Great to see. Some bosses think getting rid was a mistake and there is nothing they would dare do to punish his work mates who are standing by him. Once he clears his name I can see him on Bauer Media somewhere. Maybe somewhere like Heart and back in his old afternoon slot.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Great to see. Some bosses think getting rid was a mistake and there is nothing they would dare do to punish his work mates who are standing by him. Once he clears his name I can see him on Bauer Media somewhere. Maybe somewhere like Heart and back in his old afternoon slot.
Well, an article written by his PR would say that, wouldn't it? It conveniently doesn't mention his statement. Who represents Rylan, Zoe, Vine etc. - is it the same agency as him? We know that celebs aren't personally doing everything on their social media.
If he was innocent of multiple, serious sexual assaults against a child, he could have cleared himself very easily (in the court of public opinion, at least) by putting the words "I didn't do it" in his own statement.
But he didn't.
If any part of the allegations were incorrect, his lawyers would have approved him saying that they were untrue or false.
But he didn't.
The police stated multiple offences, yet he minimises it to one. He didn't say that there's no evidence - he confirmed that there is evidence! He didn't put a single word of denial in his entire statement.
Friends supporting him is irrelevant. People who commit sexual offences against children will deny and lie to everyone about it. And most people don't like to think the worst of others.
I sympathise with fans who feel deceived, but when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Also, any talk of him suing the BBC is meaningless. Walliams sued and won over the leaked audio in his dismissal - is there anyone on Tattle who doesn't still think that he's a wrong'un?
If he was innocent of multiple, serious sexual assaults against a child, he could have cleared himself very easily (in the court of public opinion, at least) by putting the words "I didn't do it" in his own statement.
But he didn't.
If any part of the allegations were incorrect, his lawyers would have approved him saying that they were untrue or false.
But he didn't.
The police stated multiple offences, yet he minimises it to one. He didn't say that there's no evidence - he confirmed that there is evidence! He didn't put a single word of denial in his entire statement.
Friends supporting him is irrelevant. People who commit sexual offences against children will deny and lie to everyone about it. And most people don't like to think the worst of others.
I sympathise with fans who feel deceived, but when someone tells you who they are, believe them.
Also, any talk of him suing the BBC is meaningless. Walliams sued and won over the leaked audio in his dismissal - is there anyone on Tattle who doesn't still think that he's a wrong'un?
They may very well have been warned, but told the BBC to get lost. They can't sack all of them - Rylan, Sara, Jeremy Vine et al.
I don't really know what to think anymore to be honest. The statement was a bit odd with no denial, which initially made me think there must be something to it. But if he is suing, would he really do that if he didn't think he had a chance of winning? And also noone else seems to have come forward with any other stories about Scott Mills, whereas with the likes of Huw Edwards, there were quite a few.
I dont think he can say “I didn’t do it” in a statement because it’s probably a legal matter where he is advised not to comment. Plus it would set people off on what “it” was now there’s an admission there was “something”. So I don’t read anything in to that.
Apart from that I’m not going to condemn him -yet. Let’s see what comes out.
Apart from that I’m not going to condemn him -yet. Let’s see what comes out.
Well gregg said he was suing the BBC
Then he didn’t, mainly coz he didn’t have any grounds
Exactly
Again - it doesn't have to be more than one person to make it a crime/issue. It could be that others haven't come forward, or it could be that whatever it was was a one-off especially given Scott's comparable young age at the time. It doesn't really matter.