What has Scott Mills done?

[PinkJ]

As above!

This explains why he got a bit teary and serious while interviewing Harry Styles the other week.

Oh, I love this!

Historic male relationship 10 years ago!

Like the lefty Beeb needs any help in disgracing itself !

Excellent. A personal message from a misogynist, who famously detects women of a certain age. Just what every mum wants!

And your not wrong on your other points either. I hope nobody is crazy or desperate enough to use his "services" .

If a teacher is dismissed for serious misconduct, it is referred to the TRA isn't it? And the outcome of hearings are published.

Because we pay for the BBC

Anything I was paying for, yes

You are paying g for bread
you are paying for radio programs

in both cases the company employs people to fulfil those things

yiu don’t own the people who work for the company

You pay for all public sector employees if you pay tax in the uk, but that doesn’t give you any right to access their personnel files in any way. What’s this entitlement waffle about needing to know why someone has been sacked? If it’s someone you don’t personally know or work directly with, you have no need to know anything further.

Rolf Harris was on the BBC

Thank you! I knew there'd been another big name bbc employee convicted and couldn't bloody remember who it was.

Gary Glitter: Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It (so not an employee but was always on there)

How do you know this?
Also, if it was consensual then so what! ( interns are above the age of consent).
If he did it on the bosses desk then maybe…

Because there’s a big power imbalance between a successful older presenter and a young intern. For the same reason organisations have rules against managers propositioning their teams.

I worked at the BBC.

For a flat out firing pretty much anywhere, it has to be a form of "gross misconduct"

It matters to me what organisations like the BBC are sacking people for these days. Its a useful barometer of where their values lie. As they have significant influence over the messages the public recieve, its helpful in gauging if the messages need to be seen in the context of organisational bias.

And if it's a sexual thing they'll be able to go on garden leave while receiving a massive salary until they're found guilty of said sexual crime at which point they won't have to pay anything back and they'll just be allowed to slip away rather than be sacked.

Or is that rule just for news readers?

You have no idea. Could be neither

well then the question would be, why shouldn’t it be public knowledge?

If you publicly sack someone, make the announcement publicly as breaking news it’s not unreasonable to think that people should be told why.

And the reality is that if it isn’t made public knowledge people will make their own deductions, which may not be anywhere near the truth but which may still have the ability to harm someone’s reputation.

Clearly whatever he was sacked for was serious, but if someone is sacked for e.g. addiction issues, people have a far different view of that than when someone is sacked for downloading disturbing images such as in Hugh Edwards’ case.

That’s a politician’s answer to why you want to know the gossip.
Please don’t try and spin it into some kind of interest in organisational change, it’s quite clear a number of posters on here want the gossip and have no respect whatsoever for families of the people involved or that it’s a pretty difficult day for friends and colleagues of people involved…of which, there are none posting on here if they are true friends.

If it was only in his private life he wouldn't have been sacked. It must have been something that was either done publicly or would come out and give the BBC a bad name. It must have been in some way work related. Even if it was talking to people on SM who were 'fans'.

I'm interested in why the BBC are sacking people these days for the reasons I've given. Please don't presume to know my mind, its arrogant and absurd of you given we are strangers.

Exactly, there is no entitlement to anything yet and there may never be. Those people screaming for it want to indulge themselves in the usual public pile on and shaming. Like they probably did with Caroline Flack. Look where that ended.

There is a reason to circumspect with how and when information is released. Because quite frankly the public at large go wild with it and it has serious consequences.

Some of the these posters would be clucking with their knitting by the hangman or guillotine.

I’d say as licence fee payers we have a right to know why he was sacked, but we don’t have a right to go fully into his personal life. Some people are wrong uns, but even they have some right to privacy.