Scott Mills sacked

[Ihateboris]

Link here. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckge1yn50y8o
Very happy as I can't stand him

Or the victim could have simply told the BBC that they are going to the press about their underage relationship with SM that the CPS decided not to prosecute at the time.

The BBC probably has plenty of clauses in their contracts that protect them from continuing to contract with someone who is bringing the organisation into disrepute.

People have been sacked for a lot less (GL) and the last thing the BBC wants is the presenter of their R2 flagship breakfast show plastered all over the front pages for fucking a 15 year old. Regardless of whether he was charged for it or not.

Which is precisely what I said - we cannot say if he is guilty or not, we do not know either way. But the argument that 'he must be innocent because he was not prosecuted' is incredibly weak. Many cases, even with evidence, do not end in the prosecution of an abuser. It's horrific. So whilst people may want to believe that Mills is innocent, as I say, I don't know the man or listen to him, so I have no feelings either way, that's grand, but we need to not forget that a lack of prosecution does not mean a lack of crime when it comes to rape and sexual abuse.

The BBC are trying to appear impartial but it just appears awkward. They want to appear as though they are not marking their own homework even though they are!

They do similar with the Newswatch programme. Viewers comment on BBC news coverage and the usual reply from the BBC is trying to justify their choices rather than reflecting on how they could do things differently. I have noticed that it is improving and they are taking more criticism on board but there is still room for a lot of improvement!

Obviously.
I mean in terms of it already having been investigated and closed

There is no statute of limitations for rape, sexual assault etc. Theoretically, the CS could still bring charges relating to this matter if they deemed there was a reasonable chance of conviction / in the public interest.

Practically, one would expect there to be a change in the information or evidence from the position in 2019 when they declined to proceed with charges.

What, you think that HR departments liaise with the police and CPS???

At the moment this can be discussed on radio 2 (but the producer in Vine right now will be sh*tting themselves) as no sub judice concerns. No ongoing police investigation or criminal proceedings.

I work in fairly large organisation and know of two men that have been instantly dismissed but had not committed a crime that would see them arrested (using work IT to view porn at work).

The BBC bar is obviously pretty low so SM must have done something very wrong. He could have groomed a work experience kid or one at the radio 1 roadshow, who knows?

Couldn’t agree with this more. I know closely a person who was falsely accused by someone with a long history of unproven and malicious allegations against others and severe mental health issues, including suicide attempts and being sectioned. It’s very easy to say, ‘believe all alleged victims’ when you’ve not had the misfortune of being involved with someone like this, or not had the misfortune of being falsely accused.

We shouldn’t be deciding someone is guilty when the police / CPS themselves did not charge him as it didn’t meet the evidential test!

For him to be sacked it either means it’s serious OR he’s breached employment conditions. Possibly both.

If he has a clause in his contract about disclosing in full past matters that may bring the organisation into disrepute and he has not declared this in full then per is contrat it would likely be gross misconduct.

He doesn’t need to have been to court and found guilty for his employer to dismiss him in that basis as long as they have followed their correct internal procedures in doing so.

it’s been said earlier in the thread but the criminal law aspect is separate to employment terms.

Anyway, regardless of exact circumstances, it seems like the BBC have learned to pull their finger out and act. At last!

ooh under 16 .. not good. on Vine atm.

Again, I do see what you're saying. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think it's fair to sack someone just for being questioned by the police when no charges were brought. Because that's what it sounds like it boils down to – Mills was questioned under caution, no charges were brought, but because the complainant in question has come forward again, the BBC has panicked and sacked him.

In your case your organisation would have had direct physical proof themselves of gross misconduct conducted by their employee in the workplace.

This is wildly different in terms of the historic element etc.

Believe me - the BBC will not have taken action that is not legally justifiable here.

Home Office statistics for the year ending March 2024 indicated that the proportion of rape offences assigned a charge/summons outcome was 2.6%.

Not meeting the CPS evidential test does not mean that a crime was not committed.

The CPS has an appalling record for prosecuting sexual offences.

And I say that as someone who does know someone who was falsely accused. It was awful for them, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of sexual abuse cases are not brought to charge due to false accusations.

But you have no idea if this is exactly what happened. We don't know, that's the point. We have no idea why they have sacked him now. They know more than we do so we cannot surmise what has happened. What we know is that Mills was investigated 10 years ago for sexual abuse of a minor and it didn't go to court and now it is being reported that that is some how related to his sacking. That's all we know. You cannot make the statement you have because we don't know that the BBC have just randomly sacked him now because they have panicked. We have no idea what the finer details are.

Well, you'd hope so, but this is BBC we're talking about. Doesn't have the best track record on legal matters.

This is precisely what I said, and as I said upthread, I too know someone who was falsely accused. The idea that 'no case means no crime' is a really weak one and very damaging to victims.

Interesting legal takes on this:-

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/scott-mills-bbc/

True, but this is the BBC that lurches from one HR crisis to another when it comes to its big name talent. You assume it's done due diligence but there's no guarantee.

He apparently died when SM was 26, which would have been 1999 I think. So during the period the alleged offences are alleged to have happened. But if you are correct he was 21, he wasn't the alleged victim.

That's a good article and makes the point that those of us who are lawyers have been making on this thread - the distinction between those who are employed and those who are contractors.

The majority of cases aren’t brought to prosecution because ultimately, in most cases, there isn’t any objective evidence and it’s one persons word against the other. We have to trust the police and CPS have investigated thoroughly and decided there is no realistic prospect of conviction.

That doesn’t mean we blindly believe all victims or believe all alleged perpetrators are innocent. It means we don’t know. People shouldn’t be sacked on the basis of an ‘I don’t know.’

That is all we can do. We are not party to any information right now, so no one here should be arguing to his innocence or guilt. We do not know; all we know is that he has been sacked due to misconduct and that it is somehow linked to this previous case. We may be given more information in time, or we might not. But you cannot say for certain that he is innocent or guilty.

we cannot say if he is guilty or not, we do not know either way. Which is why a national phone in - about him! Is entirely inappropriate. Sure, sounds like he is bang to rights if the latest new reports (and indeed his sacking) suggest. So why are we having a phone-in centering him? Report in the news, fine. Hearing what Colin from Cleethorpes 'makes of it'? Not so fine. Especially for the victim (how many times do they have to hear 'serious sexual offences' ad infinitum?)

(Vine talking about how painful it was for everyone at R2 to hear. How much Scott was liked, etc. Steve Chalke talking about 'grief' around Scott. How he couldn't sleep last night ... Vine talking about 'no crime'. Gosh, if I was the victim or family of, I would be pretty fed-up so far. Surely better to wait until they know what is true before they start inserting themselves in the story and replaying it for entertainment and speculation).