What has Scott Mills done?

[PinkJ]

As above!

Get over yourself

He was sacked because of "allegations" abiut his personal conduct.
An allegation is an allegation. I didnt think people could be sacked for an allegation these days? Should he not have been suspended pending an enquiry/court case?

If council employees are breaking the law then yes you very much do have a right to know

First item on the news. Even thougn Trump is busy trying to start World War3. I've never even heard of this Scott Mills

Seems to be a pattern from the BBC. Probably cracking down on any allegations with key public figures - must be true and have evidence if sacked. I’m sure it’ll all come out in the wash!

I am a shareholder in some companies. That does not give me any right to personal information about employees or ex-employees.

The charter does NOT say that the BBC is accountable to licence payers. It does require the BBC to observe high standards of openness and seek to maximise transparency and accountability. However, the BBC is not exempt from GDPR. Making a public announcement about the nature of the allegations against Mills is likely to be a breach of GDPR. That doesn't mean we won't find out, but thinking there is some kind of duty on the BBC to tell us is simply wrong. As far as the law is concerned, they are more likely to be under a duty to keep the information confidential.

Disciplinary records are considered personal data. The UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 prohibit public authorities from disclosing an individual's personal information unless there is a specific legal gateway or a compelling public interest that outweighs the individual's right to privacy.

Hopefully another nail in the coffin for the BBC and it's demise

🤣🤣🤣

Hence why I said an explanation without detail.

A top earner at a council being dismissed for serious misconduct would absolutely fall under the compelling public interest bracket.

Which is markedly different from the vast majority of "council employees".

Spot the GBeebies quarterwit...

"we"?

You might. Not everyone does.

Which is a distinction I made several comments ago when I said the equivalent to SM at your local council would be a face of the council, not your average council worker in Accounts Payable etc.

Do you think we should have known about Jimmy Saville? Do you rhink we shoukd have known that the BBC knew, and did nothing about it?

Or are you happy with cover ups.

What it is generally about is in the DM and the Mirror anyway

Seriously overpaid!!!

The explanation you've got (allegations about personal conduct) is about as far as they can go. If they are any more specific, that would probably be a breach of GDPR. They would have to show that there is a substantial public interest in releasing the information, which is not the same as it being interesting to the public. There is a specific list of public interest conditions in the relevant legislation. It is not clear that any of them apply (and most of them clearly don't).

problem there is, I wasn't replying to you in the first reply.

Do you enjoy the BBC, I don't but I have to have a licence for Sky and Live telly so I hope it does disappear.

Teachers' salaries come from public money. That doesn't mean that schools have to disclose why a teacher has been dismissed.

Unless he chooses to go to an employment tribunal, or a complainant goes to the police and a criminal charge is made, it is reasonable to be private.

As for publication of BBC salaries, nothing to do with public money and everything to do with those who wish to harm the BBC or reduce its reach.

Strongly disagree with @HoskinsChoice. We pay the licence fee which entitles us to know more.

No apostrophe needed in "its".