Do the BBC ever get it right? Horrible under reaction for Saville and Edwards, and now a massive overreaction for Mills.
CalicoCatRobot on
>The BBC confirmed on Wednesday it knew about the police probe in 2017 but sacked him after receiving “new information” in the weeks before he was dismissed.
I hope the “new information” was not just that a tabloid was about to run a story on it and they panicked and over corrected – it won’t save them from the criticism of those who want to criticise them regardless, and it just makes more people think they are hopeless at HR.
Without knowing all the context its hard to know, and I’m guessing neither side will want all of that pored over in public (not that it often stops it happening anyway). We may find out more if he decides to take them to a tribunal for unfair dismissal.
BurmeciaRains on
What’s crazy is apparently this, like Huw, was an openly known secret amongst staff. Why is the BBC so consistently hiring noncey figures.
Snail-on-my-tail on
I’m baffled- the BBC isn’t a court of law.
Either the allegations are true, and Mills should be convicted, or they are not and he should have his job.
I’m confused why allegations about an incident 30 years ago, that has been dismissed by the police 7 years ago should now lead to him losing his job.
I can only imagine new evidence is coming out… in which case the matter should return to the police. Seems inappropriate for me for the BBC to be playing judge.
Am I missing something?
Impossible_Form_3256 on
> In a statement, Mills said: “The recent announcement that I am no longer contracted to the BBC has led to the publication of rumour and speculation.
>”In response to this the Metropolitan Police has made a statement, which I confirm relates to me.
>”An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully cooperated and responded to in 2018.
>”As the police have stated, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which determined that the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges.
>”Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed 7 years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter.
>”I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues, and my beloved listeners, who I greatly miss.”
[deleted] on
[deleted]
[deleted] on
[deleted]
Wise-Youth2901 on
If the BBC are confident in their decision, tell the public exactly what new information led to him being let go. The BBC are literally covering up the exact truth of the situation. You can’t fire someone, link it to a investigation about the abuse of a minor (which was deemed not strong enough to take to court) and then say absolutely nothing about the new information that apparently they have. Scott Mills is having his reputation dragged through the mud because of this. They deserved to be sued. And if the information they have is concrete, get it out there. Tell the public. If they don’t, it looks like they’re encouraging damaging rumours.Â
AI-Slop-Bot on
Telling that he doesn’t claim innocence and speaks of legal thresholds not being met by the evidence rather than denying any behaviour.
QuirkyWish3081 on
I think the new Director General wanted him gone and break contract and he used this as leverage. Simples. If he’s never been charged and found guilty then I’m sorry he keeps his job because people lie. Not every victim is telling the truth. It’s a nonsense to think this is always the case.
Few_Calligrapher_764 on
In 1997, would the age of consent for gay sex not have been 18, so the person could have been 17? He would have been 24. It’s not ideal but it’s not a wild age gap. The age of consent wasn’t lowered to 16 until later I think?
According_Koala_7798 on
Yes I understand the law but abuse sounds forced and aggressive. Just use the word in the article rather than embellishing it for effect, it is a sexual offence.
Back_passage45 on
My issue with this is that the criminal law hasn’t changed and employment law may not have changed but it seems that anything which is brought to light in any way, even if it only amounts to a journalistic re-hash of what the BBC and police knew previously now precipitates a very different reaction from the BBC.
The idea that any accusation or rumour leads to immediate dismissal seems pretty unfair unless there is the person represents an active threat to a third party. Surely suspension, investigation and following due process is more appropriate.
13 commenti
Do the BBC ever get it right? Horrible under reaction for Saville and Edwards, and now a massive overreaction for Mills.
>The BBC confirmed on Wednesday it knew about the police probe in 2017 but sacked him after receiving “new information” in the weeks before he was dismissed.
I hope the “new information” was not just that a tabloid was about to run a story on it and they panicked and over corrected – it won’t save them from the criticism of those who want to criticise them regardless, and it just makes more people think they are hopeless at HR.
Without knowing all the context its hard to know, and I’m guessing neither side will want all of that pored over in public (not that it often stops it happening anyway). We may find out more if he decides to take them to a tribunal for unfair dismissal.
What’s crazy is apparently this, like Huw, was an openly known secret amongst staff. Why is the BBC so consistently hiring noncey figures.
I’m baffled- the BBC isn’t a court of law.
Either the allegations are true, and Mills should be convicted, or they are not and he should have his job.
I’m confused why allegations about an incident 30 years ago, that has been dismissed by the police 7 years ago should now lead to him losing his job.
I can only imagine new evidence is coming out… in which case the matter should return to the police. Seems inappropriate for me for the BBC to be playing judge.
Am I missing something?
> In a statement, Mills said: “The recent announcement that I am no longer contracted to the BBC has led to the publication of rumour and speculation.
>”In response to this the Metropolitan Police has made a statement, which I confirm relates to me.
>”An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully cooperated and responded to in 2018.
>”As the police have stated, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which determined that the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges.
>”Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed 7 years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter.
>”I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues, and my beloved listeners, who I greatly miss.”
[deleted]
[deleted]
If the BBC are confident in their decision, tell the public exactly what new information led to him being let go. The BBC are literally covering up the exact truth of the situation. You can’t fire someone, link it to a investigation about the abuse of a minor (which was deemed not strong enough to take to court) and then say absolutely nothing about the new information that apparently they have. Scott Mills is having his reputation dragged through the mud because of this. They deserved to be sued. And if the information they have is concrete, get it out there. Tell the public. If they don’t, it looks like they’re encouraging damaging rumours.Â
Telling that he doesn’t claim innocence and speaks of legal thresholds not being met by the evidence rather than denying any behaviour.
I think the new Director General wanted him gone and break contract and he used this as leverage. Simples. If he’s never been charged and found guilty then I’m sorry he keeps his job because people lie. Not every victim is telling the truth. It’s a nonsense to think this is always the case.
In 1997, would the age of consent for gay sex not have been 18, so the person could have been 17? He would have been 24. It’s not ideal but it’s not a wild age gap. The age of consent wasn’t lowered to 16 until later I think?
Yes I understand the law but abuse sounds forced and aggressive. Just use the word in the article rather than embellishing it for effect, it is a sexual offence.
My issue with this is that the criminal law hasn’t changed and employment law may not have changed but it seems that anything which is brought to light in any way, even if it only amounts to a journalistic re-hash of what the BBC and police knew previously now precipitates a very different reaction from the BBC.
The idea that any accusation or rumour leads to immediate dismissal seems pretty unfair unless there is the person represents an active threat to a third party. Surely suspension, investigation and following due process is more appropriate.