Scott Mills

[Yel]

He's just adding fuel to it. It's very hard to have enough evidence to take a case forward that happened so long ago, but there must have been a bit of substance seeing as it was sent to the CPS. Presumably they thought a prosecution was possible.

Kevin Spacey didn't get convicted but someone I know was raising issues with him a long time before it hit the headlines. And he did pay off a couple of people. But that's a whole other thing.

 

[Happy Alpaca]

I am just trying to digest SMs statement....

He mentions that his contract ended, but then jumps straight to the police investigation years ago.

There is no expansion on why the BBC chose now to end his contract. What is he avoiding mentioning?

If it's a HR issue he doesn't need to share it and the BBC can't share it......so I wonder if he'll ever acknowledge that part

 

[KatLit]

How long before we get the "Remember Caroline Flack" postings

 

[Tofino]

It reads like deflection to me tbh. Focus on the thing that happened many years ago, that was taken no further by police.

Why you would want to deflect with an allegation of such a nature (even if there wasn’t enough evidence) rather than say anything about what’s happened recently, is a bit confusing to me.

 

[Emxxx]

How long before we get the "Remember Caroline Flack" postings

Haha my mum said about her this morning.i said sorry i dont stick up for attempted murderers

 

[GingerJones50]

New information that is different to the claims in the police investigation, is not the same as “a fresh set of allegations about something totally separate”, which is what your earlier post said.

It was reported quite widely before the BBC made the statement that it was a new set of allegations that were separate. The BBC statement is ambiguous because the way they’ve worded it suggests that it could possibly be related to the first set of allegations. That doesn’t seem very likely because if there was bombshell new evidence Mills was guilty they would have referred him to the police and the case would have been reopened which hasn’t happened. In this case ‘different’ almost certainly means something new.

 

[GingerJones50]

It reads like deflection to me tbh. Focus on the thing that happened many years ago, that was taken no further by police.

Why you would want to deflect with an allegation of such a nature (even if there wasn’t enough evidence) rather than say anything about what’s happened recently, is a bit confusing to me.

It refers to something he wasn’t sacked over but avoids mentioning anything related to what he was sacked over.

 

[Traazers]

Well that’s cleared things up then

 

[Merpedy]

I mean it makes sense that he would choose to focus on the big allegation that he has done something illegal with a child, that's not surprising. But the statement is a nothing burger and is a bit weird as a result

 

[Tangerine Cat]

Mate again, where are you getting this from? Are you just surmising?

Yes the poster is, hence the second word of the post ‘if’.

 

[Tofino]

It was reported quite widely before the BBC made the statement that it was a new set of allegations that were separate. The BBC statement is ambiguous because the way they’ve worded it suggests that it could possibly be related to the first set of allegations. That doesn’t seem very likely because if there was bombshell new evidence Mills was guilty they would have referred him to the police and the case would have been reopened which hasn’t happened. In this case ‘different’ almost certainly means something new.

New information - even if not linked to the original investigation - and new allegations are not the same thing. Even the article you linked doesn’t say new allegations.

Information suggests something has been established that is more concrete. It does not have to be criminal. Your theory of SM sending messages would be an example of this because it could be easily proved and considered “information” rather than an allegation.

Allegations are someone making a claim that is uncertain and may be true or false.

I’ve not seen one article say they are new allegations. They are saying “new information”. But you keep repeating that it’s new allegations.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

He's just adding fuel to it. It's very hard to have enough evidence to take a case forward that happened so long ago, but there must have been a bit of substance seeing as it was sent to the CPS. Presumably they thought a prosecution was possible.

Kevin Spacey didn't get convicted but someone I know was raising issues with him a long time before it hit the headlines. And he did pay off a couple of people. But that's a whole other thing.

My husband’s cousin (male) was propositioned by Kevin Spacey, when he was around 15/16.

 

[Skippy81]

Whatever the new allegations are there is no mention of the BBC referring it to the police so can't be something criminal, more HR related. The fact that nothing else is coming out about him I think that the media have led with what they think is the worst thing an allegation that never went any further.

We can't ruin peoples lives based on one allegation for which he was not arrested or charged.
I am assuming the new issue they are not discussing out of respect of the other person?

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

His lawyers know law better than he does. They would have had full control over what he couldn't and couldn't say at this time. Weird statement but probably explains it.

 

[GingerJones50]

New information - even if not linked to the original investigation - and new allegations are not the same thing. Even the article you linked doesn’t say new allegations.

Information suggests something has been established that is more concrete. It does not have to be criminal. Your theory of SM sending messages would be an example of this because it could be easily proved and considered “information” rather than an allegation.

Allegations are someone making a claim that is uncertain and may be true or false.

I’ve not seen one article say they are new allegations. They are saying “new information”. But you keep repeating that it’s new allegations.

Well of course the new information is an allegation of misconduct. Or he wouldn’t have been bleeping sacked otherwise would he? They wouldn’t have sacked him if it hadn’t been an allegation of misconduct.

It appears though this time he has solid information to prove allegation so the BBC have acted. It doesn’t appear to be related to the earlier investigation because it hasn’t been reopened.

 

[YeahBrackie]

I'm baffled at the lack of outright denial in the statement. You usually get some type of "I categorically deny these allegations" line, yet this is basically "the CPS deemed there was not enough evidence to charge me, and it was ages ago, so please stop talking about it." Obviously he would have been advised by the relevant people who know exactly how to word these things from both a legal and PR perspective, so it doesn't look good (to me, at least) that there was no denial.

 

[Em312]

The thread has moved on, but this article is from March 2018, if anyone still wants it:

Verifying Device

 

[GingerJones50]

New information - even if not linked to the original investigation - and new allegations are not the same thing. Even the article you linked doesn’t say new allegations.

Information suggests something has been established that is more concrete. It does not have to be criminal. Your theory of SM sending messages would be an example of this because it could be easily proved and considered “information” rather than an allegation.

Allegations are someone making a claim that is uncertain and may be true or false.

I’ve not seen one article say they are new allegations. They are saying “new information”. But you keep repeating that it’s new allegations.

Saying something is an allegation doesn’t necessarily mean it is untrue. When he approached the BBC he made an allegation Mills had done something wrong, which was why I described it as that. Using the word ‘information’ in that context wouldn’t have seemed right because it didn’t convey that the person had alleged wrongdoing. I agree that this time it would seem that the person had solid evidence to back up the allegation.

When I thought Mills had been sacked over the allegations from years ago that hadn’t led to a prosecution I thought that it might be unfair.

Now more information has come out it appears Mills has had more recent contact with this person. Someone in his position should have known better than to make any contact with someone who had claimed they were a victim of sexual assault by him. Even if the other person made contact with him first, he should have told the BBC and let their lawyers deal with it or referred it to the police and asked them how to handle it. Or just not responded.

Now I think the BBC were right to sack him if this is the case. He should have known better.

 

[_basic_]

I think he acknowledges that he’s done SOMETHING wrong. That statement is vague though he will have been told what to write so trying to read between the lines is useless. So much has been put on the historical years ago accusation, I wonder if this new information from the victim relates to that same time period or something more recent?
I think his career is over now though, Scott was a big personality in his job but was quite private otherwise yes posting about being away etc but I reckon he will move abroad now and disappear. After the investigation obvs

 

[TruffleShuffles]

He can’t really claim complete innocence really can he? We know for a fact that whatever happened between him and the alleged victim happened when he was at some point under the age of consent. Whether SM thinks he did anything wrong or not, the only fact that seems to be known is that the complainant was underage.