[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That makes zero sense. If they couldn't sack/penalise an employee because they haven't done anything "illegal" or had charges pressed for an incident they were involved in then employees could get away with an awful lot.

He IS guilty, he himself has admitted and reported the incident.

The BBC found this behaviour unacceptable and terminated his contract, as is their right, regardless of whether he's found to have broken the law or not.

if he is guilty, then he should be penalized criminally and then deal with the job issue.

a violent assault is a serious crime. the criminal aspect should be dealt with first. the fact that BBC was sitting around worrying about whether or not he should be fired should be secondary to the fact that a man violently assaulted another man. but BBC decided his employment was more important than justice???

it;s no different than the catholic church saying, we should sit around and decide what to do with this cardinal who probably molested a child, instead of doing what should be done, which is reporting his behavior for the truth and assisting the process of justice first and foremost.