The Paedo Signs For FBK

[Sergey]

:agree:

It's official

Another registration fee changes hands between the clubs :wink:

[HNA6]

:agree:

It's official

Another registration fee changes hands between the clubs :wink:He has joined a karaoke club ..?..jeez ..wot a carry ony ..:greengrin

[Greentinted]

:agree:

It's official

Another registration fee changes hands between the clubs :wink:

So regardless of the ostensible name of the club on the pay-slip, does the good ship Romanov continue to subsidise the lifestyle of a convicted criminal?

[Sergey]

He has joined a karaoke club ..?..jeez ..wot a carry ony ..

:greengrin

It should of course have read, signs :greengrin

[HNA6]

It should of course have read, signs :greengrin:thumbsup:

[Baldy Foghorn]

:agree:

It's official

Another registration fee changes hands between the clubs :wink:

Romanov has no morals whatsoever

[ArabHibee]

:agree:

It's official

Another registration fee changes hands between the clubs :wink:

Ok, I'll bite - sauce?

I thot the big guys at FBK put the kabosh on this?

[Sergey]

Ok, I'll bite - sauce?

I thot the big guys at FBK put the kabosh on this?

From the FBK site.

http://www.fbk.lt/index.php/naujienos/pirma_karta_lietuvoje_rungtyniaus_skotas/6533


(http://www.fbk.lt/index.php/naujienos/pirma_karta_lietuvoje_rungtyniaus_skotas/6533)

[Greentinted]

Ok, I'll bite - sauce?

I thot the big guys at FBK put the kabosh on this?

http://www.fbk.lt/index.php/naujienos/pirma_karta_lietuvoje_rungtyniaus_skotas/6533

(http://www.fbk.lt/index.php/naujienos/pirma_karta_lietuvoje_rungtyniaus_skotas/6533)

[Bayern Bru]

As in Kaunas?

You're sh*tting me.

[SkintHibby]

I have a Lithuanian friend (originally from Kaunas) and he has no interest in football whatsoever. I explained to him that a paedophile was going to sign for the cities football team and asked how the news would be greeted by Lithuanian people. He says they will want to hang him from the nearest lamppost. He says Lithuanians will take a very hostile view about this.:agree:

[R'Albin]

As in Kaunas?

You're sh*tting me.

Unbelievable :hilarious

[ArabHibee]

From the FBK site.

http://www.fbk.lt/index.php/naujienos/pirma_karta_lietuvoje_rungtyniaus_skotas/6533


(http://www.fbk.lt/index.php/naujienos/pirma_karta_lietuvoje_rungtyniaus_skotas/6533)

Cheers. Un*******believable!!!!! :bitchy:

[Dashing Bob S]

Paedo Sings The Blues - crying out to be made into a musical biopic.

[frazeHFC]

What the hell. Get a friendly arranged, i want to shout abuse at him.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What a ****hole of an organisation!

[SRHibs]

This does Hearts no favour at all...

In disbelief at some of the responses on kickback:


Well done Vlad. Would have been easy just to cut the kid loose. This way he gets a chance to grow up and sort himself out - hope he takes the chance given and does just that.

All of them seem oblivious to the fact that this still keeps him in the Hearts loop. Maybe not officially, but still...

[Dashing Bob S]

I have a Lithuanian friend (originally from Kaunas) and he has no interest in football whatsoever. I explained to him that a paedophile was going to sign for the cities football team and asked how the news would be greeted by Lithuanian people. He says they will want to hang him from the nearest lamppost. He says Lithuanians will take a very hostile view about this.:agree:

It shows to me that Hearts are again operating in a strategic and moral vacuum when it comes to leadership. This has all the hallmarks of another shabby sweeping the matter under carpet decision. "Let's get him out the way, keep him fit and bring him back when everybody has forgotten about it."

I don't think they have a clue about the power of the internet and the fact we live in a global community. Lithuanians will (rightly) be asking the question: why has a dangerous sexual predator from another country been sent here to play football, when he's deemed unsuitable in this role over there, and what steps are being made to monitor his behaviour?

Will Thomson, for example, have a case officer shadowing him, as he did in Scotland? Or is this just a means of escaping justice/facing responsibility for his actions?

[tanfield]

Nothing surprises me with that club

[Kojock]

As I posted on 10/07/2011

I was speaking to a Jambo a week ago and he was saying that CT is to be punted to Kaunus.

The statements Thomson will not play for the Scottish Premier League club again. and The club has considered all implications surrounding the issue and has decided to find a solution for the player to leave the club over the forthcoming days suggests to me that the Kaunas story could come to fruition.

You couldnt make it up.

[Beefster]

Is it a one season loan from Hearts to Kaunas (i.e. he remains on Hearts' books) or a permanent transfer with a contract only until the end of the season?

[Future17]

Does he not have to report to some sort of rehabilitation officer for a set period? If so, is he allowed to leave the country?

For that matter, will he get into Lithuania with a recent conviction of this type?

[Westie1875]

Pathetic, but unfortunately not unexpected. Romanov has absolutely no morals, I hope the paedo gets hounded out of Lithuania. :bitchy:

[Saorsa]

Does he not have to report to some sort of rehabilitation officer for a set period? If so, is he allowed to leave the country?

For that matter, will he get into Lithuania with a recent conviction of this type?Vlad will smuggle him in on his submarine. Once he's got him in Vlad will then chuck the authorities a few lita tae let him stay and take it back out the paedos wages.

[Hibernia Na Eir]

romanov must be viewed in as bad a way as any child sex groomer. hes condoning the offender by singing him for this outfit. perverts the lot of them. seedy and rotten right to the core. desperados, desperate for any kind of future cash. only. the won't get any!

[HNA6]

Do Kaunas have a fans forum ..?...if so I think we should let them know they should be locking up their Daughters !!!

[Barney McGrew]

He says Lithuanians will take a very hostile view about this.:agree:

Shame that the russian in charge of them doesn't though.

[Hibs Class]

Does he not have to report to some sort of rehabilitation officer for a set period? If so, is he allowed to leave the country?

For that matter, will he get into Lithuania with a recent conviction of this type?

Money talks. He may just have to bung a few more quid to the border guards than your average tourist.

[Raymond]

"Edinburgh Hearts (Scotland) football club OWNED by "Kaunas" to represent the end of the season":na na:

[hibeemark]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

[greenlex]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:
What a load of pish.
If my daughter had anything to do with hearts or any organisation they endorsed I would be outraged. He could not and has not continued to be a Hearts player.

[Raymond]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

Words Fail me!

[Wotherspiniesta]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

Can we have this clown punted please?

Cheers.

[Beefster]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

What about the children's charities? They were wrong and you right too?

Why, exactly, was he put on the Sex Offender Register if he was 'no danger'? Do young men routinely get put on it without being a danger?

I don't think it was just 'obscene text messages' either. It was photos, Facebook stuff and web-chats.

In addition, the younger girl was 12, lest some folk fall for your trivialisation of his grooming.

[Greentinted]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

Was Derek Riordan charged and convicted of lewd and lascivious behaviour by virtue of grooming several children online for his sexual gratification? In fact, has Derek Riordan been convicted of anything in a Scottish Law court? The comparison is as moot as it is flimsy.
I can't speak for anyone else but I have the capability to think for myself irrespective of any tabloid sensationalism and Craig Thomson is a paedophile - this is not rumour, conjecture or blind gossip. This is (to invoke that overused superlative) FACT.
Furthermore, I suggest that anyone who cannot accept this and writes it off as a 'mistake' is a peadophile's apologist and if the cap fits... Anything else is - as you say - a load of nonsense!

[CropleyWasGod]

Can we have this clown punted please?

Cheers.

Why? Because he disagrees with the overwhelming majority?

[HNA6]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:You find the treatment of Thomson shocking ..are you for real !!!! what about the young lassies ..or their families how the **** do you think they feel ..?

By reading your post you havent a ****ing clue what happened ..blame the media, the press, bla ****ing bla ..he admittred his crime ..he knew the kids were under age ..get over it !!!

[hibeemark]

Was Derek Riordan charged and convicted of lewd and lascivious behaviour by virtue of grooming several children online for his sexual gratification? In fact, has Derek Riordan been convicted of anything in a Scottish Law court? The comparison is as moot as it is flimsy.
I can't speak for anyone else but I have the capability to think for myself irrespective of any tabloid sensationalism and Craig Thomson is a paedophile - this is not rumour, conjecture or blind gossip. This is (to invoke that overused superlative) FACT.
Furthermore, I suggest that anyone who cannot accept this and writes it off as a 'mistake' is a peadophile's apologist and if the cap fits... Anything else is - as you say - a load of nonsense!

Please don't misunderstand me. I find grooming of children disgusting, and anyone convicted of such activity should go away for a very long time. But let's stick to the facts. Craig Thomson was not convicted of that. He wasn't, look it up. And I'm not making excuses for him. He was found guilty of lewd behaviour on a par with exposing yourself in public. Or taking a leak in the street. Or streaking at a sporting event.

I realise this is a volatile and emotive issue. That doesn't mean we have to switch our brains off though, does it?

What I meant when I spoke about Deek was that he was not in any way guilty of the charges which the court of mob rule have levelled at him and I don't believe Craig Thomson is either. Yes, child abuse is horrific. That does not mean we should ignore the facts.

As I said, I openly admit to having ribbed jambos about this mercilessly. It's fun, why not? :yamlaugh:

But how can you say that our legal system is fine... UNTIL it's an emotive issue that the tabloids grab hold of, in which case screw the facts? :dunno:

[Iggy Pope]

Please don't misunderstand me. I find grooming of children disgusting, and anyone convicted of such activity should go away for a very long time. But let's stick to the facts. Craig Thomson was not convicted of that. He wasn't, look it up. And I'm not making excuses for him. He was found guilty of lewd behaviour on a par with exposing yourself in public. Or taking a leak in the street. Or streaking at a sporting event.

I realise this is a volatile and emotive issue. That doesn't mean we have to switch our brains off though, does it?

What I meant when I spoke about Deek was that he was not in any way guilty of the charges which the court of mob rule have levelled at him and I don't believe Craig Thomson is either. Yes, child abuse is horrific. That does not mean we should ignore the facts.

As I said, I openly admit to having ribbed jambos about this mercilessly. It's fun, why not? :yamlaugh:

But how can you say that our legal system is fine... UNTIL it's an emotive issue that the tabloids grab hold of, in which case screw the facts? :dunno:

Agreed. He would appear to be guilty of a thought crime and the internet seems to provoke a lot of these. He is however, fair game, just for being a sparryheid.

[Wotherspiniesta]

Why? Because he disagrees with the overwhelming majority?

No, because he's defending a f***ing paedo.

[Part/Time Supporter]

For the first time in Lithuania will play a Scot
This week the players before the end of the registration window, "Kaunas" has been registered and a legionnaire.

Our team has added the right stores and defender positions can emulate Craig Thomson (Craig Thompson).

The new "Kaunas" Junior will be the first soccer player from Scotland, rungtyniausiančiu Lithuania.

Edinburgh Hearts (Scotland) football club owned by "Kaunas" to represent the end of the season.

Mr Thomson will wear number 46-th marked in yellow-green "Kaunas" t-shirt.

A new member of our club was the last soccer player, complementing team this season. Without it, this week to "Kaunas" returned Nursultan Maciulis midfielder and goalkeeper Džiugas Bartkus, and last week our team has added Evaldas Razula striker, midfielder and goalkeeper David Kapusta Modestas Stonys.

...

[HNA6]

Please don't misunderstand me. I find grooming of children disgusting, and anyone convicted of such activity should go away for a very long time. But let's stick to the facts. Craig Thomson was not convicted of that. He wasn't, look it up. And I'm not making excuses for him. He was found guilty of lewd behaviour on a par with exposing yourself in public. Or taking a leak in the street. Or streaking at a sporting event.

