I think the sacking is coz he didnt tell them as to me that would be breaking his contract. As I feel a allegation( though obv we dont know if thats what happened) would be a suspension while a investagation is ongoingI'm confused - so was SM dismissed because the person was under 16?;
The Metropolitan Police has told BBC News that the teenage boy at the centre of the Scott Mills sexual offences investigation was under the age of 16.
The former BBC Radio 2 and Radio 1 DJ, 53, was questioned in 2018 over historical allegations of serious sexual offences. But the investigation - which began in 2016 - was closed in 2019 after the CPS deemed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
Or was it because he didn't declare the investigation;
BBC News understands that the director general at the time, Tony Hall, did not know about the allegations.
My point is you cannot (legally) sack someone on the basis of unproven allegations.I think it’s quite likely that whoever complained or wrote in likely suggested that they would go to the media
Given the BBCs current reputation any news that has some factual basis of a relationship between their talent and someone underage is not going to go down well and put the company into disrepute
There clearly has to be some evidence if a whole file was sent to the CPS at the time
I looked up your question and found the below;The article I shared earlier stated that Scott was interviewed by police in 2016 as part of Operation Winter Key, which stemmed from Yew Tree. I'm wondering what triggered the Winter Key interview...... were they just looking at all public figures who had had any previous interactions with the police, or would it have to have been someone coming forward with a complaint.
I'm not saying SM has done anything on a large scale by mentioning those operations, it's a genuine question about what triggered those Winter Key interviews.
I'm guessing at the time lots of people were interviewed, so it seems odd that SM wouldn't declare to BBC he'd had an interview at the time. Or maybe he did, but didn't declare all the details
Recent reports state the BBC is in touch with the complainant, but do we know for sure they are the victim? Could it be someone speaking on their behalf?
Also, just trying to step back and look at it from another perspective, the wording I have seen states that SM was interviewed in relation to historic sexual offences. Could it be that it was something he was aware of, rather than being the perp? I know that seems unlikely, but it's not been made 100% clear from what I've seen.
My question is more about what triggered the interview with SM as part of Winter Key in 2016.I looked up your question and found the below;
Operation Winter Key was formed in 2015 as a response to the MPS being a core participant in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and additionally to investigate allegations of non-recent child sexual abuse involving people of public prominence and/or institutions. 233 investigations were completed and 350 charges secured.
Public Inquiries (4)
Questions to the Mayor: Please provide a breakdown by rank and grade of the number of police officers, staff and agency staff working on the Child Abuse Inquiry?www.london.gov.uk
An my point was that they very much can sack you if it would put the company into disreputeMy point is you cannot (legally) sack someone on the basis of unproven allegations.
Well to investigate there must have been an allegation so…My question is more about what triggered the interview with SM as part of Winter Key in 2016.
Would it have to be someone coming forward or did they interview lots of high profile figures based on prior interactions with the police, or both/other?
I'm not sure we have the answer to that question, it was just curiosity, and the answer may help explain why he did or didn't declare it (if that's the case).
It may be something that becomes more apparent in time, if it's relevant....
You can if they don't tell you about something their contract says they have to, though. Which I have a suspicion is what has happened here.My point is you cannot (legally) sack someone on the basis of unproven allegations.
But coming forward with allegations at the time of Winter Key, or as a result of previous allegations that were reviewed as part of Winter Key?Well to investigate there must have been an allegation so…
And there must have been some sort of evidence because a file was sent to the CPS
I once knew someone who had this job at the BBC. They had to watch the entire back catalogue of anything that might ever air again, and write down everyone who appeared or was mentioned in it. Like "Have I Got News For You, episode 500, Ian Hislop mentions Kate Moss at 05.29." So if anyone featured was ever cancelled, they could find out where they were, and cut them from the episode. Apparently it began after Savile was outed and they had to stop showing his TOTP2 episodes.3 episodes of Top of the Pops presented by Mills due to be shown on BBC 4 over the next few weeks will now be skipped over. Does this mean the BBC will remove anything he's ever appeared in off iPlayer? That's a hell of a lot of TV to bury.
No, he wasn’t cleared. The CPS said there wasn’t enough evidence to secure a conviction which isn’t the same thing.Absolutely agree. He was cleared so why now? It all seems very unfair and almost like he’s a scapegoat from the BBC, who have let a lot of sex offenders slip through their net. A bit like “look at what we CAN do”
I once knew someone who had this job at the BBC. They had to watch the entire back catalogue of anything that might ever air again, and write down everyone who appeared or was mentioned in it. Like "Have I Got News For You, episode 500, Ian Hislop mentions Kate Moss at 05.29." So if anyone featured was ever cancelled, they could find out where they were, and cut them from the episode. Apparently it began after Savile was outed and they had to stop showing his TOTP2 episodes.
I hadnt seen that the BBC reported on it at the time?He wasn’t legally cleared - the CPS didn't find enough evidence to proceed.
Unfortunately that means it’s in legal limbo - can’t be progressed, can’t be undone. It could be he did something bad, it could be he’s being unfairly accused by a person with issues.
I think it’s difficult for the BBC to say they didn’t know/he didn’t declare it given the BBC reported on it at the time, but who knows.
This is a minefield because the victim has a right to anonymity, Scott’s reputation career and earnings have taken a hit, the public doesn’t have a right to know why he was sacked. He is allowed to say nothing, as he’s doing. Yet because of the suspicion and info vacuum the public and the media are going to keep picking it apart until there’s more details, correct or not.
Oh ignore me, I thought that report was from 2018, it’s from today about 2018.I hadnt seen that the BBC reported on it at the time?
I wonder if they’ll remove his Celebrity RATW series3 episodes of Top of the Pops presented by Mills due to be shown on BBC 4 over the next few weeks will now be skipped over. Does this mean the BBC will remove anything he's ever appeared in off iPlayer? That's a hell of a lot of TV to bury.
He obviously went to The Mirror given that they released the news first and they’ve released about a dozen articles about itI think it’s quite likely that whoever complained or wrote in likely suggested that they would go to the media
Given the BBCs current reputation any news that has some factual basis of a relationship between their talent and someone underage is not going to go down well and put the company into disrepute
There clearly has to be some evidence if a whole file was sent to the CPS at the time
I thought the same but didn’t it say yesterday that the abuse happened over 3 years?I think the BBC has gone zero tolerance now & that has come at Scott's expense.
I just can't get my head round any of it, and honestly as this moment in time think he met someone they told him they were older was a fling like relationship not a serious/proper relationship and off the back of all the Yewtree stuff he went to the police in 2016 and then by 2019 not enough evidence was found so is innocent. Not condoning anything but back in the 90s things were different, I was going out to night clubs at 16 but I had friends that were 15...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?