleading or intermediary diet though?

The whole point of the defence would surely be to come to some sort of accomodation
with the fiscal that would prevent a trial, which was not in the interests of the girls or their families and certainly not Craig Thomson. Plus by entering a guilty plea he gets a lesser sentence than he would have if it went to trial.

This bartering probably kept him out of jail.

truehibernian
25-06-2011, 09:28 PM
I think most of us 'yams' are not happy with the decision to keep CT at the club.

In relation to Jeffries, the same red top which reported the incident, also reported Jeffries had suspended him from the club so he was clearly unhappy and uncomfortable with the situation.

How much input Jeffries had in relation to the final decision which kept CT at the club, I have no idea.

As an officer of the law in England, its safe to say that both Prosecution and defence lawyers are more than capable of presenting facts and twisting them to suit them or their clients purpose.

The fact CT pleaded guilty means that the 'mitigating factors' would never have come out in open court. The PF would also have submitted a report in which the account CT gave when questioned will have been covered. The judge will have seen this and must have felt there was enough 'mitigation' to stop a custodial sentance. I'm also not sure under Scottish Law whether the crime he pleaded guilty to does actually carry a custodial.

My personal opinion is that Hearts should have sacked him but without knowing legally what CTs rights are under employment law, I'm not sre if that would be an option. If its not, let him rot in the reserves until his contract is up.

If the lad had anything about him, he would ask the club to release him to prevent further embarrassment.

The one thing I can guarantee is that he will receive a hostile welcome from Hearts fans when he walks on the pitch.

I am sure he pled guilty to lewd and libidinous conduct, therefore that is a crime at common law in Scotland which can carry a custodial sentence. Indeed, even if he was convicted of statute offences in this case, a Sheriff could have considered a custodial sentence. The 'mitigating' circumstances that you refer to, and for deciding the length or term of a sentence really are factors such previous criminal history, is a custodial sentence in the public interest or are there other factors such as an agreement to counselling services post conviction. The size of the fine and the length of term on the CPR would lead me to believe that the Sheriff saw the seriousness of the two charges. And trust me, if Thomson's legal agent saw any 'mitigating circumstances' pre trial, he would have surely gone to a full trial or at the very least led with these in his pre-sentencing address to the Sheriff............and these again surely would have been reported on if it was not a closed court.

Gettin' Auld
25-06-2011, 09:45 PM
I think most of us 'yams' are not happy with the decision to keep CT at the club.

In relation to Jeffries, the same red top which reported the incident, also reported Jeffries had suspended him from the club so he was clearly unhappy and uncomfortable with the situation.

How much input Jeffries had in relation to the final decision which kept CT at the club, I have no idea.

As an officer of the law in England, its safe to say that both Prosecution and defence lawyers are more than capable of presenting facts and twisting them to suit them or their clients purpose.

The fact CT pleaded guilty means that the 'mitigating factors' would never have come out in open court. The PF would also have submitted a report in which the account CT gave when questioned will have been covered. The judge will have seen this and must have felt there was enough 'mitigation' to stop a custodial sentance. I'm also not sure under Scottish Law whether the crime he pleaded guilty to does actually carry a custodial.

My personal opinion is that Hearts should have sacked him but without knowing legally what CTs rights are under employment law, I'm not sre if that would be an option. If its not, let him rot in the reserves until his contract is up.

If the lad had anything about him, he would ask the club to release him to prevent further embarrassment.

The one thing I can guarantee is that he will receive a hostile welcome from Hearts fans when he walks on the pitch.
A yam that can't spell their managers name. :rolleyes:

HibeesLA
26-06-2011, 01:43 AM
let him rot in the reserves until his contract is up.

I'm sorry, but the boy should never kick a ball again. He should be told to stay home, not come to games, even as a spectator, and not allowed to train with the team.

hibees707070
26-06-2011, 02:52 AM
I'm sorry, but the boy should never kick a ball again. He should be told to stay home, not come to games, even as a spectator, and not allowed to train with the team.

enough!

Steve-O
26-06-2011, 03:21 AM
The Sheriff's notes aren't available but you would have expected anything that mitigated the offence to have been put forward in the verbal plea in mitigation that Thomson's solicitor would have delivered.

Can't these be requested through the Official Information Act (that's NZ, but whatever the UK equivalent is - I can't think)?