I realise this is a volatile and emotive issue. That doesn't mean we have to switch our brains off though, does it?

What I meant when I spoke about Deek was that he was not in any way guilty of the charges which the court of mob rule have levelled at him and I don't believe Craig Thomson is either. Yes, child abuse is horrific. That does not mean we should ignore the facts.

As I said, I openly admit to having ribbed jambos about this mercilessly. It's fun, why not? :yamlaugh:

But how can you say that our legal system is fine... UNTIL it's an emotive issue that the tabloids grab hold of, in which case screw the facts? :dunno:Sending pics of your ***** to kids is akin to doing a pee in the street or streaking at sporting events ..utter bollox mate & you know it ..

I streaked on the bowling green at my club whilst bladdered ..Ive also pissed behind a ****ing tree whilst bladdered ...never though was I put on the paedo register .!!

Get a grip !!

[hibeemark]

No, because he's defending a f***ing paedo.

You think he's a peado. A Scottish court thought otherwise. His employers thought otherwise.

You know better than them? :dunno:

You're basically saying screw the Rule of Law, and my reply to that would be if that's how you feel , go and live in Afghanistan.

[Westie1875]

Please don't misunderstand me. I find grooming of children disgusting, and anyone convicted of such activity should go away for a very long time. But let's stick to the facts. Craig Thomson was not convicted of that. He wasn't, look it up. And I'm not making excuses for him. He was found guilty of lewd behaviour on a par with exposing yourself in public. Or taking a leak in the street. Or streaking at a sporting event.

I realise this is a volatile and emotive issue. That doesn't mean we have to switch our brains off though, does it?

What I meant when I spoke about Deek was that he was not in any way guilty of the charges which the court of mob rule have levelled at him and I don't believe Craig Thomson is either. Yes, child abuse is horrific. That does not mean we should ignore the facts.

As I said, I openly admit to having ribbed jambos about this mercilessly. It's fun, why not? :yamlaugh:

But how can you say that our legal system is fine... UNTIL it's an emotive issue that the tabloids grab hold of, in which case screw the facts? :dunno:

The FACT that his name appears on the sex offenders register and he was found guilty is good enough for me. That he was unsuccessful in his grooming of these girls making it a lesser charge doesn't make him any less of a peadophile in my mind.

Bringing Riordan into it is pretty low IMO, there is absolutely NO comparison to be made.

[Iggy Pope]

No, because he's defending a f***ing paedo.

All for poking sticks at Hertz but that comment makes you sound a wee bit daft, a bit lynch mob maybe.

[CropleyWasGod]

No, because he's defending a f***ing paedo.

Distasteful as it might be, he is entitled to his opinion.

[Greentinted]

Please don't misunderstand me. I find grooming of children disgusting, and anyone convicted of such activity should go away for a very long time. But let's stick to the facts. Craig Thomson was not convicted of that. He wasn't, look it up. I have and am highly conversant with the various nuances of this emotive litigious issue but here you go - Lewd and Lascivious Practices (http://scottish-parliament.cc/s3/committees/justice/inquiries/SexualOffences/documents/SO31.ScottishChildrensReporterAdministration.pdf) as it pertains to crimes against Children And I'm not making excuses for him. He was found guilty of lewd behaviour on a par with exposing yourself in public - while that is technically correct inasmuch as 'flashing' is covered by the same act, the act covers a multitude of offences which can be considered in no way shape or form 'on a par'. Or taking a leak in the street. Or streaking at a sporting event.

I realise this is a volatile and emotive issue. That doesn't mean we have to switch our brains off though, does it?

What I meant when I spoke about Deek was that he was not in any way guilty of the charges which the court of mob rule have levelled at him and I don't believe Craig Thomson is either. Yes, child abuse is horrific. That does not mean we should ignore the facts indeed not but you seem to have done just that.

As I said, I openly admit to having ribbed jambos about this mercilessly. It's fun, why not? To take any vicarious pleasure from sexual offences would appear on many levels wrong and unpalatable - this is bigger than 'football rivalry' - HMFC just seem to have a habit of apologising for paedophiles and rapists; sad but true :yamlaugh:

But how can you say that our legal system is fine I don't think I suggested our justice system is 'fine', it is hardly flawless and makes some grave errors. The case of PF v Thomson however is not one of them. The defendant admitted his crimes in court and was punished accordingly. Whether the sanctions imposed were correct is subjective but the case was disposed of and the outcome remains that CT is unequivocally a predatory paedophile - by his own admission... UNTIL it's an emotive issue that the tabloids grab hold of, in which case screw the facts? :dunno:

And as it goes, I don't read the tabloid trash that pretends to be a free press. I am moved to afford you some credit for your stoicism but in this case I fear your passion is a tad misguided.

[BSEJVT]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

Reply deleted Thought better of it

[hibeemark]

The FACT that his name appears on the sex offenders register and he was found guilty is good enough for me. That he was unsuccessful in his grooming of these girls making it a lesser charge doesn't make him any less of a peadophile in my mind.

Bringing Riordan into it is pretty low IMO, there is absolutely NO comparison to be made.

The reason I mentioned peeing in the street, or streaking at sporting event, is that you can end up on the Sex Offender's Register for these. I only know this because I looked it up. I was the same as you, I thought it was only for kiddie fiddlers and rapists.

Listen, I get it. The girls' parents are probably very annoyed, and rightly so. But he was not convicted of beasting anyone, or anything remotely approaching that.

When I was a teenager, we didn't have mobile phones. But do you honestly believe teenagers these days don't send naughty text messages to each other? They even have a name for it, 'sexting'. I know it feels weird to admit that they do this kind of thing, but we should not be criminalising them for it. A Scottish court understood the complexity of this, why can't you?

Deek has been completely hung out to dry by the Scottish media. I think it's very relevant.

[Wotherspiniesta]

You think he's a peado. A Scottish court thought otherwise. His employers thought otherwise.

You know better than them? :dunno:

You're basically saying screw the Rule of Law, and my reply to that would be if that's how you feel , go and live in Afghanistan.

Away and chase yourself.

Did Thomson not send a picture of his **** to an underage girl?

I'm all for equality and yes, everyone should be able to state their case. The fact Thomson pleaded guilty to the crime means he's accepting he was being a beast.

You can try sugarcoat it anyway you want. Calling it "lewd and indecent behaviour towards 2 underage girls" is putting it in polictically correct terms. I'm just calling it how it is. Thomson is a paedo.

If you honestly think the guy who's been allowed to continue a professional footballing career despite grooming a 12 and 15 year old has been mistreated you're either on the wind up or are messed up in the head.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

Goes straight to the morals and the content of character of the main player. Seems like the submariner had to be convinced by other people that keeping CT in a hearts shirt was a no-goer. Not for the reasons that every decent member of society should be able to see but because they would have to take a great deal of flak. Now he has kept him on the pay-roll but just shifted him to another department. It is a credible assumption that Mr Romanov thinks that what CT did was not that bad. HOMFC still stay tainted by this.

[HNA6]

The reason I mentioned peeing in the street, or streaking at sporting event, is that you can end up on the Sex Offender's Register for these. I only know this because I looked it up. I was the same as you, I thought it was only for kiddie fiddlers and rapists.

Listen, I get it. The girls' parents are probably very annoyed, and rightly so. But he was not convicted of beasting anyone, or anything remotely approaching that.

When I was a teenager, we didn't have mobile phones. But do you honestly believe teenagers these days don't send naughty text messages to each other? They even have a name for it, 'sexting'. I know it feels weird to admit that they do this kind of thing, but we should not be criminalising them for it. A Scottish court understood the complexity of this, why can't you?

Deek has been completely hung out to dry by the Scottish media. I think it's very relevant.So answer this ..if it had been your Daughter/Sister etc who was on the recieving end you would be fine with it ..?

****ing unbelievable ....

[Littlest Hobo]

As far as I'm concerned the boy should never be let loose near children ever again, that's just my opinion.

Let us not forget from what I've been told that the boy is a Hibs supporter who once stood shoulder to shoulder with you and I. So let's forget about singing daft songs just to get one upmanship on our Jambo mates. Best let the law deal with this and move on.

[Sergey]

Listen, I get it. The girls' parents are probably very annoyed, and rightly so. But he was not convicted of beasting anyone, or anything remotely approaching that.



Go crawl back under your stone.

There's an oxymorinic paraphrase in the comment I highlighted.

You want a spade or a shovel for the hole you're digging?

The lad is a nonce. Period!

[hibeemark]

So answer this ..if it had been your Daughter/Sister etc who was on the recieving end you would be fine with it ..?

****ing unbelievable ....

No, I wouldn't. But that isn't the point.

Me disagreeing with his immature teenage behaviour (and I do) does not make him a paedo.

He needs a good talking to, that's for sure. But to be labelled some kind of 'sex beast'. No, that's wrong. I don't believe he's a sex beast any more than any normal horny teenagers are. I disapprove of my teenage self, of course I do. That doesn't mean I would arrest my teenage self.

[Jonnyboy]

The reason I mentioned peeing in the street, or streaking at sporting event, is that you can end up on the Sex Offender's Register for these. I only know this because I looked it up. I was the same as you, I thought it was only for kiddie fiddlers and rapists.

Listen, I get it. The girls' parents are probably very annoyed, and rightly so. But he was not convicted of beasting anyone, or anything remotely approaching that.

When I was a teenager, we didn't have mobile phones. But do you honestly believe teenagers these days don't send naughty text messages to each other? They even have a name for it, 'sexting'. I know it feels weird to admit that they do this kind of thing, but we should not be criminalising them for it. A Scottish court understood the complexity of this, why can't you?

Deek has been completely hung out to dry by the Scottish media. I think it's very relevant.

That may well be true but if you think sending pics of your genitalia to a 12 year old girl and asking her to show you her breasts online means that Thomson got a raw deal then there is something fundamentally wrong with the way you perceive this whole lurid episode

[hibeemark]

Go crawl back under your stone.

There's an oxymorinic paraphrase in the comment I highlighted.

You want a spade or a shovel for the hole you're digging?

The lad is a nonce. Period!

Sergey, I actually love your posts. You are brilliant the way you give it tight to the jambos. :thumbsup:

But to say 'The lad is a nonce. Period!' is a bit dogmatic, no? :dunno:

[soupy]

[QUOTE=hibeemark;2874712]The reason I mentioned peeing in the street, or streaking at sporting event, is that you can end up on the Sex Offender's Register for these. I only know this because I looked it up. I was the same as you, I thought it was only for kiddie fiddlers and rapists.Listen, I get it. The girls' parents are probably very annoyed, and rightly so. But he was not convicted of beasting anyone, or anything remotely approaching that. can't you?Very annoyed, you are at the wind up

[Westie1875]

The reason I mentioned peeing in the street, or streaking at sporting event, is that you can end up on the Sex Offender's Register for these. I only know this because I looked it up.I was the same as you, I thought it was only for kiddie fiddlers and rapists. - So tell me, what is the reason for Thomson being on this list then? It certainly ain't for peeing in the street FFS.

Listen, I get it. The girls' parents are probably very annoyed, and rightly so. But he was not convicted of beasting anyone, or anything remotely approaching that. - Indecent behaviour towards a minor is just that, doesn't matter what words you use to describe it.

When I was a teenager, we didn't have mobile phones. But do you honestly believe teenagers these days don't send naughty text messages to each other? They even have a name for it, 'sexting'. I know it feels weird to admit that they do this kind of thing, but we should not be criminalising them for it. A Scottish court understood the complexity of this, why can't you? - Rubbish, there is a difference between 2 teenagers who are the same age texting each other and a 20/21 year old trying it on with a 12 year old, if you can't see that then you're kidding yourself.

Deek has been completely hung out to dry by the Scottish media. I think it's very relevant. - Derek wasn't found guilty of anything and what he was accused of constantly by the press (not a court of law) was nowhere near as serious as this, as I said, no comparison.



