What has Scott Mills done?

Because they are cultural figures broadcasting and commenting on national radio. Their role is more complex than someone selling bananas . As such, I think we pay for them and they have connections and influence and I want to know my money isn't funding someone who claims to abide by rules and then doesn't follow them. I think it's much more complex than selling bars of soap ans biscuits and I want to know what they have done and how they have violated the trust I put in them as a license payer.

His legal standing is that he is innocent of a crime, morally maybe not so much - but we don’t know because we don’t know what he was accused of or the circumstances. Trial by public opinion is hardly reliable when so few details are in the public domain.

The low conviction rate is because most cases don't reach court, the primary reason being that the complainant withdraws. In this case, the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. That does not mean Mills was innocent, but he is not guilty in the eyes of the law.

Given how low the conviction rate is for rape I wouldn't assume that a lack of conviction meant innocence.

I think it's interesting that someone who works on reception for say DEFRA is held to a higher standard than someone handling millions and commissioning etc with public money for a public broadcaster

The courts have decided that civil servants are public officers, so that is not surprising. Elected officials, judges, police officers, immigration officers and prison officers are also public officers. There was a case in which a CofE bishop was found guilty of misconduct in public office but, since the bishop involved pleaded guilty, the courts didn't actually consider whether a bishop is a public officer. I suspect they would have found a bishop is not a public officer had he pleaded not guilty, but there is no way of knowing for certain.

The NMC fitness to practice reviews are published because doing so meets the test in GDPR for being in the public interest. Also, whether a nurse is referred to the NMC depends on the nature of the misconduct. A nurse may, for example, be dismissed for excessive sickness absence without being referred to the NMC. We have no right to know why a nurse has been dismissed if the case does not reach the threshold for an NMC referral.

The reasons for the BBC dismissing Mills may be interesting to the public, but it does not meet the test for being in the public interest. The BBC would be in breach of GDPR and liable to pay Mills substantial compensation if they released the reasons.

And he wasn’t charged, and we don’t know the circumstances of the allegation (rightly so). Do we limit the careers of everyone accused of a serious offence, or just those in the public eye?

But the case was dropped, the CPS decided no case to answer.

Seems awful to think it could be totally false allegations and he's now had his career ruined.

Unless there is more, I'm assuming there must be more to it.

The allegations were of serious sexual assault against a teenage boy

That's interesting as I work for a government ministry and directly know about a situation where an administrator was charged under this legislation for not declaring a second income they hadn't reported it under conflict of interest, the side hustle was not related to the main line of work in any way, but they were fired and charged by police

The courts have decided that, in deciding whether someone is a public officer, the courts must ask three questions:

• What was the position held
• What is the nature of the duties undertaken by the employee or officer in that position
• Does the fulfilment of those duties represent the fulfilment of one of the responsibilities of government such that the public have a significant interest in the discharge of the duty which is additional to or beyond an interest in anyone who might be directly affected by a serious failure in the performance of that duty

If the answer to the third question is no, the individual is not acting as a public officer. In the case that set this test, it was decided that a paramedic is not a public officer. It is impossible to say for sure until someone is prosecuted, but my view is that the courts would probably decide that BBC executives are not public officers.

This! But then they didn't care about Savile or Harris or Stuart Hall in the past. They've never changed.

We don’t know what the allegations were, or on what basis the BBC made their decision so can’t really say whether the BBC were right to sack him or not. We also don’t know if the BBC did got to the police, why it’s surfaced now or anything else, just lots of speculation.

Gone to the police about what? He's been investigated by the police and released without charge.

And what have they covered up? Unless there is more to this, he is innocent and so there is nothing to cover up.

In what way?

Then the BBC shouldn't have sacked him but should have gone to the police.

There is no outcome here in which the BBC looks good by trying to cover up yet another scandal

Because innocent until/unless proven guilty is an important principle.

What about the suits though? They are responsible for spending large amounts of public money on behalf of the government, the BBC operates under a Royal Charter and a Framework Agreement with the government, which constitutes its fundamental operational and governance framework. That agreement is with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and sets out the BBC's funding, public purposes, and regulatory duties.

I love a bit of outcome and hindsight bias.

Just scanned this threat, strangely not surprised by the comments, speculation, "well it's allegedly because.....", we have a right to know!....(which actually you dont to allow fair process)

I hope the opinions, speculation and bias on social media dont harm any genuine investigation that might occur.

i guess they have changed their boundaries,

The BBC must have known at least two police forces had investigated Scott Mills over this 'relationship'.

Why on earth did they appoint him as the presenter of Britain's biggest radio show?

They also knew about allegations against Huw Edwards when they made him the face of the BBC. It's such odd decision making.

And in the real world, nobody gives a fig.

A public office involves acting on behalf of the government or public, such as regulatory or executive functions.
Hosting a morning chat show? I don’t think so.

It's a bit different I think because of their role. They have a cultural significance and influence. It's not just any old public sector job. Technically I think you ar4 correct, but ir is more complex than just the technicalities. There are other dimensions to working at the BBC.