Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

Given the fact that many BBC employees are public facing, I imagine the code of conduct might extend to behaviour outside work.

Alternative scenarios:

BBC knows about 2016 allegations in 2017. Says: this isn’t great but it’s not gone to court. We’ll keep you on but if there’s any whiff of similar allegations in future, you’re out. BBC becomes aware of new allegations (as per Telegraph article) in 2026 = out.

New allegations as per Telegraph specifically breach the BBC code of conduct = out.

BBC asked SM previously or last week ‘are there any other skeletons we should be aware of?’ SM lies and doesn’t tell them about new allegations as per Telegraph = out.

Bringing your employer into disrepute doesn't just cover behaviour in the workplace. Especially not if you are a visible face, as Sheila says.

Right, I get you.

I’ve been thInking this - and so far nothing / no-one else has come forward with anything. That usually happens quite quickly in this sort of scenario.
All very strange.
Also, in their quote the police said they submitted a full file of evidence but the CPS decided not to prosecute due to the case not meeting the evidential threshold - this suggests the evidence presented was not of good enough quality, not quantity. And what is that quality defined as in a case such as this to enable a judge or jury to find someone guilty, when surely a ‘serious’ sexual offence against a minor is pretty cut and dried?

My guess fwiw is: there was sexual contact between SM and a 15 year old, CPS decided not to prosecute because there was no evidence of lack of consent and they tend not to go after people in consensual relationships when one party is just under 16. (Might be more likely these days of course, but sexual offences legislation has changed since then, grooming for example did not exist as an offence I don’t think.) The BBC knew he had been arrested but also that the case was dropped and assumed all good. Now they have discovered that although no prosecution, SM admits to a consensual relationship with an underage boy and this is enough for him to be sacked, if not prosecuted.

We have no idea if anyone else has come forward to the police or not - all we know is that there haven’t been reports of such a thing.

You can fire someone for allegations on the balance of probability, but only after a fair investigation has been carried out.

This thread keeps going round in circles!

An employer can sack you for many reasons. Being convicted of something or not isn't what makes the decision.

We don't know what specifically he was sacked for - i.e. could be lying; bringing the BBC into disrepute; not disclosing all relevant facts. I used to work for them, and we had it in our contract that we had to be careful about what we posted on social media

We also know the boy contacted the BBC, and therefore he possibly showed bosses the evidence/receipts, along with them finding out he was a 16yo boy.

And a fair investigation hasn’t been carried out.

Why would the police keep it quiet if someone else had come forward? I was a journalist for decades - the press would have found out

How do you know that?

Tim Davie (on the BBC website) has just said that SM was sacked last week - after they found out that the boy in question was under 16.

Well, since the initial investigation and constructing of an evidence file seems to have not made it to the press for a number of years, I'm gonna go with 'the press doesn't find out everything'

I have no way of knowing if anyone else has come forward, or will come forward (it's not been long, after all). What I'm saying is that neither do you, whatever your past journalistic credentials may or may not be.

Ooh I predicted this at 1610 🔮

Because he was suspended then sacked. An investigation takes longer than that, unless it happened before he was suspended and sacked. I’d expect there to be a statement if an investigation had been carried out.

It was in an article published 9h ago.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gv7yj71llo

If there was clear evidence that there was a sexual relationship and that the boy was younger than 16, I'd imagine that they wouldn't have to do much investigating before sacking him for gross misconduct

But the CPS closed the case due to lack of evidence.

No, insufficient evidence to convict him.
That doesn't mean there is no evidence, otherwise the police wouldn't have even passed it to the CPS.

As I said, gross misconduct could be due to anything at all relating to this - he doesn't need to be found guilty in court to be sacked quickly.

Quite - if, for example, Mills had used his work email to send messages to the boy arranging to meet him or had sent him tickets to a radio show taping or something, those could be misconduct without being evidence that would be weighty for the CPS.

It wouldn’t have initially gone to the press because it didn’t make it to court. That’s the point it goes public unless police put out a press release during investigation for whatever reason, or someone goes to the press with the story. In this case it seems the ‘victim’ has gone to either the police or BBC first. And actually, a journalist did make a past FOI request about SM.

As it stands, it’s been roughly a week and no other ‘victims’ have gone to or been sourced by the press - which is the first place anyone wanting revenge / money / to jump on the bandwagon will naturally go. And this is the hot story at the moment - the press will be all over it trying to find other ‘victims’.

Let’s see.

Makes you wonder about the BBC.

What does it make you wonder about the BBC, as opposed to other large organisations which end up employing a small proportion of men who have committed sexual misconduct?

it's a big company 25k employees with some newsworthy people.if Mlls had worked for a Bank or eg Octopus Energy we wouldn't have known. I'm sure we've all worked for businesses where X has left under a cloud. Here one day then gone with the management saying the least they can

Yep, they're a huge employer - with famous people on the payroll - so the misdemeanours or worse of their staff are much more newsworthy than other employers