I really can't believe the way you are defending this, the only conclusion I can come to is that you know the guy personally so can't take an objective view?

[Benny Brazil]

No, I wouldn't. But that isn't the point.

Me disagreeing with his immature teenage behaviour (and I do) does not make him a paedo.

He needs a good talking to, that's for sure. But to be labelled some kind of 'sex beast'. No, that's wrong. I don't believe he's a sex beast any more than any normal horny teenagers are. I disapprove of my teenage self, of course I do. That doesn't mean I would arrest my teenage self.

Grooming a 12yrd old and a 14yr old for sex is now immature teenage behaviour??
Let not beat about the bush - if he had the chance he would have had sex (RAPED) the 12yr old girl. And you think their parents are just "annoyed" - jeez!


I suggest you take a break for a few hours then read back some of the things you have posted - maybe then you'll come to your senses.

[Hibs Class]

No, I wouldn't. But that isn't the point.

Me disagreeing with his immature teenage behaviour (and I do) does not make him a paedo.

He needs a good talking to, that's for sure. But to be labelled some kind of 'sex beast'. No, that's wrong. I don't believe he's a sex beast any more than any normal horny teenagers are. I disapprove of my teenage self, of course I do. That doesn't mean I would arrest my teenage self.

The more people express nonsense like this, the less likely it is that Thomson will recognise he has done anything wrong, and without that recognition he won't change his behaviour. There are lots of words that could describe what Thomson has done, and I am certain that "normal" would be pretty near the bottom of the list.

[Hibbyradge]

The reason I mentioned peeing in the street, or streaking at sporting event, is that you can end up on the Sex Offender's Register for these. I only know this because I looked it up. I was the same as you, I thought it was only for kiddie fiddlers and rapists.



Peeing in the street is "public nuisance". It is not a sex crime. You can not be put on a register.




When I was a teenager, we didn't have mobile phones. But do you honestly believe teenagers these days don't send naughty text messages to each other? They even have a name for it, 'sexting'. I know it feels weird to admit that they do this kind of thing, but we should not be criminalising them for it. A Scottish court understood the complexity of this, why can't you?



This was an adult grooming a 12 year old girl. Not 2 teens sexting each other.

[scott7_0(Prague)]

FAO Hibeermak

HAVe a wee read of this, maybe you missed it the first time, then come back and give us your opino

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

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Well done, Romanov.

Yet another mind-bendingly brainless decision from ol' Vladimir.

Bumping a paedo from Hearts to Kaunas will not give them any credibility whatsoever; it's akin to creepy Roger from HR being moved to accounts having been caught with nonce images on the work PC. He's been kept on by his employers, he's still got a computer; he's just in a different department.

Sickening to the core but not unsurprising news considering the author of this sorry, sorry tale.

It's no really been a good day for the (in)famous, has it? :greengrin

[Sergey]

Sergey, I actually love your posts. You are brilliant the way you you give it tight to the jambos. :thumbsup:

But to say 'The lad is a nonce. Period!' is a bit dogmatic, no? :dunno:

Let me leave this thread with this...

Master Thomson is currently being investigated for another sexual crime, a crime I have first have knowledge of.

Let me conclude that this crime is far more severe than what's already been reported and he's been convicted of.

I can't post the details on this forum for obvious reasons, but trust me, if true, this will again make the front pages.

He's a nonce :wink:

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Let me leave this thread with this...

Master Thomson is currently being investigated for another sexual crime, a crime I have first have knowledge of.

Let me conclude that this crime is far more severe than what's already been reported and he's been convicted of.

I can't post the details on this forum for obvious reasons, but trust me, if true, this will again make the front pages.

He's a nonce :wink:

You got groomed, Sergey, didn't you? Here's a teddy, point to the parts of the body where you got badtouch. :wink:

[Jonnyboy]

Let me leave this thread with this...

Master Thomson is currently being investigated for another sexual crime, a crime I have first have knowledge of.

Let me conclude that this crime is far more severe than what's already been reported and he's been convicted of.

I can't post the details on this forum for obvious reasons, but trust me, if true, this will again make the front pages.

He's a nonce :wink:

Let's hope we have an extradition treaty with Lithuania :agree:

[hibeemark]

Grooming a 12yrd old and a 14yr old for sex is now immature teenage behaviour??
Let not beat about the bush - if he had the chance he would have had sex (RAPED) the 12yr old girl. And you think their parents are just "annoyed" - jeez!


I suggest you take a break for a few hours then read back some of the things you have posted - maybe then you'll come to your senses.

This is what I mean. Stick to the facts. You are condemning the guy through pure speculation. :tsk tsk:

I disagree with what he did. He was wrong. I cannot stress that enough. But this knee jerk reaction some of you feel, I think you need to use your heads more. :bitchy:

Can I just make it clear also that he was NOT convicted of anything other than "lewd and libidinous behaviour". Nothing else. Anything other than that is speculation or gossip. Sorry, but that's true. :dunno:

To set the record straight, no I don't know the guy. And I hate the jambos with a passion. I was at the 4-0 game at Hampden, enough said. But I do feel that the toughest test of our own ethics is when defending an enemy? The point I was trying to make about Deek is that trial by media (and it's the Scottish media, eager to keep the ball rolling during the summer break) is wrong no matter which side of Edinburgh you hail from.

[chrisski33]

Whilst everyone has an opinion hibeemark talks aload of pish! Deeks has nothing to do with this and his situation was way different and he wasnt hung out to dry by the.media. Thomson was rightly hung out to dry by the press for what he did. Sending pics of his ding dong to underage girls is inexcusable and he was old enough to know better. Just cos our soft touch justice just put him on the sex offenders list doesnt mean that was correct. A tougher punishment shud have been made. To say to posters to go.live in afghanistan is just laughable

[Pedantic_Hibee]

This is what I mean. Stick to the facts. You are condemning the guy through pure speculation. :tsk tsk:

I disagree with what he did. He was wrong. I cannot stress that enough. But this knee jerk reaction some of you feel, I think you need to use your heads more. :bitchy:

Can I just make it clear also that he was NOT convicted of anything other than "lewd and libidinous behaviour". Nothing else. Anything other than that is speculation or gossip. Sorry, but that's true. :dunno:

To set the record straight, no I don't know the guy. And I hate the jambos with a passion. I was at the 4-0 game at Hampden, enough said. But I do feel that the toughest test of our own ethics is when defending an enemy? The point I was trying to make about Deek is that trial by media (and it's the Scottish media, eager to keep the ball rolling during the summer break) is wrong no matter which side of Edinburgh you hail from.

1) It's not speculation, it was said in court that he asked these girls for sex
2) He was not convicted of much else because he knew the game was up and 'fessed up before the situation got investigated further
3) You're either a Jambo, or Craig Thomson.
4) Wee Airdrie Jambo agrees :agree:

[lapsedhibee]

Rubbish, there is a difference between 2 teenagers who are the same age texting each other and a 20/21 year old trying it on with a 12 year old, if you can't see that then you're kidding yourself.

I think Thomson was actually 19. The media reports I've seen make a point of quoting victims' ages at the time of the criminal behaviour, but seem to report Thomson's current age. Still completely unacceptable at age 19 of course, but I wonder why the reports are inconsistent in this respect? :dunno:

[Hibbyradge]

This is what I mean. Stick to the facts. You are condemning the guy through pure speculation. :tsk tsk:

I disagree with what he did. He was wrong. I cannot stress that enough. But this knee jerk reaction some of you feel, I think you need to use your heads more. :bitchy:

Can I just make it clear also that he was NOT convicted of anything other than "lewd and libidinous behaviour". Nothing else. Anything other than that is speculation or gossip. Sorry, but that's true. :dunno:

To set the record straight, no I don't know the guy. And I hate the jambos with a passion. I was at the 4-0 game at Hampden, enough said. But I do feel that the toughest test of our own ethics is when defending an enemy? The point I was trying to make about Deek is that trial by media (and it's the Scottish media, eager to keep the ball rolling during the summer break) is wrong no matter which side of Edinburgh you hail from.

Firstly, I don't believe you're a Hibs supporter.

Secondly, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder. The LA police aren't looking for anyone else. Thomson was only found guilty of lewd and libidinous behavior.

The parents, and his victims, tell a different story.

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

This is what I mean. Stick to the facts. You are condemning the guy through pure speculation. :tsk tsk:

I disagree with what he did. He was wrong. I cannot stress that enough. But this knee jerk reaction some of you feel, I think you need to use your heads more. :bitchy:

Can I just make it clear also that he was NOT convicted of anything other than "lewd and libidinous behaviour". Nothing else. Anything other than that is speculation or gossip. Sorry, but that's true. :dunno:

To set the record straight, no I don't know the guy. And I hate the jambos with a passion. I was at the 4-0 game at Hampden, enough said. But I do feel that the toughest test of our own ethics is when defending an enemy? The point I was trying to make about Deek is that trial by media (and it's the Scottish media, eager to keep the ball rolling during the summer break) is wrong no matter which side of Edinburgh you hail from. :lolyam:

[Benny Brazil]

1) It's not speculation, it was said in court that he asked these girls for sex
2) He was not convicted of much else because he knew the game was up and 'fessed up before the situation got investigated further
3) You're either a Jambo, or Craig Thomson.
4) Wee Airdrie Jambo agrees :agree:

Thanks PH - saved me from replying to hibeemark again.

[Wotherspiniesta]

This is what I mean. Stick to the facts. You are condemning the guy through pure speculation. :tsk tsk:

I disagree with what he did. He was wrong. I cannot stress that enough. But this knee jerk reaction some of you feel, I think you need to use your heads more. :bitchy:

Can I just make it clear also that he was NOT convicted of anything other than "lewd and libidinous behaviour". Nothing else. Anything other than that is speculation or gossip. Sorry, but that's true. :dunno:

To set the record straight, no I don't know the guy. And I hate the jambos with a passion. I was at the 4-0 game at Hampden, enough said. But I do feel that the toughest test of our own ethics is when defending an enemy? The point I was trying to make about Deek is that trial by media (and it's the Scottish media, eager to keep the ball rolling during the summer break) is wrong no matter which side of Edinburgh you hail from.

NOW can we launch him? "hibeemark" obviously thought a good word for Derek Riordan would save him from the accusation of being a Jambo.

Couldn't help himself but have a sly dig and now he's defending a paedo and he's been outed as a Jambo.

I believe teenagers still use the term Epic Fail. Terrible weekend for Hearts on the field, off the field and on the internet! :greengrin

[hibeemark]

FAO Hibeermak

HAVe a wee read of this, maybe you missed it the first time, then come back and give us your opino

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

I totally sympathise. I would want to beat the stuffing out of him if it was my daughter. That is not the point.

The article mentions MSN messenger. I'm not being funny, but why not just block him? One of my exes had a similar sex pest. She did that, and that was the end of it. :dunno:

Doesn't excuse his behaviour. It's a shame I have to keep saying this again and again.

[Kaiser1962]

You think he's a peado. A Scottish court thought otherwise. His employers thought otherwise.

You know better than them? :dunno:

You're basically saying screw the Rule of Law, and my reply to that would be if that's how you feel , go and live in Afghanistan.



He's actually a hebephile and a court did not think otherwise or he would have been set free without punishment, he wasnt. He was maybe a lucky boy that they caught him before he actually did anything physical which was looking inevitable.

He would have had to seek permission from the authorities, both here and the Liths, before he moved in accordance with the rule of law. In this case EEC law.

I dont give a flying **** what his employers think.

