Scott Mills

[Phil Anne Throw Pee]

The BBC, have. as usual, handled this appallingly. Concerned only with covering their own arses, no real explanation, obviously have covered this up historically.

 

[Eureka]

His statement is a lot of words that says absolutely nothing and the lack of outright denial makes me think there is some truth to this. I am curious about the serious sexual assault - if SM had met someone in a club and unwittingly been intimate with them would that be described as an assault? I've seen cases like that before and the wording is always a bit softer. Assault, to me, implies intent.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

https://archive.is/G28pm

He's been seen out and about, so he cannot be that bothered to not be keeping a low profile. The BBC have to say what new evidence came to light. They are encouraging a pile on by being vague.

 

[petitspois]

I think he was grooming a boy under 16 but the boy has either only now realised how abusive the whole situation was or maybe now has the ability to come forward with more evidence. No doubt Scott didn’t approach a settled boy with a loving and secure home life which is very common.

 

[Marie711]

Teenager in the 80s too and back then out in the town drinking, no ID required, looking over 18 but around 16. I think with girls we can look much older and who are older men to question it though I know people are much more wary these days. I knew of two girls my age who were considered slappers back then but they thought it was cool to sleep with much older men who were aware of their ages, one of whom was a father himself. Now I look back and think shame on the men for taking advantage of clearly vulnerable girls who were under 16 at the time. How could a father do this to a young girl when he had a daughter too?

This was me and my mate 16 and in the pubs as we looked and dressed older.. and yes talking/ getting off as it was then with older men who were probably 18 to 25 but like everyone said nobody batted an eyelid.. I have a 14 year ipd daughter who also looks older and the other day she had shorts on and a van drove by and one guy looked at her and I shouted "shes 14 mate!" But if that was in the 90s nobody would have sa8d anything

 

[Lolly505]

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 think one thing worth remembering is until 2000, the age of consent for 'homosexual acts' was still higher at 18, even though it was 16 otherwise. So someone would still be 'underage' in the eyes of the law at 16-17, even though they can consent to sex with the opposite gender. It's also likely the charge wasn't one we'd use today (since it happened before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was in effect) so they might have just been told he was being investigated for a 'buggery' charge or 'lewd and lascivious behaviour' which wouldn't immediately ring alarms in the way a 'sexual activity with a person under 16' charge would today.

Personally I'm not sure how much the police would actually disclose to an accused's employer though beyond any charges and incident dates.
I've had a justice-related job where we sometimes had to contact police forces regarding cases, and most forces flat-out refuse to answer any questions while enquiries are still ongoing (even when you're just asking to clarify a typo in the date the police already gave, because I don't think it is going to 'jeopardise the case' if you just confirm nobody time travelled to future so I can log the correct date please ).

 

[MrsDimSum]

And Steve Brookstein has entered the chat how is he still relevant

 

[Sakkiedekock]

And Steve Brookstein has entered the chat how is he still relevant
View attachment 3944884

Which Butlins is he playing at this summer?

 

[ochebalboa]

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).

I remember the balls about all that, He was also alleged to have downloaded child porn but he was cleared off that quickly has he didn't have a computer at the time (Unless i have this mixed up with someone else)

Matthew Kelly was a good presenter it was a shame what happened

 

[Serene Serena]

Which Butlins is he playing at this summer?

He’s not famous enough for Butlins. Poor man, so many years ago yet still so terribly bitter.

 

[Marchioness Cha-Cha]

So is it/could it be that the recent "malicious communication" mentioned that happened more recently is with the same underage boy from the first complaint from years ago? Or am I getting it all wrong?
ETA sorry it was "inappropriate communications" reported by that journalist, I think that's all we know about them?

Anyway I said I wouldn't try to guess so I'm going back to wondering about @Bread's Allegeter/alleger

 

[L3moning]

It's also likely the charge wasn't one we'd use today (since it happened before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was in effect) so they might have just been told he was being investigated for a 'buggery' charge or 'lewd and lascivious behaviour' which wouldn't immediately ring alarms in the way a 'sexual activity with a person under 16' charge would today.

