In June 2011, the 24-year-old was fined £4000 and put on the sex offenders register for five years for his lewd, libidinous and indecent behaviour towards two girls, aged 12 and 14, over the internet.
Since then Hearts packed him off to their then feeder club, Lithuanian side Kaunas, for the remainder of his contract before the Edinburgh side let him go.
Attempts to find professional moves elsewhere have floundered upon discovery of his criminal past and he now plays part-time football in the semi-professional leagues for Newtongrange Star.
It is now understood that Scottish Championship side Livingston may be interested in signing him as a full-time player.
Not surprisingly, given the nature of Thomson's offence, people are outraged that this convicted sex offender looks like being given the chance to 'pick up where he left off' as if 'nothing had happened'.
Unfortunately, and what has been very revealing about some people and their attitudes towards child protection, there are those who not only see no problem in Thomson returning to professional football, but also don't appreciate the seriousness of the offence he was convicted for.
What has garnered the most attention was this article written by Graham Spiers in The Herald.
Spiers calls for Thomson's 'rehabilitation' back into professional football arguing that it's been four and a half years since his conviction.
Water under the bridge?
No. This is much more serious than being nicked for shoplifting or getting a parking ticket.
As Spiers' fellow columnist at The Herald, Colette Douglas-Home wrote at the time of Thomson's sentence:
Thomson volunteered to help with PE at the school one girl attended. Imagine how excited she must have been when the football star asked to be her friend on Facebook.
She was only 13 years old. It said so on her site.
Thomson’s conversation was general at first, then it became sexual.
After her 14th birthday he said he wanted to sleep with her. Pictures of his genitals followed.
Around the same time a 12-year-old whom he had known since she was little was also chatting to him online.
He’d asked to be her friend too.
That was a while before he asked her to expose her breasts online.
Thomson volunteered to help with PE in primary and secondary schools.
That’s an admirable thing to do, unless its intention is to gain access to children for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
Mr (Vladimir) Romanov (the then owner of Hearts) says Thomson’s actions constituted a grave error of judgment.
That sounds as if he made a spur of the moment bad decision.
The 12-year-old girl had been known to him since she was a small child.
What he did to her was planned. It’s called grooming.
When he asked her to expose herself online the child told her mother.
Where might it have ended if she had lacked courage to do so or had been too shy to speak of such things? What if she hadn’t had an open relationship with her mother?
It has been said that concerned parents reported Thomson to the football club six months before he was charged.
Hearts still sent him to represent them at a Barnardo’s event where he was pictured with children.
What’s the matter with these people?
With regards to after his conviction, Hearts at first tried to sweep it under the carpet saying that the sex offender that they employed would stay at the club. They issued a statement that read:
In reaching this decision, the club accepted that there are sufficient mitigating circumstances that provide significant assurance that the player's conduct, no matter how distasteful, was the result of a grave error of judgement due to naivety and possible wrong outside influence, rather than anything more sinister and it will not be repeated.
What's happening with the club today is not a new thing. For almost seven years we have been fighting to shield the club from crooks, criminals and thieves.
Many of the top players at the club have felt the bitter results of the swindles that have been carried out with them on their own skin. (Rudi) Skacel and (Andy) Webster have returned to the club after realising where these 'football patriots' have led them.
Every year Hearts fights to be in the top three, but even last season in the last 12 games of the season it was almost like someone replaced the team with a different one.
Whose fault is that? Players'? Manager's? Or it is mafia.
Eventually, the public furore was so great that Vladimir Romanov eventually fudged the issue and had moved Thomson from Hearts on a loan switch to the other club that he owned, Kaunas, and had him freed by the Edinburgh side once his contract expired a year later.
Romanov was rightly criticised for his appalling attitude in not appreciating how serious this issue was.
Yet wasn't the only one at the time who did not treat this case for what it was.
Indeed, he was very supportive of the previous employee at Hearts who had a criminal record for a sexual offence - Graham Rix.
Between November 2005 and March 2006, Rix was the team's head coach - a controversial appointment given he had served time in prison for having sex with an under-aged girl.
As the last weblink shows, Mr Romanov showed no decency towards Rix's victim and Spiers himself was one of the few (if not the only) media figure to support Rix. As he wrote in The Herald back in November 2005:
I hope I'm not the only one who is uneasy about the growing witch-hunt over Graham Rix's arrival at Hearts. Talk about unstinting castigation before the guy has even had a chance?
The hysteria around Rix over the past 48 hours has been absurd. I was going to say I have been amazed - though I shouldn't have been - at the Scottish football community's ability to be so judgemental and Pharisaic.
You'd think Rix was a paedophile from the way he has been treated.
Let's get this straight. What Rix did in the under-age sex case in 1999 was wrong. He committed his crime and he paid for it.
