Let him sue. Pay him off. Get bloody rid of the snake. I don’t think he would get much of a payoff for damages. I see nil grounds for any extravagent compensation claim. Probably just pay in lieu of notice plus a bit. He has not been there long enough to build any solid case.

Indeed not, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right – or legal – thing to do.

Just pay him off, would cost less than the likely loss of credibility, readership or advertising, cuts the aggro.

And how would you prevent him from suing for wrongful dismissal – a case he would almost certainly win handsomely (doubtless with a hefty payout to compensate for its very public nature)?

The creep is member of an evil organisation. Period.

If this isn’t an explicit infringement of his contract, it’s not a sackable offence. Period.

(I don’t for one second condone Mr Aslam’s views, but even the man who broke the story admits above that my stance is "pretty reasonable". More to the point, it takes the law into account, which yours doesn’t).

The creep is member of an evil organisation. Period.

Not at all, it’s entirely relevant to the point you and others seem to be making. The only way you’re going to prevent a situation like this occurring is if you apply positive vetting to your employees in advance of offering them a contract. I would suggest that this is not the kind of direction we want this country to move in, regardless of current circumstances.

You just apply common sense and sack someone who did not himself declare a link that is totally at variance with the Guardian’s known ethical stance.

But was he contractually required to declare such a link as a condition of employment? Is there anything else in his contract regarding bringing the organisation into disrepute? If not, you can’t just sack someone because you disagree with their views: if he isn’t actually in breach of contract, there are no good grounds for dismissal, and he’d certainly win if he took them to an industrial tribunal.

The Guardian looks real stupid right now.

I agree that it’s acutely embarrassing for them, and it will be fascinating seeing how this pans out over the next few days (they really can’t ignore it given the attention), but I don’t actually think they’ve done anything wrong.

Not least because sacking someone purely because of what someone else wrote on a blog (with all due respect to Scott) without a proper internal investigation into the circumstances, not to mention an interview with the person concerned, would be outrageous.

I’d be amazed if that investigation isn’t going on right now, if only to stave off a PR catastrophe, but you’re making the situation sound vastly simpler than it actually is.

The Guardian looks real stupid right now. Alastair Hethrington would have sacked the creep in a trice. For entryism.

So until we get some idea of how this is going to pan out, here’s another question: are you saying that everyone, even trainee journalists, should have their political views minutely investigated beforehand as though they’d applied for a job with MI5? Indeed, as a regular contributor to an outspokenly political blog, would you really feel comfortable if your boss applied this kind of vetting to you?

If they gave Nick Griffin a job writing a column (the BNP is not a banned organisation), would we all welcome it as a sign of the Guardian’s tolerance?

Thye organisation is not banned. It is for that sort of stupidity that we are known as Londonistan – laxer than any other caputal in Europe.

Obviously, it’s likely to colour what he writes, and so it’s a good thing that it’s out in the public domain – kudos to Scott for his research here – but I’m entirely with John B and Larry on the general principle that "no platform" policies are usually ill-advised, and that sacking people for their views is a gross infringement of one of the basic principles that we should all hold dear.

After all, freedom of speech is a key factor that separates Us from Them – and I doubt even you’d disagree with me when I express it in those terms.

"Move along there, nothing to see here." Sheeeeesh !