It would most likely be Gross Indecency or Indecent Assault, under the 1956 Act.

 

[JoaniesFan]

I remember the balls about all that, He was also alleged to have downloaded child porn but he was cleared off that quickly has he didn't have a computer at the time (Unless i have this mixed up with someone else)

Matthew Kelly was a good presenter it was a shame what happened

Agree, always liked Matthew Kelly. He was a great presenter and never put contestants down to score laughs at their expense.

 

[Happy Alpaca]

So is it/could it be that the recent "malicious communication" mentioned that happened more recently is with the same underage boy from the first complaint from years ago? Or am I getting it all wrong?
ETA sorry it was "inappropriate communications" reported by that journalist, I think that's all we know about them?

Anyway I said I wouldn't try to guess so I'm going back to wondering about @Bread's Allegeter/alleger

According to this screenshot, it was the same person.....

I think I'm losing track now though, were the inappropriate communications recent, or just known about recently?

 

[Marchioness Cha-Cha]

According to this screenshot, it was the same person.....

Yes, it seems to fit. But how bloody stupid would he have to be to re-engage in conversation with the victim!

 

[Marchioness Cha-Cha]

According to this screenshot, it was the same person.....

I think I'm losing track now though, were the inappropriate communications recent, or just known about recently?

The Telegraph reported that Anna Brees (mentioned earlier) contacted the BBC in May 2025 about allegations of inappropriate communication.

 

[MelodyMaker]

I understand that speculation is natural but it absolutely blows my mind the way people can make up their own little version of events based on nothing and then talk about them like they're based in fact. It also worries me that these people are probably eligible for jury service.

am thinking the exact same thing

 

[Love_hate_small_town]

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.

To be clear I don’t think you can tell by looking (except for Jimmy). I’m well aware that it’s those you least expect etc. my point, badly made, is that there is often a lot of smoke around serial offenders and you get a general gut feeling even if they are in the public eye and you never met the etc. Scott mills so far does not seem to have a pattern of behaviour. Perhaps that will change and I am not saying - whatever if was ages ago- I’m saying it is not black and white IMO in this case. There is simply not enough information. There is no criminal case and he didn’t work for theBBC at the time of the alleged misconduct.

 

[MelodyMaker]

Oh come on, youre nitpicking here. You know fine well, what allseeingeye is saying. Obviously if somebody looks young, acts young or seems young you won't go there. But I think the point they are making is people do look and act older and especially if they are in a nightclub or a bar. You wouldn't think to question someone who you perceive to be of age. Especially if you are only late teens or early twenties yourself, you assume they are about the same age as you. I do think it's a bit different if it is someone of that age, being chatted up or going with a middle aged person. If they are young enough to be your child, then that raises questions, if you perceive him to be your peer, then it is a lot more muddy.

This alleged abuse took place over a 3 year period, not one night in a nightclub.

 

[Love_hate_small_town]

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.

You have put into words what I failed to do in my post. I was specifically thinking of queer as folk as I remember watching it at the time and feeling so protective of the younger characters but also recognising their autonomy and the gay scene was so fundamentally different. So many people, including Scott, felt shamed into hiding their sexuality and seeking relationships that were potentially harmful on both sides but because of the general secrecy no one knew a great deal about it. That’s part of what made queer as folk such an important series. I am not saying I have no sympathy with the alleged victim. I absolutely do but I also have sympathy for scott who potentially was acting in the same way as people around him and not realising there was anything wrong because it was normalised in a big subculture. There is nuance whether we like it or not. When there is not a pattern of behaviour, does someone deserve to be hung drawn and quartered for behaviour that was (depending on exactly what the behaviour was) widely accepted at the time. Obviously we do not know enough about the events and the reaction of the bbc could be completely justified.