Indeed, not only did Rix pay for his offence in the penal sense, but his name became forever tarred, as we have already witnessed over these past two days.
As usual, no-one is interested in the finer details of Rix's crime. In actual fact, that case in 1999 was a complex one, with the 15-year-old girl in question, who was already in a relationship with Rix, coming as perilously close as you can get to being a consenting adult.
Nonetheless, Rix's behaviour was to be deplored.
I still maintain, though, that the new Hearts coach deserves sympathy.
He is neither a paedophile nor a pervert, yet the lynch-mobs are already marching on various phone-ins and websites . . . the latter, as ever, being invaded by semi-literates. Our football community really is a hive of hypocrisy.
The statement from Martin Laidlaw, of the Hearts Supporters Trust, genuinely took my breath away.Sounding like a stooge from the McCarthyite era, Laidlaw, in criticising Rix's appointment, cited "what happened to him away from the game", as if football supporters are tortured by their moral codes as they pass through the turnstiles.
This really is alarming.
I could cite, as most football journalists can, leading football figures who are philanderers, have beaten their wives, gone with hookers, bred illegitimate children and generally flouted every moral precept in the book. I just never appreciated before that fans would have managers and coaches barred on such counts.
In that case, we'd all better keep mum about two of the greatest figures in Scottish football history.
The next stage in this witch-hunt is going to be the effortless, two-faced goading of Rix by opposition supporters whenever Hearts play. The Old Firm supporters, I predict, with their comedy-turn of abusive bigots one minute and offended puritans the next, will come out streets ahead in the hypocrisy stakes.
And the supporters of Hibs and Aberdeen will not be far behind.
Graham Rix is actually quite a good bloke and, as it happens, an excellent football coach. He made the sort of mistake seven years ago which many men in football, including me, could feel vulnerable about making if we weren't careful.
Rix deserves the chance to be rehabilitated as a coach and I hope he stands up to the inevitable taunts and bullying and leads Hearts to success.
Time to tackle the wider issue.
Spiers is a practising Christian and may believe he is trying to 'see the good' in the offender and show 'forgiveness'.
But that is an appalling take to have. The victims of Thomson and Rix deserve his support more than the two convicted sex offenders.
Yet Spiers is not alone in thinking it is time that Thomson be allowed to waltz back into professional football.
Craig Fowler of The Scotsman and Jonny McFarlane who is a blogger on the Daily Record's website, seem to have no qualms about the player being let back into the game.
As already mentioned, support for a convicted sex offender appears to have surpassed victim support.
There are at three others (one of which will still be classed as a minor) who are more deserving of support given the damage inflicted upon them by the likes of Rix and Thomson.
Had those two been doctors, teachers, social workers, etc, their chances of resuming their former careers after being convicted of a sexual offence would be zero.
As Colette Douglas-Home wrote about the Thomson case in The Herald back in June 2011:
Some people ask why Thomson should lose his career just because he’s a professional footballer. After all, he’s a young man with a talent for the game and qualified for nothing else.
If he was barred from Hearts, wouldn’t his punishment be greater than the courts intended?
It’s true. Thomson’s working life might well be unaffected if he was an anonymous office or factory worker (though I wouldn’t be too sure). But then factory workers are not role models.
Their work sprinkles no stardust. They are not attractive to the young and aspiring. They don’t gain access to schools because of their fame.
If Thomson’s career carried on uninterrupted, children will get the message that men who abuse them are applauded and rewarded by society even after people know what they have done.
There are laws against what the likes of Thomson and Rix have done - people who dismiss their crimes so readily should make themselves familiar with the illegality of sex offences.
Because the ignorant (at best) or those who (at worst) endorse such crimes are full of unforgivable excuses.
"Just having a bit of fun" is one.
"No real harm done" is another.
Except harm was done... there was no fun at all for Thomson's victims.
The fact that Thomson did not rape the two girls should in no way be offered in mitigation for what he did.
It was only down to the courage of the children involved that both parents and the authorities intervened.
Had the girls not told someone that this fully-grown (and so-called) adult was carrying out his vile behaviour, how far do the likes of Graham Spiers et al think that Thomson was prepared to go?
If the police had not arrested him, how do Spiers and the rest of those wanting Thomson forgiven think this sordid situation would have been concluded?
It doesn't bear thinking about and we can only be thankful that Thomson was stopped before any possible escalation of this situation to a potentially more sinister outcome was allowed to happen.
Yet some people feel we should give sex offenders another chance because they used to be a good right back who was once tipped to play for Scotland.
There are two victims who need all the support and chances they can get because of the psychological trauma inflicted upon them by Thomson.
To let him pick up his career as if nothing had happened would send out the awful message that society values their abuser more.
And that is wrong - no matter how well the likes of Thomson can kick a football.