Well your opinion and mine are irrelevant. Personally I think instructing junior staff to do things that are illegal (in the broad sense, this isn't criminal but it's against the rules of the competition they're in) when they've said they don't want to - even just once - is pretty ****ty behaviour, and we know from the panel decision that Salt (or someone) did more than say once he wasn't comfortable. The decision says he declined to take part in the Ipswich incident, which you can interpret in different ways. On the one hand he clearly did more than say once that he wasn't comfortable but on the other hand he wasn't forced to take part in that incident. Then he did with Boro. We don't know what changed but the most obvious explanation would be that he felt he had to. The panel decision says "We heard evidence from the intern who described the pressure he was placed under."
The EFL panel has already cited a case where staff were banned from all football for a year, described "a particularly deplorable approach" and said "junior members of staff were put under pressure to carry out activities which they felt were, at the least, morally wrong. Such staff were in a vulnerable position without job security and with limited ability to object to, or resist the instructions given to them." I think it would be very odd if the FA did nothing after this. But they aren't at the centre of a confected media ****storm so maybe they won't feel pressured into taking a similar harsh approach to the EFL.
