Scott Mills sacked

[Ihateboris]

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

It really is an interesting article. What some of the experts are saying is that it's feasible Mills could've been let go as a contractor on far less serious grounds than the BBC would have had to prove if he was an employee. So, the complainant could've come forward to say he was going to give an interview to the media – which is what a PP claimed was happening – and that alone was enough to get rid of him as a contractor.

They are discussing it on Radio 2 Jeremy Vine show & sound like they defending him as it was a long time ago!

But, again, we don't know that this is the reason WHY he has been sacked.
What we know:

He has been sacked due to misconduct
It is being reported that it is linked to the 2016 case.

That's it. Suggesting that the BBC have suddenly decided 10 years later to fire him just over that is making up your own narrative. So we have no idea if he was "sacked on the basis of 'I don't know'".

(I've turned it off now!)

What is bizarre is that there hadn't been rumours.

Like most people I'd heard Schofield rumours about the runner* for years and years from friends in TV. Same re Harris - in the 90s it being an open secret that he was never to be left in a room with a young female runner, MUA etc.

Edited for typo

BBC News headline:

Teenage boy at centre of Scott Mills sexual offences investigation was under 16, police say

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwykq2lqjw7o

yeah we know. That's been discussed all morning....

It wouldn’t be the first time.

I'm not arguing about his innocence, I'm arguing about the BBC's decision to sack him over a matter that was dropped in 2019. Either we accept legal decisions or we don't. I mean, what if my neighbour made a complaint against me for harassment and I was arrested but the case never proceeded? Should I be sacked just for being questioned by police? Where's the line in the sand?

And yes, I know we don't know the full facts. I'm just going on what the BBC itself is reporting – that he's been let go for personal conduct which relates to that 2016-2019 investigation.

Abandoning a presumption of innocence and instead assuming guilt based purely on allegations harms all of us - including female survivors of male abuse and violence who could lose their livelihoods on the basis of a malicious complaint falsely accusing them of being the abuser.

That is known to be a common tactic and we play into their hands if we move to a presumption of guilt.

The complainant wishes to speak out again following the Huw Edwards scandal.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15693913/Scott-Mills-faced-axe-Huw-Edwards-drama-inspired-complainant-come-forward-BBC-bosses-urged-reveal-knew-sex-offence-accusations.html

A lot of posters seem to be ignoring it.

But it might mean that they questioned him and he admitted it. Maybe he admitted to flirting with an under-16 or kissing one, but didn't touch the child sexually. Maybe he sent abusive texts to someone about the case - we don't know!! His misconduct might have been related to the case but not the actual crime he was accused of. You are saying that he has been sacked because he was accused, but without the details, you don't know what the 'relating' part was.

You could be right and they only just found out and decided he was too hot to handle, but maybe he did something that was unacceptable relating to that case that we are not party to at this point. You cannot defend what you don't know and vice versa. It is impossible to do so.

My take on this. It's quite likely there was a clause in his contract back in 2016 that said he had to inform them of any police investigation/arrest/question under caution. The BBC knew nothing about it until the alleged victim got in touch very recently. So that's probably sufficient grounds to terminate his contract. I guess there will also be clauses about personal behaviour/bringing BBC into disrepute, but I'm not sure (from what's currently in the public domain) that there's enough to sack him immediately if he were employed. But if his contract is for services through his production company, then employment law/employee rights don't come into it. So it may be that just the allegation in the press is sufficient.

It also potentially puts new context on his previous partners suicide - if he became aware that SM was cheating on him with an underage boy, could that have been part of the reason for his suicide?

Also, how many times has a celeb been outed like this with a single accuser, and then more victims come start coming forward? Not saying this will happen with SM, but there's a distinct possibility.

Which is why I have repeatedly said we cannot assume innocence OR guilt. I have not said he is either because we don't have any details and we don't know. And why I said that accusations also damage real victims. I have not presumed guilt so you don't need to quote me.

What I am pushing back against is the people who are saying 'He shouldn't have been sacked because his case didn't go to court therefore he did nothing wrong' - we don't know why he was sacked, we don't know what he was accused of, we don't know why he didn't go to court. We don't know anything so we cannot say if he should or shouldn't have been fired at this point, or if he did or didn't do anything wrong.

Really? Can you point to examples where they have been legally overzealous re conduct and proved wrong?

Tended to have been the other way, in my view? There is of course a chance they have overcorrected in this case (as Katie Razzel postulated on JV just now..). But they will be very aware that SM would have access to excellent legal representation.

Eh??

This is one of the most sensible posts today.

agreed

That's not what the article says. Rather that there are rumours within the BBC that the Huw Edwards drama MAY have prompted the complainant to come foward.

That's conjecture not fact. I did think the same myself that it seemed like a coincidence re timing yesterday but I have no proof of that.

There have been no statements by or interviews with the complainant about why they have come forward at this time or why they may have done so.

edit for a typo

Well they had to reinstate Tony Blackburn after sacking him in the midst of the Jimmy Saville mess.

Harris? Not Whispering Bob?

It also potentially puts new context on his previous partners suicide - if he became aware that SM was cheating on him with an underage boy, could that have been part of the reason for his suicide?

Mitchell Berger did not kill himself, as far as I know. He died of a drugs overdose, having been one of three men found unconscious at a flat in London - the two other men were saved. Neither of those two was Scott Mills, who was at the Brit awards event at the time Mitchell Berger was found.

It also potentially puts new context on his previous partners suicide - if he became aware that SM was cheating on him with an underage boy, could that have been part of the reason for his suicide?

That's a plot twist too far. He died of a drugs overdose after a night partying at the Brits with three other men.

Tony Blackburn was fired and then reinstated. My memory is hazy but I think it was due to knowing about Saville and not reporting. If they were consistently firing people for that they'd have had to fire their entire staff...