What has Scott Mills done?

[PinkJ]

As above!

Given how low the conviction rate is for rape I wouldn't assume that a lack of conviction meant innocence.

The low conviction rate is because most cases don't reach court, the primary reason being that the complainant withdraws. In this case, the CPS decided there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction. That does not mean Mills was innocent, but he is not guilty in the eyes of the law.

His legal standing is that he is innocent of a crime, morally maybe not so much - but we don’t know because we don’t know what he was accused of or the circumstances. Trial by public opinion is hardly reliable when so few details are in the public domain.

Because they are cultural figures broadcasting and commenting on national radio. Their role is more complex than someone selling bananas . As such, I think we pay for them and they have connections and influence and I want to know my money isn't funding someone who claims to abide by rules and then doesn't follow them. I think it's much more complex than selling bars of soap ans biscuits and I want to know what they have done and how they have violated the trust I put in them as a license payer.

This isnt true. Legally via our atrocious cps choices,police and criminal courts hes not convicted. This does no way mean he hasnt committed a crime. In name only does not mean innocence. A label is not always what matter when it comes to the charge,investigation and conviction of rape.

So worryingly wrong. The reason isnt people pulling out. And the cos choices again arent down to insufficient evidence more often than not. This is a primary important issue with how rape is atrociously treated,investigated,put through to court. Not just lack of evidence. Not jist insufficient evidence and definitely not mostly peolle pulling out. And even getting to cps with right handling is fucked. Then what "insufficient evidence in court" means is again woefully wrong.

I'm sorry to disillusion you but you are straight up wrong.

The widely quoted 6% figure is the proportion of reported rapes that end up in a conviction for rape (although it is actually lower than that at the moment). For cases that are actually prosecuted, around 55% result in a conviction. Around 60%-70% of reported rape cases in England and Wales are closed before it gets to court because the complainant withdraws support for the investigation.

No-one knows how many of those acquitted by the courts were factually innocent, but even if we changed the system so that defendants in rape cases were automatically convicted the conviction rate would remain below 10%. If we really want to improve conviction rates, we need to look at the reasons complainants withdraw and address those. Looking elsewhere simply misses the point.

The poster you are trying to correct is right. Legally Mills is innocent of any crime. That does not mean he is factually innocent. We don't know. Maybe he did commit a crime and there wasn't enough evidence to convict, or maybe the reason there wasn't enough evidence to convict is that he did not commit a crime. But as far as the law is concerned, he is innocent.

There are many other reasons why they don’t end in conviction. The issue of consent when it gets to court is massive.

There are, but with 60%-70% of cases failing to get to court because the complainant withdraws, that is the area we need to improve if we want to get more convictions. Anything else is just playing in the margins.

It's also important to differentiate between criminal law - where a conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt - and civil law - on the balance of probabilities. Whereas a single decision to not prosecute in criminal law could, in addition to there not necessarily being additional information about conduct, be used to make it highly unlikely a dismissal would stand, an employer can look at additional grievances, complaints or evidence of behaviour that does not meet the standard of criminality, but could be enough to evidence gross misconduct under employment law.

Employment law is also about what the employer reasonably believes. So even if an employee who is dismissed for theft subsequently proves their innocence in court, the dismissal will still be considered fair provided the employer reasonably believed that the employee was stealing, even though that belief was wrong.

Very true, although that opens up a whole can of worms about whether the 'reasonable belief' is influenced by negative perceptions of Protected Characteristics. It would make sense that a single incident that didn't go forward into prosecution could make HR reluctant to attempt dismissal, but that a number of incidents that aren't necessarily criminal could lead them to conclude that it's more likely that it would be reasonable to proceed with the disciplinary process to include dismissal.

‘The suits’? Doubtless if the DG was a an embezzler we would get to hear about it. Otherwise we shouldn’t expect to hear every detail of every HR case within every company.

The BBC could dismiss someone for failing to disclose that they are under a police investigation, if the contract provides for that. So even if there was no subsequent prosecution, that could be enough.

Oh come on

we are basically bullied into having a licence

it’s very much a public concern so we conjugate the corporation fittingly

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/rape-levels-of-prosecutions/

House of Lotds briefing on rape prosecution statistics. Unsurprisingly shows that @prh47bridgeis correct.

There is zero point pursuing it with the 50/50 conviction rate we have once it gets to court and it’s all down to the luck of the jury. Been through the process of it going to court with my child and would never ever recommend them doing it again. It’s not worth the gruelling process.

The BBC has taken action and obviously had grounds to do so. The rest is unknown and people speculating and asserting that 'they have a right to know' is unhelpful and quite frankly thinly disguised as people just wanting the gossip.

There are real people involved here, primarily any victim. Also, to an extent, SM himself and his family- no one actually knows what happened, which some people argue is a reason for full disclosure. It has been dealt with, whatever it is. SM has faced consequences in loosing the job he loves and his life is probably ruined. Legally, everyone is just guessing really and that is not okay. No one really knows what happened, when, where or with/if who so how is this helpful?

I liked SM, it is quite a suprise, but I am mindful that the BBC would not have acted without good reason. I, and everyone else on this thread, do not really know what this was and this is basically a witch hunt. What should be happening is that people accept they will never really know and move on as it actually is none of our business. This is unless those involved want to make it so.

There seems to be no massive cover-up (such as the comparisons to Savile and Schofield etc) everyone is shocked. People who hate the BBC can use it as a stick to beat them with. The BBC is a huge organisation, and gives the UK a lot of soft power globally- but because of the way it is funded is held to very different standards. ITV rehabilitated Ant or Dec, employed Schofield for many years until what was widely known came out in the mainstream media etc. etc. There will be other's in the public eye in the future who will face similar scrutiny, and I am not arguing this is wrong. However, trial by tabloid journalism and sensationalism is just about selling copy/website traffic.

Scott Mills is an entertainer. He isn't pronouncing policy on Cancer or drug use. he is hired/fired by the BBC and expected to abide by the rules. I don't view him as some BBC mouthpiece. He could be an extra in Dr. Who but his role is newsworthy and he has been let go. I don't need to know more.

Yeah, no one's interested. That's why the news that Scott Mills had been sacked was the headline story on BBC News, knocking the Iran War off the top spot FFS.

Doesn't mean we're interested. Just means the media assume their scandals are more important than world war.

@Missingpop, no one is defending this kind of behavior, but this is hear say and based on speculation fuelled by sensationalist media reporting. I am not defending Scott Mills, but neither am in a place to condemn him because I have no idea of the facts.

That he has been sacked proves nothing. In the past people have been suspended on full pay for months whilst investigations have been ongoing and they have denied wrong doing. I can only assume there has obviously been a breech in contract which has allowed the BBC to act swiftly. The rest is just speculation and gossip.

You'll note I said serious misconduct. And was replying to somebody who seemed to think it was all secret.