Scott Mills

[Bread]

Yes, in strict ‘technical’ terms it’s ephebophilia for post-pubescent (14+ ish) attraction and hebephilia for 11-13-ish, but I’ve never seen a media report that makes the distinction as I doubt most people would have a clue what the other terms meant.

So many people jumped straight to ‘guilty’ for Matthew Kelly because of his gentle, slightly ‘camp’ (awful word, but I don’t know how else to describe it) demeanour, which apparently obviously made him secretly sinister

Thanks for the technical terminology! That's handy.

We've seen how someone's demeanour has damned them already on this very thread.

 

[Tryger88]

I find the statement very odd. There’s no outright denial of any wrongdoing, then he goes on to thank people for their support while trying to silence any future discussion (on request). Surely if he’s innocent he should be open and honest. tit’s hit the fan, so he may as well just tell his side of the story, because we’re all going to know it this time next week.

 

[Libbylulu]

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

I’ve already seen them. They were posted barely hours after the announcement

 

[Merpedy]

By this point you’d expect the papers to have got hold of a sniff of evidence (like they did with the photos of Huws a) or an interview with ‘a source close to the victim’

Wasn’t the Huw stuff kicked up by some very angry parents?

If this is the alleged victim coming forward, which I find it to be most likely because it’s new information, then I don’t think it’s most surprising that there may not be much shared with the public tbh and I can’t really blame them seeing the overall reception

I have thought about it before because someone who assaulted me wanted to be influential, if it ever got to the point where they succeeded I would probably feel it needed to be reported

 

[L3moning]

Yes, in strict ‘technical’ terms it’s ephebophilia for post-pubescent (14+ ish) attraction and hebephilia for 11-13-ish, but I’ve never seen a media report that makes the distinction as I doubt most people would have a clue what the other terms meant.

The media don't bother with the distinction because all of them are illegal if acted on so it doesn't really matter and also because people see, rightly or not, anyone who points out the difference as somehow defending people or minimising things.

Its also come up before (I think in the Adam Johnson case) that, in terms of reporting and libel etc, saying "paedophile" is fine to refer to anyone who engages in sexual activity with anyone who is underage.

 

[Libbylulu]

I have a friend who didn’t think Schofe did anything wrong because the boy wasn’t underage - Until I asked her if she’d have been ok with her son at 17 having a relationship with a 50plus yr old. Ohh no absolutely not she said.

If it had been my child male or female I’d have screamed blue murder until I was heard. The parents in the HE story were right to do what they did. No matter how long it’s been, if the victim was under age I hope he has support and people make no excuses for SM!

 

[petitspois]

You can definitely expect more to come from this, given Scott’s very carefully worded statement. If he hadn’t done or attempted anything illegal then he would make that very very clear in his words. The fact that he states the evidential threshold was not met stinks to high heaven. He has clearly been stopped before a serious crime took place (so caught starting to groom someone for example).

 

[MrsDimSum]

BBC sacked Scott Mills after learning alleged victim in police investigation was under 16

It comes as Mills released a statement saying he had "fully cooperated and responded" with the police investigation in 2018.

www.bbc.co.uk

BBC now saying they’ve only just become aware that the alleged victim was under 16, and that’s why he was sacked.

Why did he think he was being investigated then if it wasn’t because he was a teen?

 

[IfTheCapFits]

You can definitely expect more to come from this, given Scott’s very carefully worded statement. If he hadn’t done or attempted anything illegal then he would make that very very clear in his words. The fact that he states the evidential threshold was not met stinks to high heaven. He has clearly been stopped before a serious crime took place (so caught starting to groom someone for example).

I won't be surprised if it eventually comes out that it didn't go to prosecution because it couldn't be proven purely due to lack of any witnesses or physical evidence. At the moment I'm on the side of something definitely happened.

One sure thing, the more the BBC say, the worse it gets for how they've handled this.

 

[Bread]

Why? It reads like they've acted very swiftly once new information came to light.

 

[IfTheCapFits]

Why? It reads like they've acted very swiftly once new information came to light.

IF that's true. Sounds more like he was being protected to me if they were aware of the investigation at the time it happened. Bbc going through a culture change now, but historically they've been appalling.

 

[Bread]

I read it as him telling them at the time and nothing resulting from it. As we've just been discussing, you can't/shouldn't terminate someone's career over a single apparently unfounded allegation. Although I don't understand how they didn't know the age of the complainant.

