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 is weird is that freelancers can be sacked on essentially Not Proven, which, iirc they were doing away with in Scotland.

Provided any notice period etc in a freelance contract is honoured/paid out, a freelancer's contract can be terminated for any reason or none (e.g. listening figures down, BBC has a chance to bring in a popular new presenter, Zoe Ball wanted to come back or whatever)

ETA I believe Scott Mills is (was) a salaried employee

I think it's worth doing a timeline as a few people seem a bit confused (understandably!) by the events:

• Scott Mills started working at Radio One in the late 1990s

• In 2016 an as yet unknown police force referred him to the Met to investigate allegations he had a relationship with a teenage boy who was under the age of 16 around the time he started working at Radio One. The timeline investigated spanned from 1997 to 2000

• In 2018 Scott Mills was investigated under caution

• In 2019 the Met felt they might have enough evidence to prosecute but the CPS threw the case out

You’re really determined to make this a failing on the BBC’s part…

How do you know the new information wasn’t given to the police by the bbc?

And if the new information was given directly to the police by someone else and the BBC have reacted accordingly how does that “not look good for the bbc”?

I’m far from excusing any untoward/illegal behaviour, but, as others have said, sacked with no proof?

Any one of us or our dhs or dcs could be accused of goodness knows what by a rival/enemy and I’d like to think that being fired wouldn’t be automatic.

Is it definitely the same boy though? Could be multiple victims

I do find it odd that the arrest was in 2019 and Scott Mills has only been sacked now. I think there is either new evidence or a second victim.

To be sacked for an allegation is not ok I agree, which is why I’m thinking there must be more to this

Something else has happened. The BBC rightly could do nothing at all over an allegation that was found not to be prosecutable.

For them to sack now makes one think something new has come to light.

Just because the CPS dropped it doesn’t mean he wasn’t guilty.

Yes it's worrying. Someone can be accused and not found guilty and still lose their job. Is he a scapegoat. I don't understand why now after this was years ago.

The BBC don't disclose anything! The chamber of secrets.

It is the police who have disclosed it. The police are the correct people to make the decision about the disclosure.

He is not employed in the same way you and I are. The BBC essentially contract Scott Mills Ltd. to provide broadcasting services. It's a lot easier to terminate that sort of contract than the fire an employee.

Because it’s about protecting the victim rather than satisfying prurient curiosity? Just a thought.

He may have done something else entirely ... e.g. bullying

Employers are not necessarily at liberty to disclose information about their employees / former employees. They have presumably taken legal advice on what they can and cannot say on this occasion.