BBC. Another one bites the dust.

[Elsa TLC]

Looks like the beeb are saying Scotty withheld key information from them so that is probably why they sacked him

You'd think that he would just slip a away under the radar on some sunny island full of kids, never to set a tip toe in England again.

But he put himself in from of millions knowing this day would come.

 

[Lirefighter]

Looks like the beeb are saying Scotty withheld key information from them so that is probably why they sacked him

You'd think they might have learned that it didn't go down very well when, Starmer used that very same excuse regarding, Mandelson.
Is there an echo in here!

 

[yorksbuilder]

The BBC needs shutting down now, they've had their day.

Crap telly, naughty presenters, robbing licence fee...useless.

I don't think anyone will actually miss the BBC if it was quietly closed down. Can we send the ex employees somewhere?

 

[yorksbuilder]

YOU brought up the subject of homesexuality, nobody else.

You're homophobic, or at least hyper-aware of it and other minority traits.

Yep. It's obsessed

 

[fillyboy]

I don't think anyone will actually miss the BBC if it was quietly closed down. Can we send the ex employees somewhere?

Epstein Island?

 

[Elsa TLC]

Epstein Island?

To much fun goes on and nothing sticks

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

OMG another one...

I also just read the "news" story that AMD is buying Intel.

Then I remembered the date.

 

[King Billy]

BBC knew about Scott Mills sexual offences investigation in 2017

The corporation also says it is "doing more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC".

www.bbc.co.uk

He was innocent, and remains so, until proven guilty.
He's never been charged, never mind tried.

 

[motorbiking]

It would depend if the beeb held their own investigation. It's easy enough for an employer to terminate someone who has not been charged if they find on the balance of probability there was grounds to terminate. Simply lying during the investigation, would be sufficient.

 

[King Billy]

It would depend if the beeb held their own investigation. It's easy enough for an employer to terminate someone who has not been charged if they find on the balance of probability there was grounds to terminate. Simply lying during the investigation, would be sufficient.

Yes, I agree.
But the timing and circumstances around the police disclosure of his suspected offence is very much open to suspicion.
If the employer was informed at the time of his arrest or accusation, (2017) and it was necessary to protect vulnerable people, then it would be justifiable.
But if the police disclosed further information recently, why didn't they disclose it previously? Why wait for 7 years to disclose further information?
And was the disclosure justifiable for public protection?
These are questions for Scott Mills to ask, if they're relevant.
But maybe he wants to keep his head down.

But as far as guilt or innocence is concerned, he was and remains innocent, until proven guilty.

 

[motorbiking]

Perhaps because the criminal investigation is no longer ongoing.

 

[King Billy]

Perhaps because the criminal investigation is no longer ongoing.

It was closed 7 years ago. Why wait for 7 years to disclose further information?
And why wasn't that information disclosed to the employer at the outset?

 

[motorbiking]

It was closed 7 years ago. Why wait for 7 years to disclose further information?
And why wasn't that information disclosed to the employer at the outset?

Imagine someone makes a claim against you that you sexually assaulted a child. imagine the police investigate and find there isn't enough evidence. Imagine that investigation becomes public to some extent. Now your employer's reputation is at risk and they rightly have the option to fact find. During the interview you claim the person was not underage. Imagine later your employer finds that is untrue. You have lied, I can fire you, even if there was no evidence to prove the original criminal act.

 

[King Billy]

Imagine someone makes a claim against you that you sexually assaulted a child. imagine the police investigate and find there isn't enough evidence.

I already agreed with that under some circumstance the employer can still dismiss you. But after this amount of time has passed?

Yes, I agree.

It doesn't answer my other concerns.

But the timing and circumstances around the police disclosure of his suspected offence is very much open to suspicion.
If the employer was informed at the time of his arrest or accusation, (2017) and it was necessary to protect vulnerable people, then it would be justifiable.
But if the police disclosed further information recently, why didn't they disclose it previously? Why wait for 7 years to disclose further information?
And was the disclosure justifiable for public protection?
These are questions for Scott Mills to ask, if they're relevant.
But maybe he wants to keep his head down.

But as far as guilt or innocence is concerned, he was and remains innocent, until proven guilty.

It was closed 7 years ago. Why wait for 7 years to disclose further information?
And why wasn't that information disclosed to the employer at the outset?

Imagine that investigation becomes public to some extent.

How can that investigation become public?
By some leakage by the police or the BBC?
There must surely be a duty for both the police and the BBC to respect the right to privacy, especially as the case was closed, 7 or 8 years ago.
Because the investigation was closed and no charges were brought, there may be a case of libel or slander, or other civil proceedings against them.

Now your employer's reputation is at risk and they rightly have the option to fact find. During the interview you claim the person was not underage. Imagine later your employer finds that is untrue. You have lied, I can fire you, even if there was no evidence to prove the original criminal act.

Yes I agreed already.
But why wasn't that information disclosed by the police 7 years ago, and why disclose it now, after 7 years have passed?

We're going round in circles without answers to those questions.
And for me, there are questions to be asked and answered.

 

[motorbiking]

We weren’t arguing, just discussing how he ended up here.

we often hear of minor celebrities being arrested and of course the accuser is free to say what he likes or his/her mum etc.