So it is done. Congratulations to all those who wanted Craig Thomson sacked. Hearts have ripped up his contract and consigned him to the dustbin. Well done. This storm over how Hearts Football Club have reacted following the conviction of their player, Craig Thomson, for sexual offences towards children is a very dangerous one. People should be careful what they wish for.
Let us consider Craig Thomson. He pleaded guilty to the charges lewd and libidinous and indecent behaviour towards girls aged 12 & 14 whilst being fully aware of the girls ages. He was fined £4000 and placed on the Sex Offenders Register (SOR) for 5 years.
Yes this was a bad crime and it appears he was in an established behaviour pattern that should have changed as he entered his later teens but it didnt. Greater minds than I, and the many others talking about this situation, have created a list of possible punishments relating to the charges he pled guilty to. A fine and placement on the SOR has been deemed a suitable punishment. There are no special child protection measures being placed upon him. Since sentences in cases such as this are always passed following various specialist reports written by people whose primary knowledge is child protection, it has been concluded that he is not a risk to children and young people. If we respected our courts and had faith in the child protection measures laid out by the Scottish Parliament then thats were it should have ended. But it didn’t.
I think that a great many people have misunderstood what being on the SOR actually means. Craig Thomson now must tell the police where he lives, and if he moves tell them within 3 days of moving. He can be photographed and finger prints checked every time he goes to the police station to advise them of any change in circumstances. He must advise police if he is going on holiday for a period of longer than seven days. The local police force can enact further surveillance and put in place prevention measures such as denying the offender access to a computer. Hearts, had they maintained their previous position, could easily have prevented any direct contact or interaction with children. Listening to Children 1st you would think that in allowing him to stay on, Hearts had basically said that he was now in charge of youth development, school visit programmes and would be totally free to abuse entire youth teams. It is an interesting accusation that has been made that he, having been guilty of those relatively minor (in terms of sex) offences, would immediately jump from inappropriate behaviour online to much more dangerous and harmful activities. Its a strange accusation since he would be under some considerable pressure to remain away from any child involved with Hearts. Yet that is the accusation that Children 1st and others have made and it just added to the pressure in already difficult situation.
The furore over this situation has resulted in a sponsor ending a business deal with Hearts, citing the fact that they see themselves as a family orientated firm. Indeed, Hearts have been called a family club and questions have been asked about how Hearts could continue employing him given that children come into the football ground. There are 3,000 known sex offenders in Scotland (not in prison) and, if organisations like Children 1st are to be believed, many more that are not known. It is possible that there are other child sex offenders inside the football ground other than Craig Thomson but I am willing to bet that he would have been the most watched, carefully scrutinised and supported-to-make-sure-they-dont-reoffend one of them. Yet nothing has been said about that.
There are child sex offenders with little or no support that addresses their offending behaviour. Yes they are managed. They have been assessed. They are monitored. But their behaviour is not addressed fully in an environment that supports them, an environment that has nurtured them for at least a decade, that will ensure that even as they go about their daily activities, they are kept in check and children actively protected. The vast majority of child sex offenders don’t have that. Craig Thomson did. Craig Thomson, for the next 15 years at least, was going to be at the lowest end of the reoffending scale. He had been at that club for years, growing up within its walls, being shaped by it and basically letting it become his identity. Now all of that has been shattered. He has, in effect, lost who he is and who he thought he would become.
And that is a good thing for a man on the SRO is it? Is it a good thing, that in the name of child protection, he has lost access to high quality support? Is it a good thing, that in the name of child protection, he is moved away from dedicated daily monitoring by several people at his employers? Is it a good thing, that in the name of child protection, he has jumped up the scale of those likely to reoffend? Why has an offender, in employment, in a supportive but also monitoring environment been instead moved into unemployment (and will not find employment elsewhere as I’ll come to in a moment), moved onto state benefits (in the near future), moved into state provided housing (for lack of a job) and moved into a community where vulnerable teenage girls already live (as thats where most state housing is)? Is this really child protection? Is it really child protection to increase the likelihood of him reoffending or even worse. Given that, to him, his identity has been erased, his aspirations turned to dust and his future unknown is it more or less likely that his dangerous behaviour will increase and he harms others, himself or both? That is child protection is it? I have been surprised that those who campaign for those people who live in vulnerable communities, those who seek to support the most vulnerable in society have been the most keen to have child sex offenders placed in the very environments they seek to improve.
