You can. If he is an employee of the BBC, the test is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond any reasonable doubt. So if there was some evidence of wrongdoing, that might have been enough for the BBC to dismiss. Or they could’ve just taken the risk and sacked him.
However, from my reading of the situation, I think it’s a case that he didn’t tell them at the time of his appearance before the Police and the CPS being involved and preparing a file about the case. If his contract contained provisions around telling the BBC of Police matters then could dismiss on the dishonesty angle alone along with the potential reputational risk.
We don’t know that. He’s been on CBBC, hosts Children in Need and was on Radio 1 which has a lot of children who listen and did Road Shows etc. The BBC even has basic criminal records checks for extras on shows involvig children and the BBC routinely does DBS checks and background checks on DJs because they are high profile. So Mills almost certainly had an enhanced DBS which has to be renewed every 3 years and will contain details of sexual abuse allegations involving children even if they didn’t lead to a conviction. This is because the whole system was introduced because of the Soham murders were Ian Huntley had been accused multiple times of sexually abusing minor children without being charged.
The BBC almost certainly knew about it, but they would have have carried out a risk assessment and because it was a single, historic allegation with no other allegations in intervening years suggesting a pattern of behaviour they must have assessed him as not posing a risk. He wasn’t like Huntley where multiple unconnected people had reported him, there was a pattern and his job involved situations where he would be alone with children and was in a position of authority over them. They would probably have also noted that the allegation took place during operation Yewtree when a lot of nutters, including Carl Beech, came forward and made unfounded allegations against public figures.
Either the BBC massively fucked up by not following its own, published safeguarding policy by not regularly checking him or they knew but assessed him as no risk but are now backtracking on their own assessment. I suspect it’s the latter.
Someone mentioned the balance of probabilities. Given the allegation was made about a time when internet use was not widespread and mobile phones were not as common, especially amongst under 16s, it wasn’t reported until almost 20 years after the alleged incident/s and a report not not made the BBC until 10 years later, it’s hard to see how the BBC could have made a meaningful assessment of the situation unless there was bombshell evidence, and if there was bombshell evidence there would have been charges in 2016.
I’m not surprised he’s taken legal advice. Unless there’s something huge we don’t know, it does seem rather unfair, and if there is something huge, why no charges in 2016? Yewtree was desperate to prosecute people to the extent they were pursuing sick, dying and very elderly men for incredulous allegations that saw Carl Beech jailed. They weren’t letting people off even if allegations only had limited evidence.
I doubt the rest of their high profile staff will be feeling happy either. They are now in a situation where anyone who dislikes them, is obsessed with then or is just a crank can make unproven, unsubstantiated allegations against them and they’ll be out of a job. That’s not a very comfortable situation for any of them to be in.
