Scott Mills

[Tofino]

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.

If you want to interpret that as ‘new allegations’, that’s your choice, but it’s not my interpretation and it’s not what’s been published.

Information about personal conduct is not the same as “new set of allegations” and I’m not sure why you want to keep framing it that way.

Anyway I don’t want to keep going round in circles on this so I’ll say no more on it.

 

[YeahBrackie]

I wonder if there's some type of proof which he thinks may come out in the coming days/weeks, and that's why he hasn't denied it in his statement? I feel as though, with charges so serious involving sexual allegations with a child under 16, if he could have denied it, he would (and would certainly have been advised to by whichever team helped him construct the statement.)

 

[GingerJones50]

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.

I think that’s splitting hairs a bit because saying the police took no action against him makes it clear he denies the allegations because if he didn’t the case wouldn’t have been dropped.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

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

Verifying Device

That looks nothing like Scott

 

[Limey]

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.

I'm not baffled - you can only deny it if is it untrue. He must know the Daily Mirror or some other newspaper has the details. He hasn't decide to try and brazen it out, I assume he's hoping that things will die down and he might be able to get a job somewhere in the future if the full details of allegations don't surface.

Pip Schofield would have been well advised to do the same, but he was too arrogant and thought he was well loved enough to make a comeback.

 

[D_Wills]

See ive got a feeling there aren't any more details to come out. The tabloids usually sit on the information and drip feed it bit by bit, getting bigger every day until the big story comes out. As a previous poster said, this has gone unusually quiet pretty fast. Nothing like with Schofe or Huw. Makes me think there really isnt anything to tell other than the slightly confusing details we already know.

 

[Cat Eyez]

Statement:

'The recent announcement that I am no longer contracted to the BBC has led to the publication of rumour and speculation. In response to this the Metropolitan Police has made a statement, which I confirm relates to me.

'An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully cooperated and responded to in 2018. As the police have stated, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which determined that the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges.

'Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed 7 years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter.

'I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues, and my beloved listeners, who I greatly miss.'

I'm uncomfortable with the fact that he hasn't stated it was a false allegation and agrees it was taken to CPS and the charge threshold wasn't met.....

That just means that CPS feel there isn't a realistic prospect of prosecution, not that it didn't happen.

I'm shocked he's not said it was a false allegation.

 

[Merpedy]

I think that’s splitting hairs a bit because saying the police took no action against him makes it clear he denies the allegations because if he didn’t the case wouldn’t have been dropped.

Not really... I read his statement more as "yeah something happened but there were no charges so it's alright and I don't want to comment further about it"

Which again when you consider how low the prosecution rate for these things is not exactly reassuring

 

[Merpedy]

The Mirror revealed yesterday how Mills’ sacking was related to a previous 2016 police investigation, and the then-teenage boy at the centre of it. While the new information involves the same person, it is different to the claims made during that investigation which centred on allegations of serious sexual offences.

They definitely have something, probably some inappropriate communication between Mills and the alleged victim. Whether the victim chooses to allow that to be released is another thing

 

[Skippy81]

See ive got a feeling there aren't any more details to come out. The tabloids usually sit on the information and drip feed it bit by bit, getting bigger every day until the big story comes out. As a previous poster said, this has gone unusually quiet pretty fast. Nothing like with Schofe or Huw. Makes me think there really isnt anything to tell other than the slightly confusing details we already know.

Agree, usually the floodgates open & it's all gone quiet. And u have people on these threads that have heard rumours but there has been none of this.

 

[Happy Alpaca]

This confuses me (screenshot attached). At the top it says the BBC knew about the police interview in 2018, but later it states that Tony Hall Director General did not know about the allegations.

Do they just mean Tony didn't know the detail, as surely he would know if staff were being interviewed as part of Winter Key, or they were asked to declare it.

