Taking what seriously though?

Being coy about the ins and outs of what’s driving these decisions is hardly making the broadcasters look any better given the only solid information we have is a two-decade-old investigation that did not lead to anything. So it’s not like they can’t just come out and say why they’re doing what they’re doing, they’re choosing not to.

It’s really very off that he’s certainly being treated like some sort of unsavoury criminal that needs wiping from media existence when he’s not actually been convicted of anything. I can only assume he is being investigated for something else now that we don’t know about yet.

Edited April 8Apr 8 by T Boy

I appreciate the BBC felt this was in the public's interest but I don't like how they've been drip feeding the information.

It just leads to speculation that could end up being more harmful.

It’s possible that the allegations we know about are just the tip of the iceberg and there was a lot more to the decision to sack Scott.

It’s also possible that the BBC are hugely overreacting to any whiff of sexual misconduct after having been criticised for being slow to respond to very serious allegations in the past.

Or there could be a bit of both. But not knowing anything feels unsatisfactory.

Thought she'd get it. Now who'll get Drivetime? OJ Borg maybe.