What is worrying is that what has happened to Craig Thomson will result in greater employment problems for child sex offenders, more offenders living on benefits, more offenders not having access to supportive environments and more child sex offenders having to be homed in the same communities as already vulnerable children and young people. The reason for this are terms like “family club” and “family values”. The “family” nature of the employer and it sponsors has been used to ensure that they had to sack Thomson eventually.
No employer is ever going to want to face the charge of not having family values, not being pro-children or being anti-child protection like Hearts were. Look at the storm kicked up by Children 1st. How can any employer not fear a similar response if they either stand by or hire a sex offender. Hearts sponsor macb didnt want to be associated with Hearts due to their desire to be associated with strong family values and felt Hearts did not have those values as the retained Craig Thomson. So, obviously, macb will never hire a sex offender. Can anyone now think of a business that would not claim to have strong family values or risk being accused of being anti-child protection like Children 1st did to Hearts? Why would any business risk a Twitter storm, Facebook hatred or even just a negative news story? Answer is they wouldn’t. Or a charity? Would that not put funding at risk? Risk donations drying up? Why would a charity take on a child sex offender now?
How about a public sector body? One of the issues of mighty concern to Children 1st was the potential for Thomson to have indirect contact with children. I cant think of a job that wouldn’t have the potential for indirect contact with children. You can just imagine opposition politicians making statements along the lines of “non-child abusers cant get work, why are we hiring that type of person?”. Marvellous. There is now nowhere for child sex offenders to work. Clearly it was hard before but now its impossible.
And without employment sex offenders will live on state benefits, life in state housing in the same areas as vulnerable children. Most sex offenders actually cause far more harm than Craig Thomson ever did (I await now someone telling me that seeing a picture of a mans genitals is just as bad, just as likely to result in lifelong therapy as, for example, being kidnapped and anally raped several times at the age of 10). If this is how society reacts to an employer wanting retain an employee who was guilty of exceptionally bad and inappropriate online behaviour then those who have done worse will have no chance of getting a job.
So this is the Scotland of 2011. So fearful and full of hate for sex offenders that we actually cant see that this reaction is actually preventing rehabilitation, increasing the likelihood of recidivism and putting more children and young people at risk? Is that really Zero Tolerance on Child Abuse?
There can really be no rehabilitation? No change to show a change of behaviours, no chance of redemption? All that awaits is the scrapheap? Given that is what has been demanded by Children 1st for Craig Thomson, its all that awaits all child sex offenders. That is a dangerous thing. People without hope and without support may well try to find solace in the one thing that they know gives them a level of satisfaction. Offending against children and young people. Thats child protection is it?
An argument has been put forward that this is a special case. That Craig Thomson, as a footballer, is somehow deserving of a punishment that is greater than that administered through the Scottish legal system. I disagree. But if fame and status as a role model is important to child protection then there is a lot of hypocrisy in Scotland. For example, many people really like the West Wing but I have yet to hear someone in Scotland say that it should be banned as one of the principle actors, Rob Lowe, is a convicted child sex offender. Does that not give a message to victims or potential abusers. Look – we all like someone famous who gets paid an awful lot for playing a role we really like!
I don’t recall a boycott in Scotland of the film Pianist. Directed by Roman Polanski who as admitted unlawful sex with a 13 year old girl. I cant recall all those who get giddy about the Oscars being annoyed that this pedophile director was awarded as Best Director and the film nominated for a total of 7 Oscars, winning three of them. He even won an BAFTA. What message does that give? We dont mind him having sex with 13 years old because he makes damn fine films? And we like the awarding organisations who praised this child sex offender so much we watch them every year.
I am not even going to start on the Catholic Church and its decades of protecting pedophile priests. Or the ongoing appeal of Michael Jackson. Even Elvis was attracted to Priscilla when she was just 14.
Fame and being a role model have nothing to do with child protection (unless we are being hypocritical and its just famous and role model footballers). Neither does hounding a registered sex offender out of a job and into a life that greatly increases the chances of them harming children. Child protection must be, should be, so much more than moral outrage. It should be about preventing abuse, catching offenders when prevention doesn’t happen and stopping reoffending. This has been made harder today.