I know that here many such decision notes are available - all High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court decisions are available online here. That said, the District Court (equivalent of the Sheriff Court) ones aren't, although I think that's possibly due more to the volume of decisions rather than anything else.

Steve-O
26-06-2011, 03:24 AM
I am sure he pled guilty to lewd and libidinous conduct, therefore that is a crime at common law in Scotland which can carry a custodial sentence. Indeed, even if he was convicted of statute offences in this case, a Sheriff could have considered a custodial sentence. The 'mitigating' circumstances that you refer to, and for deciding the length or term of a sentence really are factors such previous criminal history, is a custodial sentence in the public interest or are there other factors such as an agreement to counselling services post conviction. The size of the fine and the length of term on the CPR would lead me to believe that the Sheriff saw the seriousness of the two charges. And trust me, if Thomson's legal agent saw any 'mitigating circumstances' pre trial, he would have surely gone to a full trial or at the very least led with these in his pre-sentencing address to the Sheriff............and these again surely would have been reported on if it was not a closed court.

Wouldn't the fine be based on the person's income as well though? I think that might be the case.

modsquad
26-06-2011, 05:03 AM
A yam that can't spell their managers name. :rolleyes:

Thats what happens why you try to do something after a 14 hour shift and are going back into work now lol

Hibhibhooray
26-06-2011, 07:11 AM
On 5 live just now, Yams head of supporters club says he has seen the evidence & they agree that he deserves a second chance :confused: Unbelievable !!

hibiedude
26-06-2011, 07:26 AM
Victim's Family reveals full horror of Hearts star Craig Thomson's depravity

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/

Kevvy1875
26-06-2011, 07:30 AM
Unbelievable when you look at the details.....

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

'He made filthy comments about her appearance, tried to take her on drives and even sent naked photographs of himself'

Quoted from the victims Mum.

If that's not a beast then I don't know what is. How can HMFC see it any other way?

And from an 'unamed' agent....

PUTTING MONEY BEFORE MORALS
THE AGENT
A top football agent yesterday accused Hearts of putting money before morality.
The players' rep, who asked not to be named, said: "The reason they have kept Thomson is quite simple.
"He's an asset to the club and is somebody they will feel they can sell for upwards of £500,000 or maybe seven figures in a year or two.
"They have invested a lot of time training him and they aren't about to discard him now.
"This is a financial decision, pure and simple. If he was an ordinary 20-year-old they'd be delighted to get shot of him. He stays because he has talent.
"Football is littered with bad boys being given another chance and, as long as Thomson is doing the business on the grass, there will always be be a taker.
"Of course, there may be clubs who take the moral high ground and won't want anything to do with it, but there will be plenty clubs who won't care."
The agent, who has done business with Vladimir Romanov's club, said: "This whole thing isn't surprising to me. I have had a few dealings with the people at Hearts.
"They are unpredictable, to say the least, and are tough negotiators when it comes to money."


Its only the Daily Record I know but looks like quotes straight from the horses mouths and you cant really dress them up.

Basically Hearts are 'selling' their Morals and reputation for 500K or so they believe it would seem.

I have run out of things to say how disgusting this whole indecent is. Quite astonishing.....

YehButNoBut
26-06-2011, 07:43 AM
After reading this in the Record it's astonishing that Hearts have kept him on this is a worse decision than I first thought and an absolute disgrace by Hearts who have given no consideration to the victims and their families.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE mum of a schoolgirl groomed by footballer Craig Thomson called on his club to sack him yesterday and asked: "Have you no shame?"
Breaking her silence, she condemned the sex-shame player and his bosses at Hearts after they announced he would be kept on at the club despite his conviction for targeting her 12-year-old daughter and another young girl online.
She revealed the defender - who was a close family friend and had known his victim for years - bombarded her girl with obscene messages over nine months from January 2010.

The shattered mum, who cannot be named for legal reasons, told how Thomson, 20, begged the youngster not to tell anyone about him.
He made filthy comments about her appearance, tried to take her on drives and even sent naked photographs of himself.
Speaking to the Sunday Mail at the family home near Edinburgh, the 47-year-old woman said Scotland under-21 international Thomson had known exactly how old her daughter was.

He was put on the sex offenders' register for five years and fined £4000 after admitting lewd, libidinous and indecent behaviour earlier this month.
The mum-of-three said: "Hearts are not taking this seriously enough. As far as we are concerned, Thomson has got off with this. He needs to be sacked.
"The only thing that will teach him a lesson is if he goes. Football is all he cares about.


