Edinburgh City

[haufdaft]

Under what circumstances would you feel your child was most at threat.

Children watching a footballer on a pitch 50 yards away from their seats who everyone knows of his criminal past

Or

A workman or tradesman at your house or street when you have no knowledge of their previous criminal past as a child sex pest.

It seems many would have more issues with the former than the latter.

Being a footballer is his profession. Let him earn a living as you would if he was a simple tradesman.

In regard to the role model arguement, do you think him playing for Edinburgh City will make people think that carrying out sex offences are okay?

[GordonD]

In debates about capital punishment those who are in favour often say to the antis, "You'd think differently if it was your child/wife/mother who had been murdered!" Which is quite possibly true, but it would be an emotional reaction, which is why it's a bad idea to consult those people.

Now I'm not saying that any of the posters here have relatives who were targeted in the way Thomson carried on, but it does seem to me that emotions are taking over, with words like 'beast' being bandied about. As has been pointed out, Thomson never laid a finger on any child, so is not in the same league as folk like Jimmy Savile or Rolf Harris. And his conviction is spent; he's no longer on the sex offenders list (so far as I know) so why shouldn't he be permitted to return to his previous employment? Of course it's up to individual clubs whether they want to sign him but I don't see why the club which does take him on should be castigated in the way City have. Equally I wouldn't criticise those supporters who have announced that they won't be back while he's there - that is their choice too. But unless he shows signs of returning to that kind of behaviour I would say he should be left to get on with his footballing career.

Of course there will be no end of abuse from opposing fans, so whether he can deal with that is another story.

[The Moonster]

3 hours ago, victormeldrew said:

How will the parents of the team mascots feel, the ball boys/girls, and kids involved in pre match games.

If any parent was concerned about anything here why the f**k would they send their kids to be involved?  As another poster on here said to me, it's the same on twitter with morons chanting stuff like "how will kids and parents feel safe at games?" - are these folk expecting Thomson to be chasing kids around the ground trying to finger them? 

I fully understand folk who are saying they won't support the team through this, that's their choice and who am I to tell them they are wrong, but there is no threat to you or your kids safety in attending the game.

[Moonglum25]

On 30/06/2017 at 17:38, lowenan said:

I think it's wrong to deny someone the chance to work and do what they are good at, once the police or the judicial system is done with them. Even if someone is a murderer, once they are out of prison they should be given a second chance. If not we are just animals.

 

4 hours ago, Stellaboz said:

Give the guy a chance, he's done his time and sounds like he's ready to try make up for his mistakes, as horrible as they were.

Give him a phone in that case and see if he is willing to babysit your young daughters. Everyone deserves a second chance after all.

[SimonLichtie]

23 minutes ago, Moonglum25 said:

 

Give him a phone in that case and see if he is willing to babysit your young daughters. Everyone deserves a second chance after all.

I didn't know Craig Thomson worked as a babysitter prior to his conviction?

[newcastle broon]

All this fuss around Thomson. Fuss around Goodwillie yet a lad gets booted up the arse and banned for placing a bet on football results.  ALL these players are within the same league. Only in Scottish fitba 

[SimonLichtie]

2 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

All this fuss around Thomson. Fuss around Goodwillie yet a lad gets booted up the arse and banned for placing a bet on football results.  ALL these players are within the same league. Only in Scottish fitba 

Would you like to see people banned from playing football based on their criminal convictions, and also people who break SPFL rules on betting criminally convicted in the courts?

I had no idea that was how things were done in every other country in the world with a professional football league, thanks very much for bringing that to my attention

[lowenan]

22 minutes ago, Moonglum25 said:

 

Give him a phone in that case and see if he is willing to babysit your young daughters. Everyone deserves a second chance after all.

I do think there is a limit to what jobs someone should be able to get based on their past. Should someone who is convicted of a serious crime be able to become a police officer or a fighter pilot? No. Should a sex offender be allowed to work with children? No. Would I personally want a convicted sex offender to babysit my children? No. 

Should someone who is convicted of a crime, but who has served their time, be allowed back into the community? Absolutely. Even if it is a sex offender? Yes. Should they be able to hold a job? Without a doubt. Should a career as a footballer be one of those jobs that criminals should be prevented from? Not at all. Should a club be criticised for signing an ex con? No I don't think so. 

[Stellaboz]

Give him a phone in that case and see if he is willing to babysit your young daughters. Everyone deserves a second chance after all.

Give yourself a shake down ffs! [emoji1]

[1320Lichtie]

Just on a wee a side, Craig Thomson was not convicted as a 'child sex offender'. He was convicted on two charges of 'indecent behaviour'. Believe me when I say there is a HUGE difference between those two offences on a charge sheet in the eyes of the law, both in terms of the conviction and in terms of the punishment. Do you think if he was convicted of 'child sex offences' he would have got away with a £4000 fine and 5 years on the sex offenders list!? I'm in no way standing up for him, or saying the offences he committed weren't utterly disgusting, but to argue your opinion on this surely you need to get the basic facts right?!

