To be fair, it's right that they keep the public information relatively light. If I was fired by an employer I wouldn't want them writing blog posts about why they did it. Especially when it's just some random dude who got fired.
True, but it's wrong to state that they are open to discussion only amongst people who hold all the facts, which they also state they are not going to give out.
If I'm reading it correctly this is what this statement really says:
"Alex Reid might've been involved, but he's a good guy in general and we're keeping him. The other guy however, it turned out after an internal investigation, wasn't exactly spot clean and for him this was the straw that broke the camel's back."
"This employee was not Alex Reid, who is still with the company and a valued employee." - why was the other guy not a valued employee?
"..we will not comment on all the factors that contributed to our parting ways.." - or "you can't have all the facts"
"we hope to move forward with a civil dialogue based on the facts." - which is not possible because we don't have them all.