the Crown Prosecution Service ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge him
If the CPS deems no case to answer then who are BA to second-guess the alleged (mis)activities of its personnel?
In this case it looks as if the CPS could have
possibly garnered more evidence and, in that case, I'm sure BA would have almost certainly taken action.
I realise it is not necessarily the case here but if I'd been accused of something of which I was innocent and my employer decided to take action based on unsubstantiated evidence then I'd be more than a tad miffed.
The fact that Simon (as an FO) was allegedly wearing a 'bogus' captain's uniform does nothing to make his visits official nor sanctioned by BA. If this part of the story is true then it is fairly clear that he was trying to impress by the use of a uniform and, possibly, add some credibility to his visits (though clearly
not the reason for them).
Like Capetonia, I find this story sad and sordid but I can see no reason why BA should become culpable when his visits to the hospitals etc were neither official, nor sanctioned by BA, where he posed (allegedly) in a 'bogus' uniform and where previous investigations had found no wrong doing in his behaviour i.e. nothing that would prevent BA treating his monthly bid just as they treat the monthly bids of all other FOs. He was an innocent (as far as the CPS and, therefore, BA were concerned) employee and was thus treated as such.