[Fantic]

this is what i mean. Stick to the facts. You are condemning the guy through pure speculation. :tsk tsk:

I disagree with what he did. He was wrong. I cannot stress that enough. But this knee jerk reaction some of you feel, i think you need to use your heads more. :bitchy:

Can i just make it clear also that he was not convicted of anything other than "lewd and libidinous behaviour". Nothing else. Anything other than that is speculation or gossip. Sorry, but that's true. :dunno:

To set the record straight, no i don't know the guy. And i hate the jambos with a passion. i was at the 4-0 game at hampden, enough said. But i do feel that the toughest test of our own ethics is when defending an enemy? The point i was trying to make about deek is that trial by media (and it's the scottish media, eager to keep the ball rolling during the summer break) is wrong no matter which side of edinburgh you hail from.


ltyf

[Benny Brazil]

I totally sympathise. I would want to beat the stuffing out of him if it was my daughter. That is not the point.

The article mentions MSN messenger. I'm not being funny, but why not just block him? One of my exes had a similar sex pest. She did that, and that was the end of it. :dunno:

Doesn't excuse his behaviour. It's a shame I have to keep saying this again and again.

But why? - Going by your thinking it is only immature teenage behaviour.
You've also been trying to excuse his behaviour with some of the things you have posted.

You've dug a big enough hole - best to to leave it now and not get in any deeper.

[Kaiser1962]

The reason I mentioned peeing in the street, or streaking at sporting event, is that you can end up on the Sex Offender's Register for these. I only know this because I looked it up. I was the same as you, I thought it was only for kiddie fiddlers and rapists.



There have been a couple of cases that I know of where this has been the case but the name has been removed from the RSO after appeal. There was a guy in the borders who was put on it for mooning at a cop car when bladdered but that too was rescinded on appeal.

[Wotherspiniesta]

I'd just like to ask Mark one more question. This is not a dig at all, its a serious question. How old are you?

[lucky]

Great news a sex pest is out of Scotland

[Gmack7]

mad vlad is sinking lower than his scuttled sub,back to swiney on loan next year?

[Kaiser1962]

Peeing in the street is "public nuisance". It is not a sex crime. You can not be put on a register.

.

Normally it is but, depending on the circumstances, some folk have been charged with indecent exposure.

[Fantic]

Normally it is but, depending on the circumstances, some folk have been charged with indecent exposure.

Not sure if i want to know but what are these circumastances?

[hibeemark]

He's actually a hebephile and a court did not think otherwise or he would have been set free without punishment

No. People are convicted of "lewd and libidinous behaviour" without paedophilia or even hebephila(?) ever coming into it.


I'd just like to ask Mark one more question. This is not a dig at all, its a serious question. How old are you?

I'm 34. See when I was your age, maybe I would have agreed with you, I don't know.

For what it's worth, I had all this ltyf stuff when I opposed the rebuilding of the east stand. Each to their own. :dunno:

[YehButNoBut]

It looks like the loan deal to Kaunus is just until Nov 6th according to the STV website after that he could return to Hearts. :rolleyes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearts are yet to confirm the specifics of the deal but, if on loan, he would be due to return to Tynecastle at the end of the Lithuanian season on November 6.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/hearts/264481-craig-thomson-leaves-hearts-for-kaunas

[CallumHibs07]

Only on loan so still a yam paedo :agree::thumbsup:

[Wotherspiniesta]

No. People are convicted of "lewd and libidinous behaviour" without paedophilia or even hebephila(?) ever coming into it.



I'm 34. See when I was your age, maybe I would have agreed with you, I don't know.

For what it's worth, I had all this ltyf stuff when I opposed the rebuilding of the east stand. Each to their own. :dunno:

Reason I asked is you said your ex uses MSN messenger.

Don't know about anyone else but I dont think I know anyone above the age of 18 that uses MSN messenger.

Something you're not telling us Mark? Do you have alterior motives for defending Craig Thomsons behaviour? :wink:

[ArabHibee]

Reason I asked is you said your ex uses MSN messenger.Don't know about anyone else but I dont think I know anyone above the age of 18 that uses MSN messenger.Something you're not telling us Mark? Do you have alterior motives for defending Craig Thomsons behaviour? :wink:Your post is out of order imo.

[Sir David Gray]

I'm not surprised at this but I'd like to know what the Lithuanian media makes of this and what the fans of Kaunas make of it all too.

It will also be very interesting to see if the sponsors of Kaunas threaten to withdraw their financial support in the way that several of Hearts' sponsors did when it first emerged that they wouldn't be sacking him.

I'm guessing that he will now have to report with the Lithuanian police every month, or whatever it is, for the next five years to comply with his sex register orders?

I also take it that this means that, because the UK and Lithuania are both in the EU that anyone (including sex offenders) can come into another country within the EU without any major problems? I know there is the freedom of movement within the EU which I don't agree with anyway but that's another story. However I honestly thought that people like Thomson, who have been convicted of very serious offences, could not gain access to another country without being approved by the authorities.

Surely the Lithuanian government haven't given the go ahead for a convicted sex offender to enter their country, which leads me to believe that anybody can get into another EU nation which is just disgraceful, in my book.

I see that he is still technically a Hearts player and he is only on loan at Kaunas. Does anyone know how long this loan deal is to last for? I may be wrong but I'll bet that Romanov thinks that he can put Thomson out on loan to Kaunas for the next year and then he can come back to Hearts when this will have all died down.

I don't think it'll work out like that but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Romanov's hoping for.

[silverhibee]

Whilst everyone has an opinion hibeemark talks aload of pish! Deeks has nothing to do with this and his situation was way different and he wasnt hung out to dry by the.media. Thomson was rightly hung out to dry by the press for what he did. Sending pics of his ding dong to underage girls is inexcusable and he was old enough to know better. Just cos our soft touch justice just put him on the sex offenders list doesnt mean that was correct. A tougher punishment shud have been made. To say to posters to go.live in afghanistan is just laughable


Of course Derek was hung out to dry by the Scottish media, but he had the last laugh when three newspapers and one TV company were charged and found guilty by a Scottish court for contempt of court and fined heavily for it.
Still dont know why Derek has been brought in to this crap thread anyway.

[KB1]

I personally think the important point here is. He had gone on loan, therefore he is still a hearts employee, therefore the yams are still paying his wages!!!!

[Fantic]

Your post is out of order imo.

So why does he use being at the 4-0 game as his crudentials for being a Hibby?

[one day maybe...]

The thing is in 20, 30, 40 years time infact for the rest of his life, this stupid young man will be dealing with his actions. Whether he should have went to jail was not for me to decide, far more intelligent people than I decided his fate. What he does however have is a life sentence of every Tom, Dick and Harry, whom when ever they feel like it, reminding him at every opportunity of the year he was convicted of a sexual indiscretion. Its a long life for him to live from now until his death one I am sure could have been so much better for him.

[R'Albin]

Their statement translated:

"For the first time in Lithuania will play a Scot


This week the players before the end of the registration window, "Kaunas" has been registered and a legionnaire.



Our team has added the right stores and defender positions can emulate Craig Thomson (Craig Thompson).



The new "Kaunas" Junior will be the first soccer player from Scotland, rungtyniausiančiu Lithuania.



Edinburgh Hearts (Scotland) football club owned by "Kaunas" to represent the end of the season.




Mr Thomson will wear number 46-th marked in yellow-green "Kaunas" t-shirt.



A new member of our club was the last soccer player, complementing team this season. Without it, this week to "Kaunas" returned Nursultan Maciulis midfielder and goalkeeper Džiugas Bartkus, and last week our team has added Evaldas Razula striker, midfielder and goalkeeper David Kapusta Modestas Stonys."

So sounds like he is still a Hearts player! Incredible!

[Sir David Gray]

Their statement translated:

"For the first time in Lithuania will play a Scot


This week the players before the end of the registration window, "Kaunas" has been registered and a legionnaire.



Our team has added the right stores and defender positions can emulate Craig Thomson (Craig Thompson).



The new "Kaunas" Junior will be the first soccer player from Scotland, rungtyniausiančiu Lithuania.



Edinburgh Hearts (Scotland) football club owned by "Kaunas" to represent the end of the season.




Mr Thomson will wear number 46-th marked in yellow-green "Kaunas" t-shirt.



A new member of our club was the last soccer player, complementing team this season. Without it, this week to "Kaunas" returned Nursultan Maciulis midfielder and goalkeeper Džiugas Bartkus, and last week our team has added Evaldas Razula striker, midfielder and goalkeeper David Kapusta Modestas Stonys."

So sounds like he is still a Hearts player! Incredible!

I think I understood it more before it got translated. :greengrin

[Kaiser1962]

No. People are convicted of "lewd and libidinous behaviour" without paedophilia or even hebephila(?) ever coming into it.




He PLEAD guilty to L&L which in all likelihood came about after some very heavy negotiating. What is admitted to in court tends to be much less than the original charge as sex cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

He asked to have sex with a teenager, one that he clearly knew the age of, therefore he is a hebephile. It was not a question.

And as DBS says, this is going to run and run.

[R'Albin]

I think I understood it more before it got translated. :greengrin

:greengrin

[Jim44]

I have a Lithuanian friend (originally from Kaunas) and he has no interest in football whatsoever. I explained to him that a paedophile was going to sign for the cities football team and asked how the news would be greeted by Lithuanian people. He says they will want to hang him from the nearest lamppost. He says Lithuanians will take a very hostile view about this.:agree:

Only if some mischievous rat let's the unsuspecting Lithuanians into Vlad's devious secret.:devil:

[PatHead]

I was led to believe he had been sacked by Hearts. ( I was on holiday at the time and only got it second hand). I wonder how Hearts fans and sponsors feel when it turns out he is still employed by them? Must admit I would be writing to Hibs in the same circumstances.

[hibeemark]

Reason I asked is you said your ex uses MSN messenger.

Don't know about anyone else but I dont think I know anyone above the age of 18 that uses MSN messenger.

Something you're not telling us Mark? Do you have alterior motives for defending Craig Thomsons behaviour? :wink:

:faf:

She was 31 at the time, so I guess she might take that as a compliment. I didn't say she used it well. But she knew how to block the numpties. :hmmm:


He PLEAD guilty to L&L which in all likelihood came about after some very heavy negotiating. What is admitted to in court tends to be much less than the original charge as sex cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

Says who? You?


He asked to have sex with a teenager, one that he clearly knew the age of, therefore he is a hebephile.

Again, according to you. He texted these girls from when he was 16 to 19. If we are to take your word for it, then for example a 16 year old lad who dates a 15 year old lass is a 'hebephile'. Now I realise these girls were younger than that, but you get my point.

[FranckSuzy]

:faf:

She was 31 at the time, so I guess she might take that as a compliment. I didn't say she used it well. But she knew how to block the numpties. :hmmm:



Says who? You?



Again, according to you. He texted these girls from when he was 16 to 19. If we are to take your word for it, then for example a 16 year old lad who dates a 15 year old lass is a 'hebephile'. Now I realise these girls were younger than that, but you get my point.

Yes, but he supposedly knew the girls from when they were 6 so was well aware of how old they were....

[Kaiser1962]

Says who? You?

Yip. Me.
:agree:




Again, according to you. He texted these girls from when he was 16 to 19. If we are to take your word for it, then for example a 16 year old lad who dates a 15 year old lass is a 'hebephile'. Now I realise these girls were younger than that, but you get my point.

According to the children's mother. He messaged one of the girls when she was 12 and asked her to show him her chest. The rule of law, which you mentioned often, is there to protect girls like her from guys like him.

This is nothing to do with 16yo's and 15yo's. Had he been 16 and she 15 (or vice versa) we would never have heard about it. And no, they would not be a hebephile as they would both be at a similar psychological and physiological developmental stage.

[ArabHibee]

So why does he use being at the 4-0 game as his crudentials for being a Hibby? Sorry, what exactly are you on about? I quoted The post from wotherspiensta which was out of order imo and was resorting to personal insults.

[Twa Cairpets]

You think he's a peado. A Scottish court thought otherwise. His employers thought otherwise.
You know better than them? :dunno:

You're basically saying screw the Rule of Law, and my reply to that would be if that's how you feel , go and live in Afghanistan.

