"Now I understand what NS said that she didn't want to use her position to do this but surely legally if it was an option she wouldn't have been doing anything wrong?"
This links to what littlebrowndog asked - the decisions taken in this regard weren't taken with the interests of the 2 complainants uppermost in their considerations. And the charge of political motivation in that respect (as well as the referral to police/crown agent) still reads as plausible as a result. I picked up on a tweet (which I've now lost) which says that the reasoning to refer as potentially criminal allegations wasn't justified as it wasn't an active current risk at that point, it was past behaviour & he was no longer in the working environment of the individuals who made the complaints. Plus, the criminal referral didn't happen when they'd concluded their investigation or gathered the relevant information relating to the allegations. If there was the possibility of criminal prosecution, why did they not make that referral when they'd established the information? Makes no sense.
The refusal to even ask the complainants about the offer of arbitration is the same. This was a process that was used for what looks like political reasons, not 'duty of care' as employer etc.
The decisions were wrong for many reasons - the alternative cost huge sums, the complainants were effectively forced into a pathway not of their choosing & were denied active input/involvement in how this was handled, they weren't referred onto support/advocate services as the police repeatedly told the government should be done.
All the key decisions made were not made in an altruistic way, and "shucks, we tried our best, isn't AS a nasty man" just doesn't cut it IMO.