"Hearts are a family club and if he continues in football, he is obviously going to be around children. But who would take their kids to a game when they know he is on the pitch?
"They obviously don't want to lose him because he is a decent player and could make them money.
"They should be taking notice and investigating this. But there doesn't seem to have been anything of the sort - we haven't even heard a word from Hearts about it.

"To us, he has been let off really lightly. By the time he is 25 he won't even be on the sex offenders' register anymore. And a £4000 fine is nothing to him.
"He's meant to be a role model for kids and yet he has used his celebrity status to get at young girls." The horrified mum, a support worker, said she had known nothing about Thomson's vile chats with her youngest child, now aged 13, until the police got in touch with her.

And when she heard how the player - who had been a friend of the family through the girl's older sister for around six years - had been grooming the girl, she was at first stunned then furious. The mum said: "He was somebody we knew and trusted. It's not that my daughter was in awe of him because he was a footballer. He was a family friend she had known since she was about six.
"He went to school with my older daughter and he used to come about the house quite often. He knew the whole family from a young age.
"This was someone my older daughter was very close with. But while she was attending Hearts events that Thomson had invited her to, he was also grooming her little sister."

Thomson began chatting to the 12-year-old at a party they were both invited to and the next day he added her as a friend on Facebook, then began chatting to her on MSN Messenger. The girl's mum said: "She would mention that she had been chatting to him and I thought nothing of it. I worry that I didn't pick up on that. "I wonder if she was trying to tell us something but didn't know how to.
"He had asked her if she had told her big sister they were chatting. He told her he didn't think she should and that he didn't imagine she'd be too happy about it.
"A couple of days in, he had pushed her into speaking to him in front of the webcam.

"When I heard the things he was saying to her after the police became involved I was shocked and disgusted. He was commenting on her figure, saying he liked her big chest, what she was wearing and would turn up in places that he knew she was going to be. "Nearly every time he was in contact with her he asked her to take her top off.

"He moved on to sending her pictures of himself naked and asking her if she thought he was big. She was a 12-year-old girl, it's disgusting."
The sickened mum added: "He was well aware of how young she was. At one point he asked her how old she was now and when she told him she had turned 13, he said to her 'I knew that' before saying what he wanted to do to her. It is disgusting.

"He also invited her to come to his house for a sleepover, as long as she promised to walk around in her underwear. He tried to take her on drives and I'm just so relieved she didn't go with him. I dread to think what might have happened.
"I feel a bit stupid for letting this happen to my daughter. The worst of it is that if even if I had've known he was offering to take her out to McDonald's and that kind of thing, I would have just thought what a nice laddie he was. I wouldn't have thought he had any other motive than being nice to his friend's little sister.
"He disgusts me. If he was a total stranger who had come on and said that type of thing, then she would have deleted him straight away. But because she knew him, she thought there was a wee bit of protection.

"And it went on so long because she was frightened to say because he was a friend of the family." The family are unsure how Thomson came to be investigated but the mum told how when her daughter went to the police station about it, there were four other girls there too and she knew three of them.
She said: "He has been found guilty of two, but there is probably lots more. This is a 20yearold footballer who could probably have any girl he wanted, yet he chooses to hang around at schoolgirls' parties."

ronaldo7
26-06-2011, 08:00 AM
Having just read the article it strikes me that the investigation carried out by David Southern and Jim Jefferies was slightly skewed to benefit Thomson.

They've not even contacted the families of the victims. This is absolutely disgusting for a so called "Family Club" to have acted this way.

I also note from the article that 4 (Four) other Girls were involved.

This guy should not be anywhere near a football ground where families go to watch their teams.

I feel sick to my stomach that the Hearts have stooped so low.

hibiedude
26-06-2011, 08:03 AM
Hearing from the Victim "and that what this girl is" makes the decision to keep this guy all the more confusing, This guy keeps him job when any other 20 year old would have been kicked up and down the street and forced out the area where he stays, it may be a bit harsh but true.

The Hearts fans that have made it clear that CT will never again be accepted at Tynecastle under any circumstances must be applauded instead of being "accused of backing this beast" as some are trying to do on this site.

YehButNoBut
26-06-2011, 08:07 AM
There is also this story in the Record, it's astonishing that Hearts have made the decision they have without any consideration for the family of the victim.