Lets explore the bit in bold shall we?

His employers "stood by him" initially, to much public and (or so it would seem from reports) internal HMFC anger. Then more details come out about his behaviour, and he is suspended by the club with Romanov stating that he will not play again.

So.

Either the club belive he is being hard done by (ref. the Mafia tirade and the Facebook spoutings) or they believe he is not the type of person they want at the club. There isnt much of a gray area here, particualrly not with someone as pig-headedly bonkers as the Submariner. Except of course the third circumstance, thats Hearts are an institution utterly without any moral or social responsibility, that they treat Thomson a potential cash asset, and that they (apparently) deem it acceptable to employ a convicted sex-offender in Lithuania but not in Scotland?

Your point, as has been pointed out by other posters, is particularly awful because it makes CT out to be just a silly laddie. He's not. He is a manipulative man with a perversion for little girls.

[Wotherspiniesta]

Sorry, what exactly are you on about? I quoted The post from wotherspiensta which was out of order imo and was resorting to personal insults.

OK, maybe there was no need in the insinuation I made, however he said he never used mobiles when he was younger then went on to say his ex uses a predominantely teenage chat function.

Just sniffing out the B.S ArabHibee :aok:

[ArabHibee]

OK, maybe there was no need in the insinuation I made, however he said he never used mobiles when he was younger then went on to say his ex uses a predominantely teenage chat function.Just sniffing out the B.S ArabHibee :aok:That's fine, as you were. Carry on. :wink:

[Fantic]

Sorry, what exactly are you on about? I quoted The post from wotherspiensta which was out of order imo and was resorting to personal insults.

Personal insults! he was only calling him a yam fud. Look at post 68 on this thread where hibeemark can't help but mention the 4-0 game.

[ArabHibee]

Personal insults! he was only calling him a yam fud. Look at post 68 on this thread where hibeemark can't help but mention the 4-0 game. No he wasn't. Look at his reply above. I'm not arguing with you about it. The insinuation was perhaps over your head.

[Fantic]

No he wasn't. Look at his reply above. I'm not arguing with you about it. The insinuation was perhaps over your head.

Aye, sorry just looked back and I see it now.


Its late :greengrin

[ArabHibee]

Aye, sorry just looked back and I see it now. Its late :greengrin No probs

[hibeemark]

Lets explore the bit in bold shall we?

His employers "stood by him" initially, to much public and (or so it would seem from reports) internal HMFC anger. Then more details come out about his behaviour, and he is suspended by the club with Romanov stating that he will not play again

It wasn't anything to do with 'more details coming out about his behaviour'. The trial was done and dusted by this point. The only thing that changed was that the Scottish tabloid media launched a campaign against Craig Thomson which was short on facts and heavy on innuendo - "HEARTS SEX BEAST MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE RAPED MANY MORE".

As a result, Hearts felt under pressure, and decided to relocate Thomson.

And you're naive if you think the media campaign was about anything other than selling papers during the summer break.


Either the club belive he is being hard done by (ref. the Mafia tirade and the Facebook spoutings) or they believe he is not the type of person they want at the club. There isnt much of a gray area here, particualrly not with someone as pig-headedly bonkers as the Submariner. Except of course the third circumstance, thats Hearts are an institution utterly without any moral or social responsibility, that they treat Thomson a potential cash asset, and that they (apparently) deem it acceptable to employ a convicted sex-offender in Lithuania but not in Scotland?

What are you on about? Hearts had no problem employing Graham Rix, did they? A convicted 'sex offender' according to your criteria. Chelsea didn't have a problem either letting Rix come back to work as soon as he'd finished his custodial sentence for sleeping with a 15 year old girl. Speaking of which, answer me this:

If Craig Thomson is such a risk to society, how come he didn't even receive a custodial sentence? Must have an amazing lawyer. :hmmm:


Your point, as has been pointed out by other posters, is particularly awful because it makes CT out to be just a silly laddie. He's not. He is a manipulative man with a perversion for little girls.

Aye, says you. :crazy:

I don't know why we even bother with courts, trials etc when we could just have you and Kaiser1962 decide who the goodies and the baddies are. :aok:

[Twa Cairpets]

It wasn't anything to do with 'more details coming out about his behaviour'. The trial was done and dusted by this point. The only thing that changed was that the Scottish tabloid media launched a campaign against Craig Thomson which was short on facts and heavy on innuendo - "HEARTS SEX BEAST MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE RAPED MANY MORE".

As a result, Hearts felt under pressure, and decided to relocate Thomson.

And you're naive if you think the media campaign was about anything other than selling papers during the summer break.

Of course the papers were full of the story, and of course they'll sell papers. It does not necessarily mean its untrue though.

"Hearts felt under pressure". Yes, of course they did, becuase virtually every person in the land was revolted - rightly in my opinion - by their stance. If your position is correct, then despite the original defence of them, they didnt have the moral fibre to continue to defend him, which is equally contemptible if he is just a poor misunderstood lad getting up to misguided hi-jinks.


What are you on about? Hearts had no problem employing Graham Rix, did they? A convicted 'sex offender' according to your criteria. Chelsea didn't have a problem either letting Rix come back to work as soon as he'd finished his custodial sentence for sleeping with a 15 year old girl. Speaking of which, answer me this:

If Craig Thomson is such a risk to society, how come he didn't even receive a custodial sentence? Must have an amazing lawyer. :hmmm:

I suspect because he pled guilty to a lesser charge.

As for Rix, different set of circumstances entirely. I'm not a hang 'em and flog 'em type - each case needs to be looked at on its merits. I still think Hearts were wrong to do employ him by the way.


Aye, says you. :crazy:

I don't know why we even bother with courts, trials etc when we could just have you and Kaiser1962 decide who the goodies and the baddies are. :aok:

Yes. And says the courts, that is why he is on the sex offenders register. Or are you suggesting he is not a manipulative adult with a preference for little girls? I'm fairly sure that was what he pled guilty too.

I'm entirely happy to let the courts decide who the baddies are. They did. It was him.

[basehibby]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

I think you're brave for sticking your head above the parapet in making this point - but I think your sympathies are misdirected.

OK - the age difference is not massive between Thomson and (some of) the lassies he was chasing - but we are talking about a well (if not regularly) paid pro footballer here who was well aware of what he was doing and who's attentions were decidedly not welcome - more than just sending dirty texts he seemed to be deliberately grooming a lass not even in her teens with the intention of stealing away her innocence - we are not talking about some dewey eyed love story here from what I understand.

As is the custom our tabloid press have been glorying in the squalour of it all, but as for the comments you find on here, you must remember this is a football forum and Thomson is a Yam - considering what he's done I think most posters have excercised considerable restraint - probably more out of sympathy for the lassies involved and their families than Thomson himself.

[sboothibs]

Of course the papers were full of the story, and of course they'll sell papers. It does not necessarily mean its untrue though.

"Hearts felt under pressure". Yes, of course they did, becuase virtually every person in the land was revolted - rightly in my opinion - by their stance. If your position is correct, then despite the original defence of them, they didnt have the moral fibre to continue to defend him, which is equally contemptible if he is just a poor misunderstood lad getting up to misguided hi-jinks.



I suspect because he pled guilty to a lesser charge.

As for Rix, different set of circumstances entirely. I'm not a hang 'em and flog 'em type - each case needs to be looked at on its merits. I still think Hearts were wrong to do employ him by the way.



Yes. And says the courts, that is why he is on the sex offenders register. Or are you suggesting he is not a manipulative adult with a preference for little girls? I'm fairly sure that was what he pled guilty too.

I'm entirely happy to let the courts decide who the baddies are. They did. It was him.


:flag:

:greengrin

Cracking response !!! enough said GGTTH

:bye:

[Kato]

Of course Derek was hung out to dry by the Scottish media, but he had the last laugh when three newspapers and one TV company were charged and found guilty by a Scottish court for contempt of court and fined heavily for it.
Still dont know why Derek has been brought in to this crap thread anyway.

What's the details of that mate?

[Kato]

Iwho the goodies and the baddies are.

Jambo.

A Windup

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?180234-Get-Real!&p=2425462&highlight=#post2425462

What's so funny?

http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?180407-Deeks-not-happy-.&p=2427925&highlight=#post2427925

[Hibs On Tour]

As a hibee who enjoys having a laugh at the jambos' expense given any opportunity, no matter how partisan or irrational, I say omg wtf etc etc. :grr:

As a human being however, I find the treatment of Craig Thomson shocking. What separates us from countries like Afghanistan is Rule of Law. It's one of the core principles of democracy, and one that should be respected. A Scottish court ruled that this teenager who stupidly sent obscene text messages to girls a few years younger than himself, was not only no danger to society, but that he was fit to continue his employment too. His work, an organisation which works closely with young people, agreed. And that should have been the end of it. :dunno:
But somehow the tabloid media, and folk off the internet know better. How? :hmmm:

What a load of nonsense.

I am still outraged by the way our Scottish media have treated the most talented footballer of his generation, Derek Riordan. On his day, Deek is a genius up there with the best, and anybody who has seen him play should feel privileged to do so. But thanks to the papers, most consider him to be some hopeless drunken radge. We know the truth though, yeah?

Craig Thomson is getting a raw deal. Yes, It may please us. That doesn't make it right. :dunno:

IMHO Pish. There should be *zero* tolerance of *all* such behaviour. He's a nonce - dress it up however you like but rather than it being 'text messages' this is a guy who sent photos of his cock to a 12-year old. And tried to encourage her to meet him for sex. Let's just say that again in case it didn't properly register - she was 12! If that was my daughter, I'd now be doing time for putting him 6ft under. Endof.

As far as I'm concerned, it beggars belief that we have *anyone* sticking up for him... :rolleyes:

[Hibbyradge]

At the time of these offences, the perpetrator was a well paid 19 year old footballer.

George Street bars are full of well developed and adventurous women who dream of meeting and seducing someone like him.

Getting a lumber would not have been too much of a challenge.

Yet he chose to send photos of his genitals to a 12 year old girl and to proposition her for sex.

He wasn't jailed because he was caught before anything physical happened. He's still dangerous though which is why he's on the register.

Am I getting this out of perspective?

[hibbymark]

Please don't misunderstand me. I find grooming of children disgusting, and anyone convicted of such activity should go away for a very long time. But let's stick to the facts. Craig Thomson was not convicted of that. He wasn't, look it up. And I'm not making excuses for him. He was found guilty of lewd behaviour on a par with exposing yourself in public. Or taking a leak in the street. Or streaking at a sporting event.

I realise this is a volatile and emotive issue. That doesn't mean we have to switch our brains off though, does it?

What I meant when I spoke about Deek was that he was not in any way guilty of the charges which the court of mob rule have levelled at him and I don't believe Craig Thomson is either. Yes, child abuse is horrific. That does not mean we should ignore the facts.

As I said, I openly admit to having ribbed jambos about this mercilessly. It's fun, why not? :yamlaugh:

But how can you say that our legal system is fine... UNTIL it's an emotive issue that the tabloids grab hold of, in which case screw the facts? :dunno: Similiar user name to mine. PLEASE dont confuse.:rolleyes:

[flash]

On a slightly related note i am told by a good source that Hertz were all set to put in a last minute bid to lure Goodwillie to Tynecastle.

Needless to say when he was cleared of rape they immediately dropped their interest.

[Kaiser1962]

It wasn't anything to do with 'more details coming out about his behaviour'. The trial was done and dusted by this point. The only thing that changed was that the Scottish tabloid media launched a campaign against Craig Thomson which was short on facts and heavy on innuendo - "HEARTS SEX BEAST MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE RAPED MANY MORE".

As a result, Hearts felt under pressure, and decided to relocate Thomson.

And you're naive if you think the media campaign was about anything other than selling papers during the summer break.


