Scott Mills

[Tofino]

Winning a claim against the BBC for unfair dismissal / unfair process doesn’t actually clear his name though. It’s just a technicality.

He runs the risk of having all the details, including the actual age of the child that he was questioned over, aired in public. What’s he going to say - I told you ten years ago the child was 13/14/15 years old, it’s unfair to sack me now. That’s still not a great look for him.

Maybe he’s just hoping for a big settlement with no intention of it ever getting to court.

 

[DaniellaCruz]

Winning a claim against the BBC for unfair dismissal / unfair process doesn’t actually clear his name though. It’s just a technicality.

He runs the risk of having all the details, including the actual age of the child that he was questioned over, aired in public. What’s he going to say - I told you ten years ago the child was 13/14/15 years old, it’s unfair to sack me now. That’s still not a great look for him.

Maybe he’s just hoping for a big settlement with no intention of it ever getting to court.

You are right it will be all out in the open and it may be years old but its real people behind these stories. They will then have the possibility of telling their story or someone else speaks out and more comes out then the stories get rehashed constantly. Its easy for people to say go sue but once it does come out you cant control the narrative. The truth and then the rumours. Lawyers involved both sides and they want to win at any cost so its all exposed and then more can come out of the woodwork you didnt see coming. The stress and anxiety it will cause as its not just you and them its the public too. Celebrities have become like public property.
The BBC can afford the best lawyers it would be an expensive case.
The Public have little tolerence to forgive any wrongdoing and if its a crime its worse.

 

[HotesTilaire]

It’s a bit of a nightmare if the situation is as he says - he was investigated years ago, he disclosed the age to the bbc, no action was taken by CPS…then years later it blows up and he gets sacked.

If there was a complaint but it didn’t meet the threshold for prosecution then he’s stuck. He can’t clear his name but he isn’t tried or found guilty either.

 

[Periwinkleblue]

But there's the possibility (and nothing we know rules this out) that Scott, who DOES know what happened, what the interviews with police covered and possibly what the other party in this matter thinks and intends, believes his position will be better not worse if the facts came out.

His position now is pretty bad.

And he may prefer to be judged on his actual actions and behaviour rather than speculation.

Alternatively he may suspect when all facts come out that he won't be popular but that he is owed a financial settlement for various reasons and he wants the money even if his career is over in the mainstream UK media.

I was never convinced that the BBC had the legal right to terminate his contract.

My gut feel is that the speculation is much worse than the truth in all this and that the BBC were counting on no legal challenge.

In the eyes of the law he's committed no crime, was never even charged let alone convicted.

I'm not sure I'd go quietly if I lost my job and entire career without ever having been charged or found guilty of any crime.

 

[HotesTilaire]

He is really challenging that they knew about the age aspect all along, its Interesting if it’s true because then they are caught in a lie and will have to justify not taking action for years and years but then one day immediately sacking him.
It’s going to be hard to justify sacking him if they knew everything all along - it was either an instant dismissal situation or it wasn’t. Either it was not inkeeping with their values/could bring them into disrepute, or not.
If they knew all along, they chose to stand by him for years knowing it could come out as an allegation at anytime, so why the sudden sacking?

 

[Periwinkleblue]

He is really challenging that they knew about the age aspect all along, its Interesting if it’s true because then they are caught in a lie and will have to justify not taking action for years and years but then one day immediately sacking him.
It’s going to be hard to justify sacking him if they knew everything all along - it was either an instant dismissal situation or it wasn’t. Either it was not inkeeping with their values/could bring them into disrepute, or not.
If they knew all along, they chose to stand by him for years knowing it could come out as an allegation at anytime, so why the sudden sacking?

There's likely to be a lot about the BBC exposed.

Of course it's not a sacking, as he wasn't an employee, so the terms of his contract will be key but it's very unlikely the contract allowed for dismissal at will.

If their going for "bringing into disrepute" their three main difficulties are:

Is there ANY evidence SM did anything rather than was accused of something without evidence?

Why was it not a case for bringing into disrepute when they first found out but suddenly was (they've briefed it was when the age of the accused became known).

Was SM treated differently from others with contracts, IE was there a lack of consistency / fairness in BBC policy that amount to victimisation?

