Whaaattt?

Not sure that's entirely fair; most of the men concerned over the decades have had big careers outside the BBC and before they joined the BBC.
It may be related to the type of character attracted to television and popular radio.

 

Really what I mean is they throw money at them because they are so precious they don't want to lose them.
That tends to lead to big heads.

 

I think it is just food colouring. It is not a flavour, like cherry or raspberry, as far as I know.

 

But if it is Breach of Contract, where does "allegedly" come in? Either it is or it isn't.

I just think sacking someone, rather than suspending them, for some "alleged" personal conduct ignores the complexity of these things. It's a "we wash our hands of you just in case" approach.

 

Scott Mills investigated in 2016 over sexual offence allegations against teenage boy

 

"Alleged" and "Allegedly" are the type of "weasel" words used to prevent you getting the arse sued off you.
We are on the outside looking in through a very murky glass and we do not have access to the same information that the insiders have; I'm sure the inhouse lawyers at the BBC spent the end of last week crawling over everything.

 

Trump is getting bored and might go home without the Straits of Hormuz reopening, as it's not his problem.

 

With a lot of people shouting about more drilling in the depleted North Sea, why is nobody mentioning fracking on land or digging new coal mines? Could it be that their electorate might not like the idea?

 

Thank you.

So, something that may or may not have happened between 1997 and 2000, and was reported to the police in 2016, and investigated by them with no charges brought, the case being closed in 2019, is somehow irking the BBC in 2026.

Maybe there's more to it, but as a rule of thumb, I don't like the "X may be guilty so we are detonating his career just in case" premise. The only previous time Mills has crossed my radar was over some very homophobic comments about Will Young after he came out, so I dislike the man on this basis alone, but even so I would defend someone's right be deemed innocent until proven otherwise, because anything else is the slippery "cancellation" slope.

 

I don't understand why any presenter is paid hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. Some, like Lineker getting over a million per year. For doing what? Either pressing buttons to get a piece of music to play, or reading an autocue and chatting.

 

The 300k figure was from before he started hosting the breakfast show on radio 2, his new rate won't appear until the bbc publishes figures for the current year but Zoe Ball was getting over a million I believe when she hosted the same show (although she may have done other work as well for the corp).

If the allegations are from accusations of sexual assault last century, which were investigated and then dropped nearly a decade ago, I don't see why it's an instant dismissal. We seem to live in a world where just being accused of something makes you guilty and that if no charges are brought, then you must have been lucky you weren't prosecuted for your crime.
I still remember the case of the student at university who was falsely accused of rape, dragged over the coals for a couple of years before being proven innocent. Anyone can make an accusation because of a grudge and it just makes it so much harder for those that have suffered abuse to get justice.

 

Rewards for audeince share @KT53. Can't blame them for taking the money offered or even the Beeb for paying so much given the competition from other broadcasters. At least Lineker used his popularity and public presence to express ethical opinions on government and other misbehaviour.

 

It is his problem, high oil and gas prices are also affecting the US, as everyone keeps saying when talking about drilling in the North Sea, its global prices.

 

I assume we have very little use for coal these days as we have shut down all our coal fired power stations, as for fracking, that wont be tolerated tiny country, over populated, green lobby.
Norway seems to be getting gas out of the North Sea, as I believe we are buying it off them.

 

Well, he expressed his opinions, which may well differ from the majority view and be highly influenced by his position of financial ease. Because he had a public platform, he was able to air these as though they were absolute truths, rather than just his take on any matter, regardless of whether he had skin in the game. His fame made his voice louder. Whether that is a good thing is open to debate.