Did a paper actually run with that headline?




What are you on about? Hearts had no problem employing Graham Rix, did they? A convicted 'sex offender' according to your criteria. Chelsea didn't have a problem either letting Rix come back to work as soon as he'd finished his custodial sentence for sleeping with a 15 year old girl. Speaking of which, answer me this:

If Craig Thomson is such a risk to society, how come he didn't even receive a custodial sentence? Must have an amazing lawyer. :hmmm:

Rix had sex with a girl he knew was under age therefore he went to jail. Thomson did not go to jail because there had been no physical contact, although he had tried to initiate this, therefore he didnt. As Thomson agreed to agree to the charge of L&L it also spared the girls the ordeal of giving evidence this was the path chosen and, by entering an early guilty plea, Thomson's sentence would have been discounted.

There is a raft of research into this type of crime and all the indicator's are that it would have become physical. Hence my remark that he may count himself fortunate that he was caught at the the stage he was.





I don't know why we even bother with courts, trials etc when we could just have you and Kaiser1962 decide who the goodies and the baddies are. :aok:


I have never passed judgement or said that Thomson should be hung or punished further than he already has and merely pointed out where you were inaccurate.

BUT , for the avoidance of doubt, let me say his is a particularly nasty and heinous crime. It was well thought out and planned over a considerable period of time during which he manipulated and bullied his carefully selected victims, some of them family friends, for his sexual gratification. And I think we all know what the eventual outcome would have been had there not been a positive intervention. Research also suggests that his victims are now roughly 80% likely to abuse their own children. This stuff can ripple through generations.

As DBS said, there is more to come.

He is a baddie. No assumptions made. :aok:

[Kato]

Similiar user name to mine. PLEASE dont confuse.:rolleyes:

Noted. Worth you pointing it out now as well.:flag:



"hibeemark" is a jambo. Plain as the pock-riddled nose on his face.

[Kevvy1875]

This example of 'trolling' is probably the saddest, creepiest thing I have yet witnessed on the internet. Very strange.

[R'Albin]

Similiar user name to mine. PLEASE dont confuse.:rolleyes:

:greengrin

[Hibernia Na Eir]

i doubt it would bother sicko Romanov. He's Russian, not Lithuanian, and if he's a sick as he seems then he probably hates Lithuanians too.

Who would have thought a club owner, a multi milliionaire, would turn out a child sex harbouring perv :agree:

[Hibernia Na Eir]

On a slightly related note i am told by a good source that Hertz were all set to put in a last minute bid to lure Goodwillie to Tynecastle.

Needless to say when he was cleared of rape they immediately dropped their interest.

had it been a charge of gay rape, Hearts would push the boat out to sign a player...

sick club, sick staff.

[marinello59]

had it been a charge of gay rape, Hearts would push the boat out to sign a player...

sick club, sick staff.

And a sick comment from yourself.

[Twa Cairpets]

had it been a charge of gay rape, Hearts would push the boat out to sign a player...

sick club, sick staff.

Nowt like making a stupid point to detract from the serious one is there?

[steakbake]

I think all this chest-beating every time there is a hint of his name is pointless.

So he's off to Kaunas - fine. That's their problem, not ours. As for his criminal record, again, that's up to the Lithuanian Police to worry about and manage, nothing to do with the outraged majority on here.

Clearly, had Thompson been a player at pretty much any other club than Hearts, we wouldn't have half as many of these fairly embarrassing threads of competitive outrage.

This, my friends, is bull***t.

[GordonHFC]

If this guy had been a bus driver and convicted of this crime would you expect him to still have a job with say Lothian Buses. No, he would be punted immediately as he could not be trusted with kids on their buses. The powers that be would remove his PCV entitlement for good so that he could not work in the business for anyone. Imagine him on school contracts ?

[R'Albin]

had it been a charge of gay rape, Hearts would push the boat out to sign a player...

sick club, sick staff.

Wee bit hypocritical there? No?

[Twa Cairpets]

I think all this chest-beating every time there is a hint of his name is pointless.

So he's off to Kaunas - fine. That's their problem, not ours. As for his criminal record, again, that's up to the Lithuanian Police to worry about and manage, nothing to do with the outraged majority on here.

Clearly, had Thompson been a player at pretty much any other club than Hearts, we wouldn't have half as many of these fairly embarrassing threads of competitive outrage.

This, my friends, is bull***t.

The fact that it's Hearts brings it into closer focus for us without doubt. It's not typical football rivalrly point-scoring though - it's a bit more. Thomson himself becomes almost something of a bit player now, it is his employers actions that require scrutiny. The actions of Hearts owners are at best unfathomable and distasteful, at worst completely lacking in any understanding of the severity of the offence and the understandable anger it creates.

Behaving the way they have, with the Kaunas connection, the Mafia post, the "investigation" and subsequent u-turn is genuinely bringing the game into disrepute. People like those in charge at Tynecastle have no place in Scottish Football, and to highlight this and challenge those defending them or CT is entirely fair.

[steakbake]

The fact that it's Hearts brings it into closer focus for us without doubt. It's not typical football rivalrly point-scoring though - it's a bit more. Thomson himself becomes almost something of a bit player now, it is his employers actions that require scrutiny. The actions of Hearts owners are at best unfathomable and distasteful, at worst completely lacking in any understanding of the severity of the offence and the understandable anger it creates.

Behaving the way they have, with the Kaunas connection, the Mafia post, the "investigation" and subsequent u-turn is genuinely bringing the game into disrepute. People like those in charge at Tynecastle have no place in Scottish Football, and to highlight this and challenge those defending them or CT is entirely fair.

What do you think should happen to CT?

[Twa Cairpets]

What do you think should happen to CT?

I think he should have been sacked the minute he pled guilty.

After that, he should have been looking forward to exactly the same future as anyone else convicted of the crime that he committed, no more, no less. He should not have extra persecution because he is a footballer at our local rivals, but equally he should not be in any way sheltered from the consequences for that reason.

Hearts are taking active steps to preserve what I am sure they see as a potential cash asset. I do not believe for a second they have any interest in Thomsons personal well-being while he still could generate income for Romanov.

If this was Hibs, my view woud be identical. I would have no wish whatsoever to be associated with a club that behaves in the way that Hearts have over this.

[Halifaxhibby]

Hope this message gets mentioned on kickback as well,

Disgusting is the only word I feel appropriate to use when talking about those beasts in gorgie, Thomson gets a reprieve and sent to Kaunas? I have a good mind to contact the local schools in the area and warn them of the sick individual(still a hearts player) who lurks in their midst.
Have they no shame? I hate hearts with a passion but thought they'd have enough decent individuals at their club to put an end to this situation. Obviously not, in fact, judging by their recent activity you could almost say they encourage it. Graham Rix appointed and within months a school built next door!!, no stadium, no training facilities just a school. Thomson on the sex offenders register but it's the mafias fault!!(of course) they held a gun to his head while he was taking pictures of his baldy half incher and sending it to children.
I'd rather Hibs got relegated than have my club associated with such people.

GORGIE ****.

[SRHibs]

Hope this message gets mentioned on kickback as well,

Disgusting is the only word I feel appropriate to use when talking about those beasts in gorgie, Thomson gets a reprieve and sent to Kaunas? I have a good mind to contact the local schools in the area and warn them of the sick individual(still a hearts player) who lurks in their midst.
Have they no shame? I hate hearts with a passion but thought they'd have enough decent individuals at their club to put an end to this situation. Obviously not, in fact, judging by their recent activity you could almost say they encourage it. Graham Rix appointed and within months a school built next door!!, no stadium, no training facilities just a school. Thomson on the sex offenders register but it's the mafias fault!!(of course) they held a gun to his head while he was taking pictures of his baldy half incher and sending it to children.
I'd rather Hibs got relegated than have my club associated with such people.

GORGIE ****.

I think we can safely assume the mad one is to blame for pretty much all of that though. He's holding a proverbial gun to their heads.

[SaudiHibby]

Most sensible post on here for years :aok:

[SRHibs]

Most sensible post on here for years :aok:

You think a post where the OP is tarring an entire club with the term 'kiddy fiddlers' and claiming that they seem to even encourage paedophilia is the 'most sensible in years'?

Aye, good yin...

[SaudiHibby]

You think a post where the OP is tarring an entire club with the term 'kiddy fiddlers' and claiming that they seem to even encourage paedophilia is the 'most sensible in years'?

Aye, good yin...

:agree:

[Dashing Bob S]

Did a paper actually run with that headline?





Rix had sex with a girl he knew was under age therefore he went to jail. Thomson did not go to jail because there had been no physical contact, although he had tried to initiate this, therefore he didnt. As Thomson agreed to agree to the charge of L&L it also spared the girls the ordeal of giving evidence this was the path chosen and, by entering an early guilty plea, Thomson's sentence would have been discounted.

There is a raft of research into this type of crime and all the indicator's are that it would have become physical. Hence my remark that he may count himself fortunate that he was caught at the the stage he was.







I have never passed judgement or said that Thomson should be hung or punished further than he already has and merely pointed out where you were inaccurate.

BUT , for the avoidance of doubt, let me say his is a particularly nasty and heinous crime. It was well thought out and planned over a considerable period of time during which he manipulated and bullied his carefully selected victims, some of them family friends, for his sexual gratification. And I think we all know what the eventual outcome would have been had there not been a positive intervention. Research also suggests that his victims are now roughly 80% likely to abuse their own children. This stuff can ripple through generations.

As DBS said, there is more to come.

He is a baddie. No assumptions made. :aok:

Actually, it was Sergey who said that, but it's an easy mistake to make as we're both handsome, witty, erudite young blades, with a penchant for the good things in life.

[Kaiser1962]

Actually, it was Sergey who said that, but it's an easy mistake to make as we're both handsome, witty, erudite young blades, with a penchant for the good things in life.

It was.

I humbly apologise for the slur on you both. :greengrin

[Future17]

Did a paper actually run with that headline?





Rix had sex with a girl he knew was under age therefore he went to jail. Thomson did not go to jail because there had been no physical contact, although he had tried to initiate this, therefore he didnt. As Thomson agreed to agree to the charge of L&L it also spared the girls the ordeal of giving evidence this was the path chosen and, by entering an early guilty plea, Thomson's sentence would have been discounted.

There is a raft of research into this type of crime and all the indicator's are that it would have become physical. Hence my remark that he may count himself fortunate that he was caught at the the stage he was.







I have never passed judgement or said that Thomson should be hung or punished further than he already has and merely pointed out where you were inaccurate.

BUT , for the avoidance of doubt, let me say his is a particularly nasty and heinous crime. It was well thought out and planned over a considerable period of time during which he manipulated and bullied his carefully selected victims, some of them family friends, for his sexual gratification. And I think we all know what the eventual outcome would have been had there not been a positive intervention. Research also suggests that his victims are now roughly 80% likely to abuse their own children. This stuff can ripple through generations.

As DBS said, there is more to come.

He is a baddie. No assumptions made. :aok:

Not disagreeing with your post but the part I've highlighted in bold is not accurate.

It is estimated that approximately 12% of victims go on to abuse their own children while somewhere in the region of 25% of victims while commit a sexual crime of some description.

I think the statistic you may be referring to is that adults who were abused as children are approximately 75-80% more likely to commit a sexual crime than those who weren't.

[Steve-O]

Although Hearts have mishandled this badly, I'm not exactly sure what people are quite so outraged about on this thread. Before the usual suspects go mental and talk about "defending paedos" and all the rest of it, what I am saying is this thread is NOT about the actual offence now. This thread is about the fact Thomson has now gone to Kaunas. Are people genuinely upset he's still (kind of) at Hearts, or are there others on here who just hope Thomson, whose profession is as a footballer, NEVER plays football again?

Once he's off the register in 5 years will those who are so upset and outraged by all of this 'allow' him to sign for any other club or will they still be "paedo sympathisers" etc etc?

