Oh, well the fact he was still prosecuted despite the judge's observations in that quote must mean he did break a contract which was watertight. :shrug:

He may have, I'm asking why there are gagging clauses ( if that was the reason for the 30 months reduced to 20)

Some of the info will be seen as in the public interest and some not, if what wasn't amounted to nothing more than a grievance then does that warrant a custodial sentence?

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/employm...rk/500382.html