What the actual duck is this???!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
are you actually for real? he was NOT “essentially cleared”, do you know how hard it is for historical SA cases to go to court? the police believed they had enough evidence for a conviction but the CPS turned it down, which is very very common unfortunately. It does NOT mean someone is “cleared”.
Also could you explain to me what a PDF looks like then? because to me it isn’t just the creepy old man down the road, it could literally be anyone.
Parasocial insanity.
It's a discussion forum. People are discussing the current known facts of the case, as they were with the HE case. People will have opinions based on what they currently know, which is very little. There's no right or wrong in terms of discussion imo and opinions can and will change as more information comes out, which is expected and normal. There's a lot of moral tone policing taking place imo
Correct me if wrong but this is the first I’ve seen the BBC state sexual offences rather than personal conduct? I know the incident(s) are with a minor so allude to being sexual in nature. Just curious at the angle and tone change.
Does hint at maybe a confession
BBC knew of Mills police investigation in 2017, but recently obtained 'new information'
The BBC knew about a police investigation into DJ Scott Mills in 2017 but obtained “new information” in the weeks prior to his sacking and “acted decisively”, the corporation said.
In a statement, a BBC spokesperson said: “Scott Mills had a long career across the BBC, he was hugely popular and we know the news this week has come as a shock and surprise to many.
“We also recognise there’s been much speculation in the media and online since Monday. We hope people understand that there is a limit to what we can say because we have to be mindful of the rights of those involved.
“What we can confirm is that in recent weeks, we obtained new information relating to Scott and we spoke directly with him. As a result, the BBC acted decisively in line with our culture and values and terminated his contracts on Friday 27 March.
“The BBC has made a significant commitment to improve its culture, processes and standards. Last year, following an independent culture review, we set out the behavioural expectations for everyone who works with or for the BBC and we were clear action would be taken if these were not met.
“Separately, we can confirm the BBC was made aware in 2017 of the existence of an ongoing police investigation, which was subsequently closed in 2019 with no arrest or charge being made. We are doing more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC at this time.”
BBC knew of Mills police investigation in 2017, but recently obtained 'new information'
The BBC knew about a police investigation into DJ Scott Mills in 2017 but obtained “new information” in the weeks prior to his sacking and “acted decisively”, the corporation said.
In a statement, a BBC spokesperson said: “Scott Mills had a long career across the BBC, he was hugely popular and we know the news this week has come as a shock and surprise to many.
“We also recognise there’s been much speculation in the media and online since Monday. We hope people understand that there is a limit to what we can say because we have to be mindful of the rights of those involved.
“What we can confirm is that in recent weeks, we obtained new information relating to Scott and we spoke directly with him. As a result, the BBC acted decisively in line with our culture and values and terminated his contracts on Friday 27 March.
“The BBC has made a significant commitment to improve its culture, processes and standards. Last year, following an independent culture review, we set out the behavioural expectations for everyone who works with or for the BBC and we were clear action would be taken if these were not met.
“Separately, we can confirm the BBC was made aware in 2017 of the existence of an ongoing police investigation, which was subsequently closed in 2019 with no arrest or charge being made. We are doing more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC at this time.”
I think this one is shocking because it’s totally out of the blue. All the others (except maybe Huw Edwards?) there had been rumours swirling for years. I think if you read tattle or blind item sites then the likes of Phillip Schofield and Russel Brand weren’t a surprise but this one genuinely seems to have come from nowhere. I don’t recall reading anything about him, I just got the vibe that he was a regular guy that loved his job but seems I was very wrong.
I’m not trying to police anyone’s tone or shut down discussion. I’m pointing out a pattern that tends to happen whenever a story like this breaks, Huw Edwards being the most recent example, both here and in the wider media.
When there is not much publicly available information, a lot of people interpret that as ‘there must be no evidence’ or ‘this is unfair’. Then later more details emerge that show why bbc acted as they did (and with Huw we learned they should have acted far earlier).
That’s what I’m referring to, not telling anyone what they can or can’t say in the thread.
But he wasn’t ’essentially cleared’. That’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of fact.
I never stated he was
Gross isn’t it! I’m really shocked by some posters and the excuses they are coming up with. Scott may be entirely innocent but trying to excuse what he ‘may’ have done, is revolting.
Sorry got my quotes muddled! I thought @Tofino had quoted the person who said he was.
You’re wrong. Yes can send the case to the CPS about pressing charges but ONLY after the person concerned is arrested. If they’re not arrested they can only consult them for advice. If that advice is ‘we would need more evidence to press charges’ then that doesn’t mean the police have to close the case, it means they can decide whether the evidence they have is strong enough to warrant further investigation or if the evidence is so weak it doesn’t warrant further investigation like searches, interviewing witnesses or further questioning of the accused person. The fact the evidence was never even strong enough to warrant his arrest indicates it was a very weak case.
You’re the one spouting rubbish. The police sit below me in the building I worked with and I checked it out with an officer this morning.
Anyway, apparently the person had made a whole new set of allegations to the BBC and that’s what he was sacked over.
exactly, i wonder if they’d try and make the same excuses if it had happened to their brother/sister etc
No one here can 100% say SM did commit a crime, nor can it be 100% claimed he did not.
How many people know him privately, he seems like able from his radio show, seems to have a good reputation.
Fact is the police put the case to CPS 10ish years ago who felt they could not successfully pursue a conviction.
Fact is there is an alleged victim.
I like SM, love his podcasts, he is hilarious.
The BBC definitely know more about all this than the Jo Public, they would not simply fire SM on grounds of what happened 10ish years ago.
Paedophiles walk amongst us, some are likable some not, in all guises.
I feel the next few days trickles of info will follow, much like in other cases, let’s see.
How many people know him privately, he seems like able from his radio show, seems to have a good reputation.
Fact is the police put the case to CPS 10ish years ago who felt they could not successfully pursue a conviction.
Fact is there is an alleged victim.
I like SM, love his podcasts, he is hilarious.
The BBC definitely know more about all this than the Jo Public, they would not simply fire SM on grounds of what happened 10ish years ago.
Paedophiles walk amongst us, some are likable some not, in all guises.
I feel the next few days trickles of info will follow, much like in other cases, let’s see.
Nobody is saying that’s okay if he did it. But it was investigated by the police and he wasn’t prosecuted. He’s not been convicted of anything but because the BBC had a knee jerk reaction, hysterics like you are pranding him a pweirdo over something that may well never have happened.
The BBC are going to haemorrhage staff over this. They’ve created a situation where any fixated person or nutter can make allegations against their staff and they’ll sack them and throw them to the pitchfork mob like you and ruin their loves, even if nobody is sure they actually did what’s alleged.
How it is hysterical to understand that most cases of SA/grape are dismissed without charge even though the perpetrator is guilty? I found it really weird that you will be on the side of he’s innocent when he’s been FIRED for it.
The BBC have more info than what we have.
In any case I hope the alleged victim is okay and has a support network because some of the stuff being said about him is vile.
This FB group is horrible.
It’s giving PS vibes
In any case I hope the alleged victim is okay and has a support network because some of the stuff being said about him is vile.
This FB group is horrible.
It’s giving PS vibes
Attachments
No they've just taken the plaque off the wall. I don't think it ever had a name before, it was just the bridge over the M3 at the services. They might think it's too risky to name it again!
- Status