I really don't know anything about UK law, except that i know you don't have a written constitution. But just beacuse it's not written doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course. What i meant is that in these countries i know about, a professor, for example, is an official, not an employee. So his "employment" is not based on a contract that is governed by civil law, but it's based on an administrative act and is governed by public law. Here it says about Dr. Kerr, it says he was Sir Joseph Hotung Clinical Senior Lecturer in Inflammation at St Georges University of London. I don't know the status of such a senior lecturer, if he's an official or a government employee on a contract. Now most constitutions grant the citizens free speech. Of course this can be restricted, but it has to happen based on a law (in the countries i know, UK and USA might be slightly different, but i guess bottom line it's similar). This law can't breach the constitution and also an administrative act based on this law has to conform with the constitution as well. Rights like the Freedom of Speech primarily protect the citizen against the state, not so much one citizen from the other (like in the case of a private employment). So it's much more relevant in the case of an official than in the case of somebody employed by some private entity. Any administrative act that is disproportional (and to me it would seem disproportional to not allow somebody to comment about the general circumstances of the termination of his service in such a case, where it's not about national security or something like that) is unconstitutional. It might be different in the UK and also it might be different if he agreed to it, but of course not if he was pressured to agree. If he took money for this (and we don't have any evidence he did, i don't believe this was the case) then i would call such a person corrupt. It would mean he sold us and the truth and i have a hard time believing this. This sounds like a conspiracy to me.