Scott Mills sacked

I said earlier that one of my thoughts was that the dismissal was because he did not declare that it was a minor who had made the complaint at the time. In that sense he only told the employer half the story., and it makes no difference whether he was innocent of a crime or not, if he failed to disclose he was in breach of his contract. That’s my best guess.

I also agree with knspol.
He was apparently neither arrested nor prosecuted so why is he not assumed to have been innocent.
Police have said that they have nothing additional or new and I think that the BBC have either said that they have nothing additional or new or I have assumed it because they have indicated that it was the minorness in the original complaint about the 30 year old incident(s) that caused the sacking presumably being a contract breach or else they would be liable to a lawsuit.
I am indifferent to Mills as a tv Personality so don't have an axe to grind.
I am concerned that people who have not been proven guilty should be presumed innocent.
If Mills has or had a history of additional unacceptable and predatory behaviour the BBC would surely have cited that .
None of this means that I condone abuse of any kind particularly that of adults against children. Like anyone else who is normal I find such abuse abhorrent.

I agree with you, knspol; the police would have known the age of the complainant at the time, and they said there was insufficient evidence to proceed, then he was assumed to be innocent.
I absolutely agree with your last statement:
Obviously a fine line to tread and I'm in no way condoning any sort of paedophilia but anyone could make a complaint without evidence and someone's life or livelihood could be ruined

It is a historic case and the BBC knew about it many years ago and took no action. Apparently they are only just aware that the young man involved was under 16 yrs. The case was abandoned at the time because the CPS decided there was not enough evidence to proceed. None of us presumably knows more detail than we've heard on the news but it seems to me that if there was insufficient evidence to proceed then why isn't he assumed to be innocent?
Obviously a fine line to tread and I'm in no way condoning any sort of paedophilia but anyone could make a complaint without evidence and someone's life or livelihood could be ruined. BTW I'd never even heard of this man before the news story so no bias involved.

It is unfortunate that he has said that evidence was sent to the CPS and was insufficient for a prosecution.
I would have been tempted to say "like hell I did this" assuming that is the case.
I think he would have done better to say nothing.

True kirubbin, also easily flattered by older people who treat them as grown ups. Especially those in entertainment

Some young people are very naive and trusting. I recently found some old photos of myself and a holiday romance with a Spanish boyfriend.
From the picture I can now see he was about 30!
Luckily he was the perfect gentleman but who knows as the holiday was soon over.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gv7yj71llo

Scott has made a statement, Sky News, sorry I can’t do the link

The BBC has been “hoist by its own petard” - the normalisation of ALL sexualities and predilections which is continually pushed on its audiences will ultimately result in things going very wrong - you can’t have it all ways I’m afraid.

Regulations may differ, but no reason for not giving some reason for leaving, even if it along the lines of parted by mutual agreement.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC defines its cultures and values.

eazybee

Because there is a process for dealing with misconduct, this seems to have been ignored, no reasons given for an abrupt dismissal, leaving speculation rife.

Is he an employee, though? Or a contractor?

The employment regulations will differ.

The way I read it, this is not about that teenage boy, it’s new information, presumably related to his conduct with somebody else.

And, the bbc is rather damned whatever it does

It’s dealing with big ego’s who often seem to believe they’re bullet proof

Casdon

As I suggested, new information was what led to him being sacked.
news.sky.com/story/bbc-knew-about-police-investigation-into-scott-mills-in-2017-13526088

I daresay the Police and BBC are duty bound to listen and act on new information no matter how historic.

As I suggested, new information was what led to him being sacked.
news.sky.com/story/bbc-knew-about-police-investigation-into-scott-mills-in-2017-13526088

From the BBC News website today:

In a statement, a BBC spokesperson said: "Scott Mills had a long career across the BBC, he was hugely popular and we know the news this week has come as a shock and surprise to many.

"We also recognise there's been much speculation in the media and online since Monday. We hope people understand that there is a limit to what we can say because we have to be mindful of the rights of those involved.

"What we can confirm is that in recent weeks, we obtained new information relating to Scott and we spoke directly with him. As a result, the BBC acted decisively in line with our culture and values and terminated his contracts on Friday 27 March."

The spokesperson added: "Separately, we can confirm the BBC was made aware in 2017 of the existence of an ongoing police investigation, which was subsequently closed in 2019 with no arrest or charge being made. We are doing more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC at this time."

AS I said, badly handled.

Flippin2

FriedGreenTomatoes2
I'd said to son earlier I bet it's historic,why don't these people make allegations at the time ,why wait ? and if it's not proven to be true then what,I abhor this coming out of the woodwork stuff

Allegations are often not made through fear.

It is always likely that someone may have pictures/videos that they do not want being made public, also these “celebrities” are very capable of grooming and blackmailing.

The young man in the Huw Edwards case was clearly groomed.

I have read through the BBC’s safeguarding policy, if any member of staff suspected something and did not report it then they should be also sacked.

Because there is a process for dealing with misconduct, this seems to have been ignored, no reasons given for an abrupt dismissal, leaving speculation rife.

Another example of 'trial by media' Paperbackwriter .

Why on earth are we all speculating about a person none of us know anything about?

This has been handled very badly by the BBC. If Scott Mills' dismissal relates to the charges in 2019 this should have been investigated and then the relevant information released, rather than allegations made via newspapers and the BBC quoting the Met but seemingly without proper confirmation. If the reason is something else this should be clarified, even if details cannot yet be released.

Thanks icanhandthemback for saying exactly why some charges are historic and why sadly some are not charged at all.
💐

I’m so sorry to hear that, icanhandthemback. Thank you for sharing - maybe your post will make some of the doubters realise that things outside of their own experience do happen.

Judges advise juries they without corroborative evidence of the child’s allegation it’s unsafe to convict