I think they've certainly done the right thing this time around.

 

[runningfarandbeer]

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.

Exactly, and there is obviously some evidence of a relationship between the young boy and SM. The case was probably dropped because of a lack of evidence with how far that relationship went in a sexual way. Certain things are hard to prove if it just comes down to one persons word against another, the BBC must know enough though to get rid of him and SM also isn't coming out denying the whole thing.

 

[Happy Alpaca]

IF that's true. Sounds more like he was being protected to me if they were aware of the investigation at the time it happened. Bbc going through a culture change now, but historically they've been appalling.

I feel like it's a mixture of both.

They seem to have acted swiftly now, but possibly only now that they realise this complaint isn't going away. Something has been bought to their attention last year, which they seemingly ignored and hoped would go away, but it hasn't. I wonder if someone new has reviewed the details and demanded action.

Also, there is probably something around which managers know what, and some have possibly omitted certain bits when discussing with their bosses. For example, why didn't the Director General know the details of the Winter Key investigation into SM? Did he request a report? If so, who was it omitting key details? If SM was open about it to his manager, could it be the manager that chose to exclude certain things?

Until we know more it's just speculation, but it was reported that the BBC knew about Winter Key and SM, but that the Director General didn't know the detail involved. So to me that seems a big problem relating to internal communication and transparency at the BBC.

 

[Bread]

Apropos of nothing, I've read the reports now that the incident happened during a period of 3 years rather than going over a 3 year period (so the complainant couldn't quite remember the exact year, but remembered what time it would have been roughly). Does anyone else read it like that?

 

[WhyYouCry?]

Why did he think he was being investigated then if it wasn’t because he was a teen?

The ‘serious sexual assault’ part I guess. Which suggests it wasn’t just a case of a relationship with someone underage, but involved other aspects of ‘serious sexual assault’.

 

[Por Que?]

His statement doesn't match the BBCs. He says historic. They say it's about newly reported and they knew about the historic already.

The new information could just be that he was under 16 though. BBC aren’t sure if they already knew that (even though they were contacted by the police about the investigation) so consider it to be new information. They also aren’t sure why they didn’t investigate the complaint received last year.

Based on historical patterns I’d say they did know all along but they didn’t care at the time or last year. The new complaint has been taken seriously, perhaps because the BBC really has mended its ways in the last few months or perhaps because they got “lucky” (timing alongside the Huw drama/it happened to be handled by someone competent/everyone’s on their best behaviour waiting for the new boss …)

 

[Tofino]

I read it as him telling them at the time and nothing resulting from it. As we've just been discussing, you can't/shouldn't terminate someone's career over a single apparently unfounded allegation. Although I don't understand how they didn't know the age of the complainant.

I think they've certainly done the right thing this time around.

I’m not sure about this to be honest, when it’s a serious allegation involving a minor. SM was contracted rather than an employee, but in general the legal threshold for the BBC is balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, and organisations have a duty of care and need to consider safeguarding and risk management.

We don’t know what evidence was provided to the police, or what the BBC have seen. But I don’t think it’s as simple as he (and others like him) shouldn’t lose their jobs/careers because they were never charged and therefore it’s an unfounded allegation. No charges doesn’t mean there was no evidence whatsoever.

A fair process needs to take place but I think organisations should be able to decide there is still a risk factor especially where safeguarding is concerned and be able to legally remove those employees/contractors from their organisations.

 

[Em312]

Apropos of nothing, I've read the reports now that the incident happened during a period of 3 years rather than going over a 3 year period (so the complainant couldn't quite remember the exact year, but remembered what time it would have been roughly). Does anyone else read it like that?

I read it like this initially. Sounded like the complainant knew it happened in certain window (maybe he lived somewhere specific for those years, or attended a specific club or night out where he met Mills - obviously this is speculation!) but wasn't exactly sure of exactly when the incident(s) occured.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

Matthew Kelly. What happened to him was horrific, and prompted parliament to debate changing the law around how allegations are reported.

He managed to re-establish a career, but not as high-profile as he was previously (though maybe it’s his choice to be less visible as a consequence of that).

He went from prime time Saturday night presenting Stars In Your Eyes (not the useless Harry Hill version), to playing Lennie from Of Mice And Men (GSCE classic) on stage.