He should have been sacked for reputational damage which most large corporations would have done. I am sorry that he is having mental health issues but that should not have prevented his dismissal.

One more point

He may or may not have mental health issues, or perhaps he's just unhappy he was found out and exposed ( no pun intended )

I don't think after decades of covering up scandal and turning a blind eye to criminality of the worst kind the BBC have any reputation left to damage

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

I don’t know anymore than anyone else but perhaps he had acquired a Thai passport or another from SE Asia? There is a lot of corruption in that region. If he had just been trying to renew his British passport you would expect it to have raised the red flags, so perhaps there has been the need for detective work.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

He would have been a watch list. This is one reason everyone has their passports scanned on arrival, whether they like it or not.
TBF not sure they are claiming great detective work, just they never gave up. Although once on the watch list he was always going to be caught if he travelled back
If he had obtained a Thai passport to travel on, he would have had to apply for a UK visa
Edited by Spiderman (02 Apr 2024 12.01pm)

Edited by Spiderman (02 Apr 2024 12.03pm)

Agreed I was being polite, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

However this is weak management by the BBC. His actions clearly caused reputational damage to the BBC and everything it claims to stands for.

The correct action should have been to hold an internal hearing whilst privately telling the guy now would be a good time to resign. If he refused he should have been sacked.

Sacking him would have caused a fuss in the media and possibly even a court case but it sends a message to staff don't expect to behave badly and then pull a sickie to get away with it.

Not sacking him sends the wrong message.

One more point

if that really concerns you then comfort yourself that it won’t be as much as if he had not absconded. He would probably have received a very long jail sentence and could easily still be inside. He is now 80 and could be due to receive care at our expense anyway. How long for?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.