How have you come to the conclusion that the BBC’s decision to terminate Scott’s contract was a knee jerk reaction?
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Lots of things can be true.
The 80s and 90s were a very very very different time. Some of us growing up then would have been horrified at being approached by older men (I know i was) but plenty of girls i was at school with loved the attention. Does that mean they were not taken advantage of? Or that they deserved it? Definitely not.
I do have sympathy for the blokes who were lied to about the younger person's age though.
When watching Queer as Folk at the time (I was probably 19) i was uncomfortable with the age gap/power imbalance but i put that down to my own perspective.
I've been on tattle for years and this is the first time I've seen anything about Scott (despite some people now saying they not know of grooming victims... why not say it before?). I can't say I particularly liked him but I was very shocked by the news. We don't know if the BBC have acted harshly or not, but given their history you can see why they would prefer to be harsh than lenient with a 'new' allegation.
The 3 year thing does add more complications... but it's entirely possible that Scott met this person occasionally in a club over a long period and got involved with them regularly without knowing very much about them. There was a lot of casual relationships back then, particularly in the gay scene. In a city like London its fairly easy to remain anonymous, especially without social media. I'm not saying this is what happened but it's a possibility.
The 80s and 90s were a very very very different time. Some of us growing up then would have been horrified at being approached by older men (I know i was) but plenty of girls i was at school with loved the attention. Does that mean they were not taken advantage of? Or that they deserved it? Definitely not.
I do have sympathy for the blokes who were lied to about the younger person's age though.
When watching Queer as Folk at the time (I was probably 19) i was uncomfortable with the age gap/power imbalance but i put that down to my own perspective.
I've been on tattle for years and this is the first time I've seen anything about Scott (despite some people now saying they not know of grooming victims... why not say it before?). I can't say I particularly liked him but I was very shocked by the news. We don't know if the BBC have acted harshly or not, but given their history you can see why they would prefer to be harsh than lenient with a 'new' allegation.
The 3 year thing does add more complications... but it's entirely possible that Scott met this person occasionally in a club over a long period and got involved with them regularly without knowing very much about them. There was a lot of casual relationships back then, particularly in the gay scene. In a city like London its fairly easy to remain anonymous, especially without social media. I'm not saying this is what happened but it's a possibility.
The couple of comments on him being a P not saying he isnt but atm the info out that doesn't imply that. They've just said Under16.
On your post I disagree, I think because of the risk of a lawsuit they would be very careful before sacking him.
He didn’t come forward at the time. He came forward 20 years later.
It doesn't matter when someone comes forward. Ever.
Does not sound knee-jerk to me?
Full BBC Statement
“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.”
Full BBC Statement
“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 wouldn't call it a knee jerk reaction. The BBC have just released another statement saying they were aware back in 2017 that he was being questioned for the serious sexual allegations. He wasn't charged, so the BBC didn't take any action, and recently gave him probably the most coveted radio slot (and probably one of the highest salaries.)
It's only since being given more information a few weeks ago that they made the decision to sack him. I'd say they were more than fair given what he was questioned for initially. He received no professional repercussions (understandably since he wasnt charged), and a promotion after they knew he was being questioned.
Under 16 is a child.
Writing someone off as a child abuser when there's absolutely nothing concrete to go off seems a bit much to me at this stage. What definitive evidence is there right now that he groomed or abused a child? He's not been charged with anything, historically or today.
Some balance wouldn't go amiss until more comes out, surely? I'll happily join your side of the fence if and when there's concrete evidence and charges to go by.
I think the BBC have handled everything correctly. They could well have believed the allegations made at the time were malicious or unfounded if no action was taken, and it isn't fair to tarnish someone forever based on such an incident.
More information has now come to light and the fact that this has happened so quickly tells me that Scott confessed straightaway. They have made not a kneejerk decision, but a very sensible one.
Much as I love Scott, there's no hiding from this.
More information has now come to light and the fact that this has happened so quickly tells me that Scott confessed straightaway. They have made not a kneejerk decision, but a very sensible one.
Much as I love Scott, there's no hiding from this.
No, I'm not wrong. This is my job.
The police can and do send cases to the CPS before arrests. That is a fact. Double check my post and tell me which part is wrong?
You're not really making sense, I haven't said anything about the CPS telling them to close the case, that was your misinformation not mine?
People who had seen them together, notes or letters between them, people the alleged victim told about the assault at the time or in the intervening years, medical treatment if he was injured or people who saw injuries. People who heard them speak on the phone, any evidence that they actually knew each other or had encountered each other. The victim being able to give a reliable account of where Mills frequented, his habits and movements or descriptions of his naked body containing evidence someone who hadn’t seen it wouldn’t know.
When it’s a they said/they said situation police don’t just dump the case because it’s one person’s word against the other, they look at the quality of the information being given. For example, John Alford was convicted in a case where it was his word against two victims who had been attacked on the same night. There was no forensic evidence but the girls gave consistent accounts even under heavy questioning and Alford did not.
In this case it’s likely they looked at what the alleged victim was saying and assessed if it was consistent and if he could give a credible avcount of how he had encountered Mills which matched information they could gather about Mills habits and movements at the time. And it’s probable that on several of those aspects the victims account didn’t have the strength needed to go forward with charges.
So we know now that it was Scott they were on about.
When was this article published, do you know? (edit, just as I'm curious about timelines etc!)
Last edited:
It’s being reported that he pushed back hard against the allegations rather than confessing and that’s part of the reason he was sacked. It sounds like they wanted him to do a Schofield style Mea Culpa and apology to keep his job and he refused so they sacked him. Doesn’t sound like he confessed at all if reports are accuraye, quite the opposite.
I doubt its quite as easy as that. And I'd suggest that the BBC aren't quite naïve enough to sack someone solely based on the say so of randoms.
Where was this reported? Have you got a link?
No, RusselkvBrand people seemed to think ‘yeah, that makes sense’.
I didnt say it wasnt?
Where's it being reported? I would be very surprised if this is why he was sacked - he would have one heck of a legal claim against them. I suspect he would also have spoken out a lot sooner.
Plus he was hardly going to keep his job if he confessed to sex with an underage boy!
- Status