What has Scott Mills done?

[PinkJ]

As above!

The Sun have reported that the BBC knew at the time that the police were investigating, so what's changed 10 years on? Wonder if there's more to come. Awful situation though, I met him a couple of times back in the late 90's in Southampton as he was friends with a few of my friends.

Indeed, but you have been arguing that you have a right to information that the BBC cannot lawfully disclose. I was therefore explaining the difference between a reference to the NMC and this case as far as GDPR is concerned.

I think years ago there were many people whose social status was very much intertwined with the fact they worked for the BBC. The BBC kind of ' elevated' quite a few people. It created a sort of class of its own in a way that no other British institution did. And I think many of those people wouldn't have been the type to want to get their hands dirty with such unpleasant things - becauae there was too much to lose in terms of reputation . Hence, things got swept under the carpet.

The latest seems to be that the BBC did know about the investigation at the time but the sacking relates to new information about his personal conduct...

I don't know the man, don't listen to the show but from a HR legal pov I'd be concerned about sacking someone over "allegations" and a police investigation that did not result in charges or prosecution. Innocent until proven guilty.

He's a contractor rather than an employee.

@YourMagentaCat , he was an employee.

He was not, hence the BBC's statement that he is "no longer contracted to work" with them - not the language of an employment relationship. In common with other high-profile broadcasters, it is likely he was engaged through a personal service company, through which he provided services under a contract for service rather than a contract of employment. That arrangement would have made it much easier for the BBC to get rid of him quickly.

Its certainly a tricky area, the police felt they had enough evidence to go for a prosecution, the CPS felt differently but prosecutions for sexual assault are very low in general let alone successful prosecutions. i think we don't have the full story, the BBC aren't going to sack their breakfast show host unless they're confident they need to do so.

Do you have anything to back that up?

hence the BBC's statement that he is "no longer contracted to work" with them - not the language of an employment relationship. which is probably why it was worded that way.

I don't know if he works via a personal service company or not, which is why I am asking.

It’s alleged that the ‘offences’ took place between 1997 and 2000, so over 25 years ago, he would have been in his ‘20’s. Apparently it was investigated by the police at the time and no action was taken. Should it be a sacking offence so many years later, the bbc were allegedly aware in 2017, so nine years ago and no action taken. It’s all a bit fishy.

The language around his contract being terminated is a strong clue. You don't say that about members of staff. You say they have been sacked. Also, the Guardian reported that he "seemed set to become a freelance 'lifer' at the corporation". The Guardian has strong ties to the BBC, so I would presume they are in the know on this. If he was freelance, he was not an employee. Then there is the simple fact that almost all high-profile broadcasters, whether with the BBC, ITV or whoever, supply their services through personal service companies rather than as employees. This gives them greater freedom to take on other work and gives them tax advantages. It also makes it easier for the BBC to get rid of them. If a presenter is an employee, they have to jump through a load of hoops to avoid a claim for unfair dismissal. It is much easier to get rid of a contractor.

His statement says that evidence was submitted to CPS but insufficient to proceed with prosecution. I would have felt more convinced if he had said "Hell no .... there is no way on earth I would do such a dreadful thing."

That does not prove that he was not directly employed by the BBC.

I can point to multiple other sources that say he was a freelancer.

Since the normal practice for high-profile talent is that they are freelance rather than directly employed, it is really you who needs evidence if you want to argue that he was an exception who was directly employed by the BBC.

@prh47bridge , I'm only querying it because you categorically said he wasn't.

His statement will have been very carefully crafted by lawyers and PR people to tread a line between saying something but nothing that could get him into more trouble.

I am sure you are right, but it could have included a statement that he did no such thing without incurring further trouble - as long as that is the truth.

And then people would pick that apart, come up with all sorts of rumours and stories and he’d be back in the frame again. Sometimes the best thing to say is nothing at all. I don’t know what he did or didn’t do. The people who do have that information decided he couldn’t be prosecuted, everything else is speculation and inference. He has a right not to feed that.

But if you are going to say anything (and saying nothing was also an option) at the very least say "I didn't do it".

Why? It just feeds the fire, particularly because there will always be people who want to dig or assume. Let’s be honest if he came out and said he didn’t do it there would be a pantomime style wave of “oh yes you did”. He’s sticking to what’s out there already, which seems fair enough in terms of people who aren’t connected to him and who have no right to the gory details of something that happened 30 years ago.

Better to say nothing ...

He will have had all the news organisations contacting him demanding a comment, so better to shut them up with a statement that says very little than to say nothing at all.

Disagree, even that very little will give the press and the public something else to latch onto and speculate on, it certainly would not shut them up, the more he gives, the more stick he'll get.

We have been given no information at all, which explains why he was let go at this stage. It would be utter lunacy for him to give us something to use against him. Why would anyone do that to themselves? He may as well give them a stick to beat him with in that case.

People just dont like the fact that it's none of their business.