Scott Mills

[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.

 

[Yel]

As far as I'm aware guardian establishment gossiper Marina Hyde has not apologised to Mylene k=Klass for implying she was attention seeking when she was raising concerns about Harvey Weinstein before it was wildly known.

No wonder she's happy to parrot the lies fed to her about tattle from people that can afford PR.

The guardian is an embarrassment for its current output and how it trades off what it's name used to represent.

They platformed jack monroe for years after it became obvious she was a shameless grifter lying for attention.

 

[bowtiesarecool]

Chris Moyles and Charlotte Church, but also Chris Evans and Billie Piper. He bought her a Ferrari and sent it to her house when she was only 17. They got married when she was 18 and he was 35. Something about DJs and younger people, its repulsive

The thing with Chris and Billie is quite odd. She always says marrying him and the party lifestyle they had saved her after becoming so famous so young. The fact that they are still best friends and godparents to each others kids obviously doesn't signpost to her thinking she was groomed.

Not meaning that is was right by any means, but if Billie was happy with the way things were then so be it. It was probably better than being married to Laurence Fox

 

[Nelly's mum]

Verifying Device

Kept in contact with Scott for at least eight years after the alleged abuse happened. Why would he report something new now ten years after he first reported it and whatever it is why didn't he report it at the time?

A 23/24 year old having a sexual relationship with someone under 16 is wrong and illegal, it's irrelevant when it is reported.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

So much discussion over snogging underage people in nightclubs and bars, but I can’t see the relevance to an accusation of serious sexual assault over a period of 3 years.

 

[Periwinkleblue]

Removing all footage and audio of Scott seems to go beyond what the public want and is performative.

For Jimmy Saville it made perfect sense. He abused hundreds of children over decades, and also conned thousands of nurses, charity workers and others. Tens of thousands of people had a personal impact from this man's repeated abuse and deception. To stumble across his voice or image was certain to trigger a very deep revulsion and upset for anyone aware of him...which was the entire British public.

It seems this case is very different. And without wishing to make any assumptions about the trauma experienced by the youngster in this case, deleting thousands of episodes of TV and radio shows is in a literal sense rewriting history.

The time could be much better spent and the BBC's position on integrity much better communicated by other means, I feel.

 

[ButtonDownTheHutches]

But I don’t recall seeing Fry with a procession of young men, it seems like they met each other and that was it, not that he only ever goes for young looking lads.

Presumably if the “only” or main attraction is looking young, then the young spouses will be ditched and replaced in due course.

Stephen Fry does seem to be quite interested in fictional explorations of youthful sexuality.

He wrote a play centred around a male teacher embarking upon a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/fry-under-fire-over-paedophilia-play-186150.html)

He wrote a novel in which a 15-year-old boy instigates sexual relationship with various women (The Liar)


But it's all good, because underage sexual experiences with older people are nothing to whinge about, according to Stephen Fry:

 

[ButtonDownTheHutches]

Because blurring the lines takes away from other victims

I don't understand what is meant here: in what sense does referencing that a victim of past sexual abuse was a child when it happened take anything away from other victims, and what 'lines' are being 'blurred' in referring to said victim as a 'boy' (which he was at the time of the alleged offenses)?

 

[Mugginsme]

He didn’t come forward at the time. He came forward 20 years later.

It doesn't matter when someone comes forward. Ever.

 

[ButtonDownTheHutches]

No, I don't think they can be.

Do you have any instances of this happening?

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).

 

[Notworthy]

Well it effectively settled when the police said there was not enough evidence to charge him. I don’t know how else you think it could have been settled. Proving false allegations is just as difficult ss proving sexual offences.

It could be a victim determined to get jistice. Equally it could be someone fixated or with a grudge, because they can be equally persistent if not more so.

The Police did not say there wasn't enough evidence they felt there was, prepared a file and sent it to the CPS. It was the CPS that decided not tp prosecute.
The barrier to press charges on an historical se offence is incredibly high hence why the prosecution % rate for rape is in single digits.

 

[Yel]

I hope they also bring up the tabloids treatment of Charlotte as a child.

Quite. It's like when the daily mail is calling tattle the most horrific site despite their own comments sections having worse and their journalists and photographers actually harass these people in real life unlike tattlers that comment on what they share. The hypocrisy.

 

[ChipChip]

But the victim was a boy.
Just because he is an adult now, doesn't mean the crime has somehow time-traveled with him and is now something that was committed against an adult.
He was a boy when this happened to him. Even those here assuming he was 15, I mean saying under 16 means he might have been 12 or younger for all we know.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

Exactly, was.

Why is it bothering you? He was a boy at the time the alleged offence occurred, that’s all that is relevant really.

 

[Skippy81]

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...

 

[Happy Alpaca]

I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of in saying "wait for more info", which is what the majority are saying.

Agree,
We all have different experiences that make us think the way we do...

Some people I know think CSA and other abuse are very rare, but due to work I've done and issues personal to me, I see it everywhere.

It's naturally a very emotive subject for those that are impacted, but I understand why some people just can't imagine the complexities of it, or how common it is. And in some ways... lucky them. It used to baffle me that some didnt understand, but it doesn't anymore. Abuse is horrendous and unimaginable, so if lives haven't been impacted by it, it's understandable that it's hard for them to comprehend.

All we can do is help each other see the different perspectives, and educate if relevant, or signpost to more info.

If people just attack and criticise each other, it doesn't help anyone. It just causes people to dig their heels into their own current perspective.

My comments here aren't aimed at anyone specifically and aren't strictly related to SM, as it isn't clear what has happened, but I'm sure we will find out more in the coming days and weeks.

If the thread is triggering anyone, just do what you know works for you, for your own self care 🫂

 

[Bread]

Meh... I don't like that. There's a sinister reading to anything and typical Mail there's some very subtle homophobia injected into it. Sam wasn't and isn't a child, and dragging him into this is really horrible. If he has an issue with their relationship it's up to him to talk about it, not some shitty tabloid to judge it.

 

[Adelie penguin]

God he used to mention that Bridge all the time !

Well the cancellation is complete, the plaque is gone! That was this afternoon, I wonder how quickly they took it down.

 

[Em312]

No article has stated that he was 13. His exact age hasn't been released.

The police have said he was in the age bracket 13-16.

This is how misinformation spreads.

 

[Baby Giraffe]

There's something really offputting about Scott Mills and his friends doing a victimhood tour.

Maybe just keep your head down for a while until appropriate. He's gone all Ant McPartlin with the papped dog walks and his friends keep on about how worried they are.

Maybe don't try to overshadow the alleged victim right when it's all fresh news again?

What are you talking about? The man has barely been seen and it's not unreasonable for him to go for a walk with his husband and dog. Nobody is saying that victims should be ignored.