Why the BBC did not disclose the boy's age yesterday?

[ProudAmberTurtle]

Why did the BBC try to cover this up?

Breaking news - The BBC has confirmed the boy at the centre of the Scott Mills allegations was under 16, amid speculation that he came forward due to the Huw Edwards TV drama which came out last week.

What difference does it make that it came out today or yesterday – the CPS still found insufficient evidence to prosecute back in 2019.

Because until the police confirmed the age, and that it was ok to release it, to them it wasn’t their place to do so.

The BBC apparently knew about this as it concerned his time at Radio 1.

Odd to have promoted him last year when they knew this about his past.

Clearly new info has come to light and it's all because..

Of the Huw Edwards documentary.

You mean the BBC knew that he'd voluntarily been interviewed under caution by the police about historic allegations and that the CPS said the case shouldn't go to court, meaning that was the end of the matter in the eyes of the law? If there is new info, how can anyone be sure it's true, given the previous allegations were struck out?

As others have said, unless there is far more to this, we seem to be moving towards a country where being accused of something is enough to get you sacked, even when nothing happens from the accusation

How do you think two police forces carried out a three year investigation into abuse at Radio One studios without anyone at the BBC knowing about it?

They didn't cover it up they had no choice. They cannot release information like that about a minor until the police say it is OK to do so.

What do you mean? Are you saying Mills should have been sacked the minute he was accused?

Given the investigation at the time found he had no case to answer why is it odd?

Companies, BBC or otherwise, can’t go around firing people because they were investigated and found to have no case to answer.

So what's changed? Is he now likely to be convicted of the historic abuse?

Yeah, I have to say I am a bit confused as to what has happened. There were allegations ten plus years ago, that concerned something that allegedly happened in the 90s (is that right?) but the CPS said not enough evidence to bring a case, the BBC knew but didn’t sack him then, but they are sacking him now because, why? Is there a new allegation? Or is it because they’ve only just found out the details of the allegation - but even so, if there was no case against him, why sack him now? Have I misunderstood something?

So was mills sacked over this thing in '19 where they found not enough evidence to proceed and therefore no crime took place? But now there's more evidence in same case?
Or was he sacked over a different case/issue entirely?

I thought it happened in 2018/19 per the BBC article I read earlier, and 'new evidence has come to light'.

The BBC can know things without publishing, there is media law to follow and they'll have to wait for police confirmation about what details can be published.

Ah no it came to light in 2016, investigation closed 2019 but allegations were late nineties early noughties

Employers can't go around asking everyone who's been accused of something! They should've possibly suspended him while the investigation was being carried out.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. These allegations were not proven. What we do not know is why he was sacked (or possibly walked) now. Confidentiality is essential in these cases because there have been situations where people including djs have been falsely accused eg Paul Gambuccini. Time will tell with this case but the fact the cps dropped the case meant that the bbc would not have had any reason to sack him then.

Yes, that's what is strange about the timeline - if it was dropped in 2019 having arisen in 2016, due to lack of evidence/CPS not believing they'd get a conviction but related to alleged grooming between 1997-2000 then sacking him now simply means they have decided it brings the Beeb into more disrepute (based on accusations only) when Scott would have been 23 at the time. Age of consent for gay men was 18 not 16 back then. Assume lad in question has seen Power and thirty years later, been triggered by it, which is not unreasonable, especially if he was under 16. You are looking at an 8 year age gap. Although bear in mind at the time, with shows like 1999's Queer as folk celebrating Nathan/Stuart relationship with same age gap (Nathan was 15) it may not have been perceived by the alleged victim as having been groomed until years later. What is weird is that freelancers can be sacked on essentially Not Proven, which, iirc they were doing away with in Scotland.

I don't believe anyone has said that his sacking relates to those allegations. It could be that he was sacked due to something else entirely, but this historic accusations and police investigation has also just come to public light.

I agree. Im not saying that SM is innocent t or guilty but from what I have read on the news is that the police had insufficient evidence so dropped the case. I would think the correct procedure would be to suspend the individual pending an investigation. Unless they want an expensive wrongful dismissal case in their hands

The Mirror said last night it is related to those allegations.

It can only be that:

a) New information has come to light - in which case the BBC should have gone to the police

or

b) The BBC has decided to act now, perhaps because of the new DG, ten years after. This makes little sense though because he was cleared and therefore could and should sue the BBC

Either way it's not looking good for the BBC

Given the usual procedure is to suspend while further investigations are carried out I think something else has happened on top of the original investigation, Given the speed of things (employment law is not fast) he might have admitted something so no investigation needed.

All people should be afforded privacy unless or until they have been charged with something.

Trial by media utterly destroys lives and also increases the chances of a biased jury member.

The Mirror said last night it is related to those allegations.

The Mirror may have said it, but for now at least, the BBC are not saying it:

On Monday, it was announced Mills had been sacked by the BBC over allegations related to his personal conduct. The BBC has not given any further details over the allegations and it is not clear what, if any, role the police investigation played in his sacking.

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

If he has been sacked for disrespute ahead of a newspaper story coming up, I'd say there was a case for wrongful dismissal, given he was never suspended during the police investigation and was promoted last year.