Where does it stop? He's received his punishment, and for now, that's effectively the end of it.

Saying all that, if the the sex offenders register is all about monitoring, or at least knowing where the offender is, I'm not sure how this will work if he's in Lithuania.

[Twa Cairpets]

Although Hearts have mishandled this badly, I'm not exactly sure what people are quite so outraged about on this thread. Before the usual suspects go mental and talk about "defending paedos" and all the rest of it, what I am saying is this thread is NOT about the actual offence now. This thread is about the fact Thomson has now gone to Kaunas. Are people genuinely upset he's still (kind of) at Hearts, or are there others on here who just hope Thomson, whose profession is as a footballer, NEVER plays football again?

Once he's off the register in 5 years will those who are so upset and outraged by all of this 'allow' him to sign for any other club or will they still be "paedo sympathisers" etc etc?

Where does it stop? He's received his punishment, and for now, that's effectively the end of it.

Saying all that, if the the sex offenders register is all about monitoring, or at least knowing where the offender is, I'm not sure how this will work if he's in Lithuania.

As I mentioned above, I agree, its not CT that is the issue now, its HMFC.

I think he should have been sacked, as his role at his employer is incompatible with his offence. Hearts have not taken any kind of moral stance, and indeed have both tacitly and overtly defended him as being, effectgively, just a misguided laddie. I think they have massive double standards in that they think he is ok to represent Kaunas but not Hearts.

I dont really care what happens to Thomson as long as he is given the correct help/treament/monitoring to ensure he poses no threat in the future to kids. Again as posted earlier, his punishement should be the same as if he was a bus driver, accountant or gardener, no more, no less. However, he happens to be in a career where he will be in the public eye compared to these other jobs, and he has by his actions severely jeapordised his ability to carry on easily in that profession. That's not society's fault, that's his fault for committing an offence considered well beyond the pale for the vast majority of people. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but it cannot come as a surprise to CT that this is the reaction.

It is possible to be motivated to comment without being outraged - there are steps between "couldnae gie a toss" and apoplexy.

[Steve-O]

This bit will probably be dismissed as "bloody social workers..." but worth a quote anyway as it makes sense IMO, compared to some of the slightly OTT stuff that has been stated on this and other threads.

Anne Houston, chief executive of Children 1st, who led calls for Thomson to be sacked by Hearts, said: "It is important that those placed on the sex offenders' register are monitored effectively, regardless of the country they live in.

"We would also hope that he receives support and treatment that could help to prevent any reoffending and help to protect children and young people he may come into contact with."

However independent social work consultant Maggie Mellon said: "The way this case has been handled both by Hearts, and by those calling for draconian penalties for Craig Thomson, represents a missed opportunity for Hearts and for those calling for zero tolerance.

"Hearts tried to ignore it and then to shuffle him off quietly.

"The zero tolerance lobby in turn completely failed to offer a positive and proportionate response informed by best practice in this area of work.

"The term sex offender is now used to cover a very wide range of offences - and has become almost synonymous with 'monster' and 'paedophile'. "This is completely wrong and generates a hysteria that creates a more dangerous environment for children and young people."


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/heartofmidlothianfc/Craig-Thomson-row-rages-on.6811384.jp

[Steve-O]

As I mentioned above, I agree, its not CT that is the issue now, its HMFC.

I think he should have been sacked, as his role at his employer is incompatible with his offence. Hearts have not taken any kind of moral stance, and indeed have both tacitly and overtly defended him as being, effectgively, just a misguided laddie. I think they have massive double standards in that they think he is ok to represent Kaunas but not Hearts.

I dont really care what happens to Thomson as long as he is given the correct help/treament/monitoring to ensure he poses no threat in the future to kids. Again as posted earlier, his punishement should be the same as if he was a bus driver, accountant or gardener, no more, no less. However, he happens to be in a career where he will be in the public eye compared to these other jobs, and he has by his actions severely jeapordised his ability to carry on easily in that profession. That's not society's fault, that's his fault for committing an offence considered well beyond the pale for the vast majority of people. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but it cannot come as a surprise to CT that this is the reaction.

It is possible to be motivated to comment without being outraged - there are steps between "couldnae gie a toss" and apoplexy.

Personally I think they've shifted him to Kaunas to protect him so I'm not sure it's double standards (people might think the standards are wrong but I don't think they've necessarily been two faced about the matter). I can't be sure (or be bothered looking it up) but I'm not sure Hearts officially condemned what he did to such an extent that they had to sack him. They removed him from Hearts as the supporters were outraged and it was going to be a nightmare for the player. I'd argue that he has been taken out of the public eye, at least in the sense of the Scottish public eye and it makes some sense to me that this has happened.

I'm also not absolutely 100% certain that EVERY single other employer in the world would have sacked him. It's impossible to know IMO. At the end of the day, it looks like he'll be in Kaunas for a fairly short time, and it looks like it's going to be nigh on impossible for him to progress his career in Scotland. He's been punished by the Courts, driven out of Hearts, and to some extent has been driven out of the country. Fair enough some might say, but I don't know that hoping he is punished even further by being sacked completely is really going to help anyone.

[Twa Cairpets]

Personally I think they've shifted him to Kaunas to protect him so I'm not sure it's double standards (people might think the standards are wrong but I don't think they've necessarily been two faced about the matter). I can't be sure (or be bothered looking it up) but I'm not sure Hearts officially condemned what he did to such an extent that they had to sack him. They removed him from Hearts as the supporters were outraged and it was going to be a nightmare for the player. I'd argue that he has been taken out of the public eye, at least in the sense of the Scottish public eye and it makes some sense to me that this has happened.

I'm also not absolutely 100% certain that EVERY single other employer in the world would have sacked him. It's impossible to know IMO. At the end of the day, it looks like he'll be in Kaunas for a fairly short time, and it looks like it's going to be nigh on impossible for him to progress his career in Scotland. He's been punished by the Courts, driven out of Hearts, and to some extent has been driven out of the country. Fair enough some might say, but I don't know that hoping he is punished even further by being sacked completely is really going to help anyone.

I've highlighted the bits above because it suggests that there is a requirement on behalf of Hearts to look after the player, who is going to get a hard time the puir wee soul.

Why should Hearts have any desire or moral requirement to "protect" him? His offence is horrible, and he must have known the potential consequences of his actions if he was to be caught. Sacking him might not have helped anyone per se, but it would have shown that the institution of HMFC does not condone in any way the actions of an employee caught and convicted of sex offences against children. They didnt.

Finally, you're right about not knowing if every employer would sack an employee in such circumstances. i would be prepared to be it would be a massively high proportion though. Why? Gross misconduct, not wanting your business or brand associated with that type of offender, the difficulty of a person continuing to work succesfully with other employees. Most people may have the opportunity to start again elsewhere possibly where they're not known - that option isnt open to CT in his chosen trade - but that circumstance is, frankly, tough. To repeat, he must have known the consequences, and he took the risk. His call.

[ArabHibee]

Personally I think they've shifted him to Kaunas to protect him so I'm not sure it's double standards (people might think the standards are wrong but I don't think they've necessarily been two faced about the matter). I can't be sure (or be bothered looking it up) but I'm not sure Hearts officially condemned what he did to such an extent that they had to sack him. They removed him from Hearts as the supporters were outraged and it was going to be a nightmare for the player. I'd argue that he has been taken out of the public eye, at least in the sense of the Scottish public eye and it makes some sense to me that this has happened.I'm also not absolutely 100% certain that EVERY single other employer in the world would have sacked him. It's impossible to know IMO. At the end of the day, it looks like he'll be in Kaunas for a fairly short time, and it looks like it's going to be nigh on impossible for him to progress his career in Scotland. He's been punished by the Courts, driven out of Hearts, and to some extent has been driven out of the country. Fair enough some might say, but I don't know that hoping he is punished even further by being sacked completely is really going to help anyone. Don't kid yourself Steve. He was shipped off to Kaunas for purely financial reasons, not for Hearts; or lets skip to the top; Vlad's compassion for the boy. Vlad does not want potential money being sacked and walking out the door. Keep him in Kaunas for a while, hope it all dies down and punt him off to some English team. You heard it here first.Unless of course, HoMoFC go tits up first. :greengrin

[steakbake]

I've highlighted the bits above because it suggests that there is a requirement on behalf of Hearts to look after the player, who is going to get a hard time the puir wee soul.

Why should Hearts have any desire or moral requirement to "protect" him? His offence is horrible, and he must have known the potential consequences of his actions if he was to be caught. Sacking him might not have helped anyone per se, but it would have shown that the institution of HMFC does not condone in any way the actions of an employee caught and convicted of sex offences against children. They didnt.

Finally, you're right about not knowing if every employer would sack an employee in such circumstances. i would be prepared to be it would be a massively high proportion though. Why? Gross misconduct, not wanting your business or brand associated with that type of offender, the difficulty of a person continuing to work succesfully with other employees. Most people may have the opportunity to start again elsewhere possibly where they're not known - that option isnt open to CT in his chosen trade - but that circumstance is, frankly, tough. To repeat, he must have known the consequences, and he took the risk. His call.

I'm not sure how you can extrapolate from CT's continued employment that HMFC condone sexual offences. Well, perhaps this is a bad example given Rix etc and HMFC we're talking about.

An example: A lad I knew of did time for manslaughter. Once he was out, his employer gave him work again and kept him in a trade. Does that really mean this company condones manslaughter? Or are they more concerned with ensuring that someone who did a job for them in the past was given a chance? What was the alternative? Ensure the guy never works a day again in his life, sending him into poverty and possible life-long dependency on the state? Or give him a shot at redemption and being a productive citizen again?

[lapsedhibee]

A lad I knew of did time for manslaughter. Once he was out, his employer gave him work again and kept him in a trade. Does that really mean this company condones manslaughter? Or are they more concerned with ensuring that someone who did a job for them in the past was given a chance? What was the alternative? Ensure the guy never works a day again in his life, sending him into poverty and possible life-long dependency on the state? Or give him a shot at redemption and being a productive citizen again?

Think you may have missed the point that sending pictures of your gorgienads to 12-year olds is much worse than murder.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not sure how you can extrapolate from CT's continued employment that HMFC condone sexual offences. Well, perhaps this is a bad example given Rix etc and HMFC we're talking about.

An example: A lad I knew of did time for manslaughter. Once he was out, his employer gave him work again and kept him in a trade. Does that really mean this company condones manslaughter? Or are they more concerned with ensuring that someone who did a job for them in the past was given a chance? What was the alternative? Ensure the guy never works a day again in his life, sending him into poverty and possible life-long dependency on the state? Or give him a shot at redemption and being a productive citizen again?

The reaction of an employer will be dependant on the nature of the offence. If the lad you knew had been guilty of, for example, rape would they also have been welcomed back into the business? If they had been defauding the company would they have been given a chance for redemption? I'm guessing not - the reaction to different types of criminal behaviour is directly proportionate to the level of revulsion engendred by it, and Thomsons behaviour is seen as grossly repugnant by the vast majority.

I'm not saying he should be ritually pilloried daily forever whilst people shout beast at him, but I have no sympathy whatsover - none - that he is in a position where he is unable to continue his career, certainly in Scotland. as I said before, he knew the consequences, it was his call, and he lost the gamble on being caught.

I have not said that HMFC's actions actively condone his behaviour, but they certainly missed the opportunity to firmly condemn it, especially with the Mafia rant seeming to proportion almost no blame onto the player. To suggest that Hearts are doing this out of anything other than fiscal opportunity is grossly naive, and their pronouncements and actions on the matter are not driven by any desire to prevent Thomson sliding into recidivism.

[Kaiser1962]

Not disagreeing with your post but the part I've highlighted in bold is not accurate.

It is estimated that approximately 12% of victims go on to abuse their own children while somewhere in the region of 25% of victims while commit a sexual crime of some description.

