It does depend on what's in his contract, but I'd bet a significant amount of money that it would contain a clause relating to disrepute, because of the nature of his job.
In such a case, I'm not sure it matters exactly what he's done wrong, only whether it can be demonstrated that his actions have caused disrepute and have harmed the company. In this case - if the allegations are true, I think it could potentially be proven that it has caused harm, based on the newspaper reports and media coverage which would be a result of his actions.
Not really true, and is a misconception which people still fall foul of.
If in your private life, you're engaged in seedy or morally dubious things (having affairs, paying for sex, etc) and it ends up in the public domain (because somebody got upset and spilled) and at that point you're employed by the company, then that would potentially be a big problem.
And again, it's always going to be an aggrevating factor if you're a public figure, TV presenter, sports star or celebrity.
The BBC cannot be seen to be taking different actions. They have to be consistent with their actions.
Linekar for example met the criteria you just mentioned.
You have the right to reasonable privacy. You do not have an absolute right.
People who are in the public sphere will have a lower level of reasonable to a normal plain run of the mill person.
If someone got upset and spilled it was already in the public domain. If someone goes about seeking things illegally in order to spill them thats a different thing.
There is a problem when the media get involved.
Eg take a stewardess who maybe runs an only fans. She doesn't give anything away about her job, she doesn't wear the uniform or anything like that.
Then a newspaper for some other reason goes digging and publishes "raunchy stewardess in only fans shocker, this lovely beauty gets all her kit off for easy punters"
It starts to become a problem since the company starts going "on noes", the person has done nothing wrong however.
If I could publish an article saying, company X employs law breakers. "in shock revelation we reveal that company x is stuffed with law breakers, including the CEO, who has 3 points on his driving licence for speeding in a 30"
That would be bringing the company into disrepute. But we accept that and ignore it when in reality it would be an actual crime being recognised as opposed to someone performing a legal action like above.
I would say everyone has something in their past that would bring their employer into disrepute if it was made public and splashed all over the front of papers.
I think the thing with Angus Deayton was that his job was ridiculing / ripping apart other people for exactly the same kind of stuff he did, which then made him a complete hypocrite.
he didnt directly get fired for what he did............. the banter against him was humorous..... for a while but at some point it did become tiresome and the show suffered because of it.... whos fault that was is open to debate....... but being a hypocrite is almost more hated upon than anything else..... its why BoJo got such a roasting imo....... most of us probably know people who bent the lockdown rules and you may chunter about them behind their back........... but when it is the people making the rules, or enforcing the rules it makes it 10x worse.
Exactly.
I can think of one occasion I did. I drove to pickup some floor adhesive from someone I found on ebay as it was in lockdown and I needed some and I literally couldn't get any from normal outlets.
www.ofcom.org.uk
. 
