No warning first?

BBC News - Judges sacked for watching porn

I can understand the public service, and private companies for that matter, having policies against use of work internet access to distribute pornography in any fashion, or the watching of any that is illegal, or in circumstances where any other staff could possibly see or know that a person was watching or using it.   And a blanket approach certainly avoid any issues of trying to categorise less or more acceptable breaches of the rule.

But surely, everyone recognises there is a scale of seriousness in which such a blanket rule could be breached?

And it's not as if the access costs to the internet are likely to raise the issue of these judges wasting public money by (say) watching 5 minutes of vanilla porn when everyone else in the office has gone home, as against downloading some recent case law.

So one would imagine a detected breach should result in at least a warning first, and not an instant dismissal.