Re the BBC knowing.......who at the BBC? It seems purposely vague, but definitely trying to exclude Tony Hall of having any knowledge. Which is strange to me.

The second screenshot mentions others being recently interviewed as well as SM, in relation to his 2017 police interview. There could be key info in something one of these people said to the BBC, that SM hadn't declared.

 

[Bread]

From my reading, I don't think this latest thing is anything related to the previous allegations. I think they were brought up incidentally, possibly by the dodgy journalist?

I could be wrong (often am) but I think this is something entirely unrelated. If anyone can tell me where the whole him inappropriately messaging the victim comes from (as in, a proper official report, rather than a claim to have read something somewhere) that would be great.

 

[GingerJones50]

Wrong
View attachment 3943561

I checked this with an actual copper this morning and clarified it in a later post. If someone is arrested and a file is sent to the CPS if the CPS decides there is not enough evidence they can formally close the case.

If they’ve not been arrested, the CPS provide advice on the case but they don’t formally close it, the police can continue to investigate and gather more evidence if they believe they can secure a charge if they investigate further. In this case the police chose not to and the case was closed.

So yes, I was wrong to say it wouldn’t go to the CPS, I should have said that it didn’t go through the formal CPS channel for charges.

 

[Merpedy]

possibly by the dodgy journalist?

I think that's a stretch - if they had evidence of new information involving the same person but different allegations then really it could have only come from very few parties with direct involvement somehow, not a journalist

 

[Bread]

Ah yes - forgot that bit.

It's so odd that he doesn't mention it. The statement is a bit - hopeless.

 

[pixxyy]

From my reading, I don't think this latest thing is anything related to the previous allegations. I think they were brought up incidentally, possibly by the dodgy journalist?

I could be wrong (often am) but I think this is something entirely unrelated. If anyone can tell me where the whole him inappropriately messaging the victim comes from (as in, a proper official report, rather than a claim to have read something somewhere) that would be great.

This from GB news says no suggestion the inappropriate messages were to same person, I thought one of the Mirror articles said itwas but now cant see that https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/scott-mills-bbc-knew-inappropriate-communications

 

[Merpedy]

This from GB news says no suggestion the inappropriate messages were to same person, I thought one of the Mirror articles said itwas but now cant see that https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/scott-mills-bbc-knew-inappropriate-communications

It's not clear whether the initial enquiry, which was raised due to something someone working at the BBC disclosed to this journalist, was about the same individual*

The Mirror does say the information is regarding the same person as the investigation concerned

* though with how quiet it all is I doubt this is a case where there are many victims

 

[GingerJones50]

This confuses me (screenshot attached). At the top it says the BBC knew about the police interview in 2018, but later it states that Tony Hall Director General did not know about the allegations.

Do they just mean Tony didn't know the detail, as surely he would know if staff were being interviewed as part of Winter Key, or they were asked to declare it.

Re the BBC knowing.......who at the BBC? It seems purposely vague, but definitely trying to exclude Tony Hall of having any knowledge. Which is strange to me.

The second screenshot mentions others being recently interviewed as well as SM, in relation to his 2017 police interview. There could be key info in something one of these people said to the BBC, that SM hadn't declared.

I would guess that it was escalated but at some point someone decided that they didn’t need to escalate it further. So maybe it went to the Head of Radio 1 and they dealt with it and didn’t pass it on. It does say he didn’t know rather than didn’t know the details. Maybe because he wasn’t as high profile a decade ago they didn’t feel it was necessary.

 

[pixxyy]

It's not clear whether the initial enquiry, which was raised due to something someone working at the BBC disclosed to this journalist, was about the same individual*

The Mirror does say the information is regarding the same person as the investigation concerned

* though with how quiet it all is I doubt this is a case where there are many victims

Thanks I thought i'd read that but then started doubting myself

 

[Bread]

Thanks but GB News will not be getting my clicks! I would rather The Mirror (who clearly have very little information and are getting all the monies they can from this)