Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

Both are age restricted locations.

I think you’d better come right out and say it.

From the Daily Telegraph's article published this morning.

When I read it first it referred to the BBC journalist who had made a further information request regarding SM a year ago by name. And a little more detail. That has gone now - perhaps at her request.

Of interest here is that the original complainant not being happy with decision not to proceed to charge / trial. I (and some other posters) had speculated on first thread that perhaps the evidence was deemed insufficient because there was no complainant cooperation / he's retracted his statement but that seems not to be the case.

"The initial allegation was made to Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary in December 2016 and then passed to the Metropolitan Police.
Mills was accused of serious sexual offences between 1997 and 2000 against a teenage boy who was under 16. He was interviewed under caution in July 2018 and a full file of evidence was passed to the CPS, but the case was closed in May 2019 because of insufficient evidence.
The Telegraph understands that the alleged victim was unhappy with the decision not to bring charges. He requested a review of that decision, which also concluded there was insufficient evidence.
On Tuesday, the BBC apologised for not investigating separate allegations made against Mills last year."

So the case has been reopened again?

I don’t read that quote in that way.

I am now confused.com

Nothing in the article to suggest that, no?

All it is seems to be is allegations. He will probably sue for damages.

Also of interest (and grim):

between 1997 and 2000 against a teenage boy who was under 16.

there was conversation earlier on this thread about the boy maybe being over 16 by 2000. This wording suggests not.

I don’t think the wording is definitive either way.

The boy (now man) in question has - rightly - not been identified. Being specific as to his year of birth would be a piece in a patchwork identification.

Sue who for damages?

The facts have been made clear - an investigation was undertaken and the CPS deemed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute - both on their first assessment and on a review requested by the young man in question. Scott Mills hasn’t disputed that the CPS did this.

They have nothing to prosecute with that's why. No crime took place as far as the evidence actually shows. He may well sue both the police and the BBC.

On what grounds would he sue?

Unfair dismissal. As for the police I'm not sure, but they have wasted the CPS time.

i imagine the police would argue that the CPS decision wasted their time…

Inappropriate relationships rarely happen as a one off, I’d argue he’ll sit quiet so nothing else about his personal life comes out.

Eh? The police haven’t wasted the CPS’s time. It’s the job of the CPS to assess a file of evidence for likely success in court.

So, no grounds for Mills to sue the police, then.

Regarding unfair dismissal, as per my post above, everyone in this process will be taking legal advice and I imagine the BBC have taken a view on the risk of this and whether or not a tribunal claim is a significant risk and if a settlement to avoid this risk was required.

You can’t fire someone for allegations.

I'm pretty sure the BBC will have lawyered up.

That is what the BBC have done though, is it not?

He wasn't charged with anything.

It is what the beeb have done and yes @murasaki they’ll have lawyered up.

I used to work with an employment lawyer, may text him.

The BBC has a code of conduct, which it updated last year post Huw Edwards, Gregg Wallace etc. It can require staff to comply with that code of conduct, particularly around bringing the employer into disrepute, and it doesn’t have to reach a criminal standard of proof to do so.

If I walked into my office building and said “hello, bitch” to the receptionist every day, I wouldn’t expect to be charged with anything but I wouldn’t expect to keep my job for long either.

Put the point is Sheila, he was not at work.

OK - if I was a public face of the BBC and walked into my local cafe and said “hello, bitch” to the waitress every day, I wouldn’t be surprised to have someone tell the Beeb I was doing that and for there to be consequences at work.