Playing football for a wage is a job. Working as a civil engineer is a job. Working as a plumber is a job etc. I know to us fans playing in the SPFL and playing for our supported teams should be viewed as a privilege by all the players involved but in reality it isn't. For a lot of them, it is simply viewed as a job a lot of the time. Craig Thomson is trained to be a football player, the same way a plumber is trained to be a plumber. That is their profession.

At things stand, Craig Thomson has spent his convictions. He is no longer on the sex offenders list. In the eyes of the law, he is a completely free man. There are plenty of players within the SPFL whose convictions aren't spent on crimes they committed. As I mentioned before, there are plenty of footballers within the SPFL who have committed crimes and were handed out harsher sentences than Craig Thomson. In the eyes of the law, their offences were viewed as being worse. Some of these players have not spent their convictions, and some of these convictions were very recent. Why is it that people don't seem to give a shit about violent offenders, whose crimes have been deemed worse than Thomson by a judge, yet are furious with Craig Thomson being signed by Edinburgh City? So much hypocrisy from so many people here.

Why should a completely free man, who has spent his conviction and fully paid the fine he was given, not be allowed to continue working in his chosen profession? The fact that his chosen profession, which he has been trained in from a young age, is football is irrelevant to this as a question.

I know you avoided all of my difficult questions when replying to my last post so try not to do that again please [emoji14]

 

 

What questions did I avoid?

 

I really couldn't care how it's classed in law or if he's on or off a register he was a 20 year old man getting young children to perform sexual acts for him online and tried to take them out in his car/groom them.

 

That's absolutely brutal and I don't care if dealing drugs or violent assaults receive harsher sentences what Thomson done is much worse.

 

It might not be his fault, I'm sure paedophiles don't have a choice and it is a genuine mental illness but some things you do in life should stick with you and this is one of them. His main source of income and his livelihood doesn't depend on football so it's not really the point here. But there obviously are some professions that he should be stopped from pursuing because of this you'd surely admit?

 

Like someone has said what if his chosen profession before this was looking after young girls in some capacity, a primary school teacher? Should he still be allowed to work in that environment if that's all he had known?

 

Now I'm not for one minute saying that is similar to playing football for Edinburgh City but he may be put into a position where some young supporters will look up to him for what he does on the park and I don't think that's right.

 

I really don't think that he will re offend, but just look at what happened with Adam Johnson recently. Obviously that's different too as City are a small club and it's not like they'll have thousands of young female supporters, but still.. he was only in that position because he was a football player.

[AyrTroopMajor]

Can completely understand both sides of the argument here, the main thing I'd say is that I am stunned Edinburgh City have come to the conclusion that this one player is worth the absolute circus that his signing will bring with it. 

There is no way Craig Thomson is worth losing lifelong fans for, short-sighted, bizarre decision in my opinion.

[The Mantis]

11 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

It might not be his fault, I'm sure paedophiles don't have a choice and it is a genuine mental illness but some things you do in life should stick with you and this is one of them. 

Not been following the thread but just to be clear, he's not a paedophile.

[newcastle broon]

41 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

Would you like to see people banned from playing football based on their criminal convictions, and also people who break SPFL rules on betting criminally convicted in the courts?

I had no idea that was how things were done in every other country in the world with a professional football league, thanks very much for bringing that to my attention

Ye only need to browse back a few pages to see what I thought bud.

Can see where folk are coming from though. 

[1320Lichtie]

Not been following the thread but just to be clear, he's not a paedophile.

A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children isn't it. How's he not a paedophile?

Genuine question here by the way not saying you're wrong....?

[JakeSAFC]

Not been following the thread but just to be clear, he's not a paedophile.

He's a dirty scummy beast.

[The Grass Is Greener.]

48 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

Would you like to see people banned from playing football based on their criminal convictions, and also people who break SPFL rules on betting criminally convicted in the courts?

I had no idea that was how things were done in every other country in the world with a professional football league, thanks very much for bringing that to my attention

You seem to be taking this very personally, why? 

[The Mantis]

Just now, 1320Lichtie said:

 

A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children isn't it. How's he not a paedophile?

Genuine question here by the way not saying you're wrong....?

 

Pre-pubescent children. Thomson was sending phone messages to 15 year olds if my memory is right.

[The Grass Is Greener.]

2 minutes ago, The Mantis said:

Pre-pubescent children. Thomson was sending phone messages to 15 year olds if my memory is right.

Never realised that, all is forgiven.

[1320Lichtie]

Pre-pubescent children. Thomson was sending phone messages to 15 year olds if my memory is right.

 

One of his victims was 11 who he had known from the age of 6.

[The Mantis]

Just now, The Grass Is Greener. said:

Never realised that, all is forgiven.

Cheers. I taught in high school for many years. We got a lot of training about the law.

consensual sex between 17 year old boy and 15 year old girl - boy is prosecuted. 

17 year old girl and 15 year old boy -  no offence ( law discriminates against males).

any sex (consensual or not) between 17 year old boy and under 14 girl - statutory rape.

can't remember what happens if you reverse the genders.