Hearts owner Vladimir Romanov attacked for supporting pervert player by victim's mum


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/06/26/hearts-owner-vladimir-romanov-attacked-for-supporting-pervert-player-by-victim-s-mum-86908-23228228/

YehButNoBut
26-06-2011, 08:09 AM
Some quotes from the Record story

The move by Hearts sparked some fierce criticism.

Claude Knights, director of charity Kidscape, said: "The management need to send out a strong message that any player who brings the club into disrepute must face severe consequences.

"It is inconceivable that an individual who has been placed on the sex offenders' register - and whose behaviour highlights the real dangers that exist online for young people - should be allowed to work in direct contact with them.
"The safety of young people is paramount, and we should treat individuals, even high profile ones, who put them at risk, in a manner that reflects the severity of their crimes."

Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, added: "Not taking action to protect children from the risk of sexual harm is unacceptable.
"Allowing convicted sex offenders to continue working where they will have direct and indirect contact with children is wrong.
"There is no place in our society for role models who have been convicted of sexual offences, no matter what other talents they might have."

Hearts fan and Tory Lothian MSP David McLetchie said: "The ramblings of Romanov are little more than paranoid delusions. It makes us a laughing stock when we should be one of the most respected clubs in Scottish football.
"I am surprised at Hearts' decision to keep Craig Thomson given the unsavoury nature of his offence. I suspect that if he plays for the first team at the start of the season, he will get a very hot reception."

Labour peer Lord Foulkes quit as Hearts chairman in 2005 after chief executive Phil Anderton was sacked by Romanov.
He said: "Maybe people will realise why I resigned as chairman. I could not work with someone like Romanov. His statement is simply unbelievable.
"He has made some very strange statements in the past, attacking the media, the SFA, referees and agents. But this is the most bizarre of all.
"However, I don't think he will pay any attention to what I or anyone else in the UK says. He is immune to any criticism or outside reaction."

A spokesman for Alex Salmond said: "The First Minister believes that the people Craig Thomson should be apologising to are his victims. Their welfare should be the first concern of everyone in this sorry affair."

hibiedude
26-06-2011, 08:15 AM
Vladimir Romanov will never visit this family because at the end of the day this decision was based on Money, when this nonce is sold on there will be clubs who will buy this guy no matter what baggage he brings with him.

matty_f
26-06-2011, 08:19 AM
On 5 live just now, Yams head of supporters club says he has seen the evidence & they agree that he deserves a second chance :confused: Unbelievable !!

The evidence, on the face of it, involves the following exchange:

FJK: Craig, what's this about you being a beast and that?

Convicted child sex offender (CCSO) : Erm, a big boy done it and ran away.

FJK : Was it Gary MacKay?

CCSO : Erm.... aye. And the mafia, likesay.

FJK : I heard you'd sent pictures of your boaby?

CCSO: Aye, listen boss, I'll come clean here's what's happened...

FJK *sticks fingers in his ears : la la la la la la la la (carries on for ten minutes while CCSO gives the details) That it?

CCSO: Yes, so am I fired then?

FJK : Dinnae be silly son, we'll go with your first answer of a big boy done it and ran away. Vlad'll be roond soon to sort out your next contract.

Steve-O
26-06-2011, 08:19 AM
Sorry but I don't see why Vladimir Romanov would visit the victim's family. That is a bizarre suggestion to me? :confused:

Beefster
26-06-2011, 08:22 AM
The fact that Hearts didn't contact the families of the victims just shows that any 'mitigating circumstances' have come purely from Thomson. It's not like he'd have any reason to lie to save his career, is it?

Sickbag is now turning to the "ah, one of the families have spoken to the papers, that says it all about that family". If the inbreds thought about it, it is possible that the outrageous statements/decision on Friday questioning their integrity pushed them into it. The family probably wants to put the record straight and let everyone know what a predator Thomson is, seeing as Hearts are determined to sweep it under the carpet and make out that it is less serious that it actually is.

Loathsome club with a rump of absolute fandans as supporters.

ronaldo7
26-06-2011, 08:26 AM
Sorry but I don't see why Vladimir Romanov would visit the victim's family. That is a bizarre suggestion to me? :confused:

I don't think Romanov should be anywhere near the victims families, however their must be someone at the club who would represent the reasons they made the decisions they did.