I think the statistic you may be referring to is that adults who were abused as children are approximately 75-80% more likely to commit a sexual crime than those who weren't.

You are correct. My post should have said that but for some reason I added "their own children" which, as you rightly point out, is wrong. Thanks for that. :aok:

[silverhibee]

What's the details of that mate?

Will post a link for you later on tonight. :aok:

[silverhibee]

Will post a link for you later on tonight. :aok:

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2007004186.html

[.Sean.]

So let me get this right, sending an underage girl pictures of your wang and pestering her for a ride is the same as peeing in public?

What a pathetic suggestion. The overwhelming majority of guys will have done a piss in public whilst bladdered but it takes a twisted individual to beg a youngster for sex.

It's not the same thing you idiot.

[Steve-O]

The reaction of an employer will be dependant on the nature of the offence. If the lad you knew had been guilty of, for example, rape would they also have been welcomed back into the business? If they had been defauding the company would they have been given a chance for redemption? I'm guessing not - the reaction to different types of criminal behaviour is directly proportionate to the level of revulsion engendred by it, and Thomsons behaviour is seen as grossly repugnant by the vast majority.

I'm not saying he should be ritually pilloried daily forever whilst people shout beast at him, but I have no sympathy whatsover - none - that he is in a position where he is unable to continue his career, certainly in Scotland. as I said before, he knew the consequences, it was his call, and he lost the gamble on being caught.

I have not said that HMFC's actions actively condone his behaviour, but they certainly missed the opportunity to firmly condemn it, especially with the Mafia rant seeming to proportion almost no blame onto the player. To suggest that Hearts are doing this out of anything other than fiscal opportunity is grossly naive, and their pronouncements and actions on the matter are not driven by any desire to prevent Thomson sliding into recidivism.

In the example given I don't see why rape would have been treated any differently by the particular employer? Remember that rape doesn't necessarily mean being dragged into bushes and brutally raping someone. It depends on the facts of the case along with many other things.

Nobody is talking about sympathy so I don't know why you keep saying that. However, as steakbake says, is it not better that some people are prepared to give these people a chance rather than have them unemployed, on the dole, and getting up to who knows what because they are bored, frustrated, and skint?

[Steve-O]

I've highlighted the bits above because it suggests that there is a requirement on behalf of Hearts to look after the player, who is going to get a hard time the puir wee soul.

Why should Hearts have any desire or moral requirement to "protect" him? His offence is horrible, and he must have known the potential consequences of his actions if he was to be caught. Sacking him might not have helped anyone per se, but it would have shown that the institution of HMFC does not condone in any way the actions of an employee caught and convicted of sex offences against children. They didnt.

Finally, you're right about not knowing if every employer would sack an employee in such circumstances. i would be prepared to be it would be a massively high proportion though. Why? Gross misconduct, not wanting your business or brand associated with that type of offender, the difficulty of a person continuing to work succesfully with other employees. Most people may have the opportunity to start again elsewhere possibly where they're not known - that option isnt open to CT in his chosen trade - but that circumstance is, frankly, tough. To repeat, he must have known the consequences, and he took the risk. His call.

I'm not saying Hearts were 'required' to do anything, however they have done and that's up to them. Maybe after having him at the club for however long they felt he deserved a little bit of leeway rather than being dropped like a stone. You disagree, that's fair enough. However, I still disagree that this is condoning lewd and libidinous behaviour or anything else. I concede that Vlad's rant was bizarre however there's no legislating for him really.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not saying Hearts were 'required' to do anything, however they have done and that's up to them. Maybe after having him at the club for however long they felt he deserved a little bit of leeway rather than being dropped like a stone. You disagree, that's fair enough. However, I still disagree that this is condoning lewd and libidinous behaviour or anything else. I concede that Vlad's rant was bizarre however there's no legislating for him really.

Why would length of service be any type of factor?

Also, as I said in my previous post, it is not necessarily actively condoning his behaviour (although it couldbe interpreted as such), it is the missed opportunity not to condem it that is the big thing that Hearts have missed. And you're right, it is up to them, but it is not the behaviour of an institution with any pretence to decency.

[Steve-O]

Why would length of service be any type of factor?

Also, as I said in my previous post, it is not necessarily actively condoning his behaviour (although it couldbe interpreted as such), it is the missed opportunity not to condem it that is the big thing that Hearts have missed. And you're right, it is up to them, but it is not the behaviour of an institution with any pretence to decency.

Length of service is relevant because they know his character and they know the guy! I think if they signed him one week and he was convicted the next then you might have seen a different outcome. Just like the guy in the manslaughter example provided above - he was a valued employee and they were prepared to give him a second chance.

[Twa Cairpets]

Length of service is relevant because they know his character and they know the guy! I think if they signed him one week and he was convicted the next then you might have seen a different outcome. Just like the guy in the manslaughter example provided above - he was a valued employee and they were prepared to give him a second chance.

Nonsense. The extension of that logic is that the first time anyone does anything bad they should be let off because they've previously been of good character.

You raise the example of the the manslaughter chap again, but ignored my earlier point about what if he'd been a rapist, or a fraudster? Would the company have been as seemingly magnanimous in their continuing provision of employment?

[Steve-O]

Nonsense. The extension of that logic is that the first time anyone does anything bad they should be let off because they've previously been of good character.

You raise the example of the the manslaughter chap again, but ignored my earlier point about what if he'd been a rapist, or a fraudster? Would the company have been as seemingly magnanimous in their continuing provision of employment?

I didn't ignore your earlier point at all, I mentioned it in a previous post - it seems you must've ignored that...?

Who has been 'let off' exactly? As far as I can see he's been punished by the body responsible for dishing out such punishment - the courts. Employers have a choice if they also want to punish the person. It depends on the circumstances of course, Hearts have deemed the offence serious enough (eventually) to say he'll never play for Hearts again and have shipped him off to Lithuania to play in some backwater league. Yes he's still getting paid, but it's not as if they are rewarding him.

Additionally, someone who has previously been of good character DOES get off lighter in general (depending on the offence). It's a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing. You are inferring that I am saying he should be let off altogether which is blatantly not the case.

[Twa Cairpets]

I didn't ignore your earlier point at all, I mentioned it in a previous post - it seems you must've ignored that...?

Sorry - dont know how I missed it, apologies. Your point is right - each case on it's merits. The published, publicly available accounts of CT's offence are such that it is of a level that to me, it is unfathomable that an employer wishes to be associated with a person of that type.


Who has been 'let off' exactly? As far as I can see he's been punished by the body responsible for dishing out such punishment - the courts. Employers have a choice if they also want to punish the person. It depends on the circumstances of course, Hearts have deemed the offence serious enough (eventually) to say he'll never play for Hearts again and have shipped him off to Lithuania to play in some backwater league. Yes he's still getting paid, but it's not as if they are rewarding him.

Additionally, someone who has previously been of good character DOES get off lighter in general (depending on the offence). It's a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing. You are inferring that I am saying he should be let off altogether which is blatantly not the case.

I wasn't saying he has been let off, nor was I inferring that is what you said.

I got involved in the thread because you were querying why people were "outraged" at CT's move to FBK. It is not "outrage" I feel, but a mix of bafflement, disappointment and, yes, some anger that the oblivious clown who calls the shots at Tynecastle has decided that a convicted child sex offender is an appropriate person to be employed at an institution that at one time had at a pretence to respectability and decency. I'm not saying you have sympathy for him - you shouldnt and am sure you don't - but neither should Hearts.
The double standards are there - he has either done something that is bad enough to merit not working again for the employer, or he hasnt. It's not ok because he's in a different country unless very different moral standards apply there. (I'm guessing they don't).

If it had been Hibs, I absolutely promise you I would have been equally as against what has transpired.

[Dashing Bob S]

Sorry - dont know how I missed it, apologies. Your point is right - each case on it's merits. The published, publicly available accounts of CT's offence are such that it is of a level that to me, it is unfathomable that an employer wishes to be associated with a person of that type.



I wasn't saying he has been let off, nor was I inferring that is what you said.

I got involved in the thread because you were querying why people were "outraged" at CT's move to FBK. It is not "outrage" I feel, but a mix of bafflement, disappointment and, yes, some anger that the oblivious clown who calls the shots at Tynecastle has decided that a convicted child sex offender is an appropriate person to be employed at an institution that at one time had at a pretence to respectability and decency. I'm not saying you have sympathy for him - you shouldnt and am sure you don't - but neither should Hearts.
The double standards are there - he has either done something that is bad enough to merit not working again for the employer, or he hasnt. It's not ok because he's in a different country unless very different moral standards apply there. (I'm guessing they don't).

If it had been Hibs, I absolutely promise you I would have been equally as against what has transpired.

It wasn't, and I'm perhaps guilty of trivial Yam bashing when I say this, but I raise the issue in all seriousness. While it's impossible to prove cause and effect, I've no doubt that Hearts appointment of Rix must have had some influence in giving signals to sexually confused and self-centred young men like Thomson and Wee Airdrie Jambo, that this sort of behaviour, if not completely acceptable, was repairable, in terms of the damage done to the person who indulged in it.

[Woody1985]

Given the manslaughter example, it sounds to me like the guy got in a fight, hit someone and they died. I can understand.

If it was premeditated murder would they have taken him back? I doubt it.

The same applies here. If he chatted up a 15 year old and was tricked into believing she was older I could understand keeping him.

Proactively trying to perv a 12 year old whom he knew for 6 years prior is the equivalent to premeditated murder and this example and can't be used to compare like for like Imo.

[Hibs Class]

I'm not saying Hearts were 'required' to do anything, however they have done and that's up to them. Maybe after having him at the club for however long they felt he deserved a little bit of leeway rather than being dropped like a stone. You disagree, that's fair enough. However, I still disagree that this is condoning lewd and libidinous behaviour or anything else. I concede that Vlad's rant was bizarre however there's no legislating for him really.

Other recent events indicate that loyalty is in short supply at Hearts - I think that they regard him as an asset with some potential value and cannot afford to lose that value. Their secondary driver is that if everyone else is saying they should punt him they'll do the opposite because of their paranoia and siege mentality. Thomson's own best interests come pretty far down the list. IMHO.

[lapsedhibee]

Other recent events indicate that loyalty is in short supply at Hearts - I think that they regard him as an asset with some potential value and cannot afford to lose that value. Their secondary driver is that if everyone else is saying they should punt him they'll do the opposite because of their paranoia and siege mentality. Thomson's own best interests come pretty far down the list. IMHO.
Just as well they've got two etc.

[Steve-O]

Given the manslaughter example, it sounds to me like the guy got in a fight, hit someone and they died. I can understand.

If it was premeditated murder would they have taken him back? I doubt it.

The same applies here. If he chatted up a 15 year old and was tricked into believing she was older I could understand keeping him.

Proactively trying to perv a 12 year old whom he knew for 6 years prior is the equivalent to premeditated murder and this example and can't be used to compare like for like Imo.

But the offence is hardly close to premeditated murder so not really a great analogy! The manslaughter charge may not be as simple as you say either but it's not really relevant.

[Woody1985]

But the offence is hardly close to premeditated murder so not really a great analogy! The manslaughter charge may not be as simple as you say either but it's not really relevant.

Why not? They're both premeditated attacks in the murder/preying on a 12 year old. The other examples are situations that perhaps could have been avoided and the benefit of the doubt would more likely be given in those instances. IMO of course.

[Steve-O]

Why not? They're both premeditated attacks in the murder/preying on a 12 year old. The other examples are situations that perhaps could have been avoided and the benefit of the doubt would more likely be given in those instances. IMO of course.

'Attacks' is a bit strong - not sure CT 'attacked' anyone. I see the point you are getting at with the premeditation angle, I just don't think comparing murder and the preying on a 12 year (who was not physically harmed at all) is going a bit far.