 

[HotesTilaire]

There's likely to be a lot about the BBC exposed.

Of course it's not a sacking, as he wasn't an employee, so the terms of his contract will be key but it's very unlikely the contract allowed for dismissal at will.

If their going for "bringing into disrepute" their three main difficulties are:

Is there ANY evidence SM did anything rather than was accused of something without evidence?

Why was it not a case for bringing into disrepute when they first found out but suddenly was (they've briefed it was when the age of the accused became known).

Was SM treated differently from others with contracts, IE was there a lack of consistency / fairness in BBC policy that amount to victimisation?

Unfair dismissal suggests he may have been an actual employee.

Any employee can be dismissed for gross misconduct. He was involved in a suspension and a meeting so they may have followed the necessary steps from the sounds of things. So yes it is dismissal, instantly, without notice, full investigation isn’t even always necessary.

Victimisation would need to be based on a protected characteristic, I don't think he‘s going to attempt to claim on that front. He might have been “victimised” but victimisation has a legal definition.

The whole point is whether they knew the age, or not. How can they defend the sacking if they knew for years?

 

[MarshMallowMonster]

Scott’s initial statement was not a denial it was rather ambiguous.

Suing the BBC for unfair dismissal? He ill need evidence that he informed them of all the details including the boy’s age.

What is impotent is his employment contract and if he has contravened anything he declared he would not do. Also of any consequences.

 

[Notworthy]

In the eyes of the law he's committed no crime, was never even charged let alone convicted. Not true, he hasn't been charged because there isn't enough evidence to justify a charge at this time, that could change.
Things have changed in the last few years, there's a lot that would have been either considered aceptable to the BBC or worth overlooking even 10 years ago that no longer are.
Someone new has come in, looked at this and thought nope, not acceptable.

 

[Bread]

Yes I think it's more likely that the new boss came in and said "not on my shift". Which I entirely understand.

 

[MarshMallowMonster]

I think it’s more to do with the boy / man now coming forward to revisit his case, after the Huw Edwards docudrama.

It’s also very possible that the case could be re-opened, imagine that? It’s a different era now, perhaps the case file deserves some scrutiny.

 

[Periwinkleblue]

In the eyes of the law he's committed no crime, was never even charged let alone convicted. Not true, he hasn't been charged because there isn't enough evidence to justify a charge at this time, that could change.
Things have changed in the last few years, there's a lot that would have been either considered aceptable to the BBC or worth overlooking even 10 years ago that no longer are.
Someone new has come in, looked at this and thought nope, not acceptable.

Sorry you're saying it's not true that in legal terms he's not committed a crime?

Can you explain this?

What country do you live in? In the UK a criminal record can include a caution, an arrest, a charge or a conviction. A crime is deemed to have been committed if a person is convicted.

Being questioned by police is not any of these things.

I'm interested to hear how it all works wherever you live (which is in your own head).

 

[eloise b]

This is just my thoughts but i think he was a consequence of the bbc's past inaction,because of their many previous failings they had to be seen to be doing something and i think scott was collateral damage.

 

[Very traditional]

To be taking legal action against the BBC I would think he has some sort of evidence that they knew previously. He must also be pretty confident that whatever it is that happened wasnt that bad or surely he would let sleeping dogs lie bather than risk making it worse?

 

[MarshMallowMonster]

New thread: https://tattle.life/threads/scott-mills-who.52655/

 

[Notworthy]

Sorry you're saying it's not true that in legal terms he's not committed a crime?

Can you explain this?

What country do you live in? In the UK a criminal record can include a caution, an arrest, a charge or a conviction. A crime is deemed to have been committed if a person is convicted.

Being questioned by police is not any of these things.

I'm interested to hear how it all works wherever you live (which is in your own head).

Charming

Here is where he is at, note the CPS didn't decide there was no crime but that the evidential threshold was not met.

For context

Official Home Office outcomes for the year to March 2025 show around 44% of sexual offences and 47% of grape offences closed due to evidential difficulties, far higher than for many other crimes and a key limit on prosecutions and convictions [1].

So your argument is that all those potential rapes didn't actually happen.

Not meeting the threshold does not mean that someone is innocent, it literally means it would be difficult to get a conviction based on the evidence. (which tends not to be available with sexual assaults strangely)