And someone at their club should at least have tried to say Sorry.

hibiedude
26-06-2011, 08:28 AM
Sorry but I don't see why Vladimir Romanov would visit the victim's family. That is a bizarre suggestion to me? :confused:

I think it might help the family to show Romanov the suffering it has left and Romanov could then explain his rambling rant from his Hearts board of directors which suggested the young victims were somehow to blame for their ordeal.

Beefster
26-06-2011, 08:30 AM
Sorry but I don't see why Vladimir Romanov would visit the victim's family. That is a bizarre suggestion to me? :confused:

I agree with you. The club should have been in touch for the other side of the story during their 'investigation' though.

Antifa Hibs
26-06-2011, 08:35 AM
Pages 1-5 of the Sunday Mail apparantley 'dedicated' to this case (including the headlines!) also with interviews of the girls' parents.




Hertz fans, will this stop your fans singing such witty ditties such as 'Big Jock Knew' & 'Who ****ged all the bhoys'?

Steve-O
26-06-2011, 08:36 AM
I agree with you. The club should have been in touch for the other side of the story during their 'investigation' though.

I dunno, I think the last thing the family would need is Hearts contacting them to go over it all again.

Barney McGrew
26-06-2011, 08:42 AM
The fact that Hearts didn't contact the families of the victims just shows that any 'mitigating circumstances' have come purely from Thomson. It's not like he'd have any reason to lie to save his career, is it?

Sickbag is now turning to the "ah, one of the families have spoken to the papers, that says it all about that family". If the inbreds thought about it, it is possible that the outrageous statements/decision on Friday questioning their integrity pushed them into it. The family probably wants to put the record straight and let everyone know what a predator Thomson is, seeing as Hearts are determined to sweep it under the carpet and make out that it is less serious that it actually is.

Loathsome club with a rump of absolute fandans as supporters.

:top marks

greenlex
26-06-2011, 08:45 AM
Jeffries was right to suspend CT when he found out he was in court on these charges. If Vlad is the one behind CT not being given the bullet then Jeffries had any moral fibre he should resign on principle. Lets wait and see.

Jay
26-06-2011, 08:48 AM
I dunno, I think the last thing the family would need is Hearts contacting them to go over it all again.

I agree Steve. if it was my daughter I would be telling them that he plead guilty in court and was convicted. Thats all the evidence they need. I wouldnt have them anywhere near me.

As for the story in the paper - can you imagine how the family felt when they read the clubs statement? I would imagine they were approached by a number of papers and convinced to tell their side of the story as is their right especially given what was insinuated by Hearts.

YehButNoBut
26-06-2011, 08:50 AM
Jeffries was right to suspend CT when he found out he was in court on these charges. If Vlad is the one behind CT not being given the bullet then Jeffries had any moral fibre he should resign on principle. Lets wait and see.

You would think that JJ is going to make some statement re this very soon, will not be easy to give his honest view as it will surely contradict Vlad.

Barney McGrew
26-06-2011, 08:54 AM
If Vlad is the one behind CT not being given the bullet then Jeffries had any moral fibre he should resign on principle. Lets wait and see.

He should go anyway Lex - he was either one who carried out the investigation and decided to let him stay on (and therefore agrees with the decision) or as you say it's been made above his head and he should go on principle. Either way, he's got a part in this sorry mess.

But like most other yams, he has no backbone and will carry on regardless.

half.time.draw.
26-06-2011, 09:01 AM
The fact that Hearts didn't contact the families of the victims just shows that any 'mitigating circumstances' have come purely from Thomson. It's not like he'd have any reason to lie to save his career, is it?

Sickbag is now turning to the "ah, one of the families have spoken to the papers, that says it all about that family". If the inbreds thought about it, it is possible that the outrageous statements/decision on Friday questioning their integrity pushed them into it. The family probably wants to put the record straight and let everyone know what a predator Thomson is, seeing as Hearts are determined to sweep it under the carpet and make out that it is less serious that it actually is.

Loathsome club with a rump of absolute fandans as supporters.


They were sisters, whom Thomson lived 100 yards away from, for most of his young life, burn in hell for what he has done for me.

moredun
26-06-2011, 10:39 AM
Jeffries was right to suspend CT when he found out he was in court on these charges. If Vlad is the one behind CT not being given the bullet then Jeffries had any moral fibre he should resign on principle. Lets wait and see.


JJ resign???
You are jesting are you not, this is the man who lies through his teeth about seemingly everything these days.
Respect and Morals are way out of the fat gits league