Scott Mills

[GingerJones50]

Right, so I am joining the dots again, so complainers, complain if you want, but it’s like putting together a jigsaw from limited information.

I think it goes something like this:

1996-2000 Events leading to accusation happened
2000-2008 Person involved stayed in contact with Mills
2008 - They lost contact
2018 - Someone (probably parents) came forward and made allegations towards Mills which were later dropped, likely because the alleged victim wouldn’t cooperate
2025 - Anna Brees contacts BBC about Mills sending inappropriate messages and is ignored
2026 - Alleged victim comes forward and makes new allegations (different from his parents as he knows first hand what happened) and hands over corroborating information (including Mills continued contact and evidence that he had at the time which he didn’t hand over to police) because he wasn’t cooperating) to the BBC. Possibly motivated by the Huw Edwards show and realisation he was groomed. BBC sacks Mills. Victim hasn’t complained to police, possibly because he’s been through one investigation and doesn’t want to experience another.

That’s my guess on what’s out there now.

 

[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.

 

[pixxyy]

Right, so I am joining the dots again, so complainers, complain if you want, but it’s like putting together a jigsaw from limited information.

I think it goes something like this:

1996-2000 Events leading to accusation happened
2000-2008 Person involved stayed in contact with Mills
2008 - They lost contact
2018 - Someone (probably parents) came forward and made allegations towards Mills which were later dropped, likely because the alleged victim wouldn’t cooperate
2025 - Anna Brees contacts BBC about Mills sending inappropriate messages and is ignored
2026 - Alleged victim comes forward and makes new allegations (different from his parents as he knows first hand what happened) and hands over corroborating information (including Mills continued contact and evidence that he had at the time which he didn’t hand over to police) because he wasn’t cooperating) to the BBC. Possibly motivated by the Huw Edwards show and realisation he was groomed. BBC sacks Mills. Victim hasn’t complained to police, possibly because he’s been through one investigation and doesn’t want to experience another.

That’s my guess on what’s out there now.

The 2018 was when Scott was interviewed by Police, the investigation started 2016

 

[HotesTilaire]

I thought it was 97-2000 the events happened and they stayed in touch to 2006?

 

[Bread]

Right, so I am joining the dots again, so complainers, complain if you want, but it’s like putting together a jigsaw from limited information.

I think it goes something like this:

1996-2000 Events leading to accusation happened
2000-2008 Person involved stayed in contact with Mills
2008 - They lost contact
2018 - Someone (probably parents) came forward and made allegations towards Mills which were later dropped, likely because the alleged victim wouldn’t cooperate
2025 - Anna Brees contacts BBC about Mills sending inappropriate messages and is ignored
2026 - Alleged victim comes forward and makes new allegations (different from his parents as he knows first hand what happened) and hands over corroborating information (including Mills continued contact and evidence that he had at the time which he didn’t hand over to police) because he wasn’t cooperating) to the BBC. Possibly motivated by the Huw Edwards show and realisation he was groomed. BBC sacks Mills. Victim hasn’t complained to police, possibly because he’s been through one investigation and doesn’t want to experience another.

That’s my guess on what’s out there now.

We know that the case was dismissed by the CPS, not dropped by the police. We also don't know the victim didn't cooperate.

There's no evidence that the victim handed over additional evidence, nor that they haven't complained to the police... In fact the only evidence we have is a complaint was made, dismissed by the CPS and more evidence came to light which was the age of the complainant.

 

[GingerJones50]

The 2018 was when Scott was interviewed by Police, the investigation started 2016

Sorry, people have been using those dates interchangeably on the thread so I got confused.

 

[GingerJones50]

I thought it was 97-2000 the events happened and they stayed in touch to 2006?

It’s being reported that they stayed in contact 8 years after the events happened. So if they finished in 2000, that makes it 2008.

 

[pixxyy]

Sorry, people have been using those dates interchangeably on the thread so I got confused.

oh thats understandable as more articles have come out some information has changed. Which i'm sure will continue to happen


spoke to a source who said the teenager remained friends with Mills until 2006. The source said: "A lot of Scott's friends knew about this lad. Scott stayed in touch with him, and I first heard about him in 2001."

They added that Mills was "friendly" with the boy ", like he was with a lot of people", and that the two were "still in contact until around 2006."

 

[GingerJones50]

We know that the case was dismissed by the CPS, not dropped by the police. We also don't know the victim didn't cooperate.

There's no evidence that the victim handed over additional evidence, nor that they haven't complained to the police... In fact the only evidence we have is a complaint was made, dismissed by the CPS and more evidence came to light which was the age of the complainant.

That’s splitting hairs because I just said dropped and didn’t say by who.

Anyway, the CPS doesn’t take any action on making or dropping charges anyway. they make a decision on whether there will be charges or the case dropped and return it to police who take the actual action of pressing charges or dropping the case on their instruction.

We don’t know much at all. But we do know that something has emerged now from the person involved which is different from the information in the police investigation. The BBC felt the info from the first investigation wasn’t strong enough to warrant a sacking. The person concerned has now come forward with new information not included in the first police investigation which the BBC felt was serious enough to warrant his immediate sacking.

You have to question why this information wasn’t given to the police investigation. Given he and Mills remained friends after the investigation I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that he didn’t cooperate with the enquiry and didn’t hand over all the evidence he had. Why would he and Mills have stayed friends if he was the complainant and cooperated with the investigation? It’s much more likely the complaint came from elsewhere.

There is information that the person involved has handed over new evidence because the BBC has said that he has come forward with new information that is different to that in the original investigation.

That person is probably around 40 now, perhaps a father themselves or an uncle to teenagers and is starting to see what happened in a different light.

 

[GingerJones50]

oh thats understandable as more articles have come out some information has changed. Which i'm sure will continue to happen


spoke to a source who said the teenager remained friends with Mills until 2006. The source said: "A lot of Scott's friends knew about this lad. Scott stayed in touch with him, and I first heard about him in 2001."

They added that Mills was "friendly" with the boy ", like he was with a lot of people", and that the two were "still in contact until around 2006."

Thanks for understanding. If true, it really does sound like this chap didn’t make the initial complaint. I really can’t see how anyone would stay friends with someone who accused them of a serious sexual assault. I think it’s more likely his parents.

 

[Lola123]

Thanks for understanding. If true, it really does sound like this chap didn’t make the initial complaint. I really can’t see how anyone would stay friends with someone who accused them of a serious sexual assault. I think it’s more likely his parents.

It could have been a friend of theirs, it doesn’t have to be the parent, it could be they stopped contacting him when the parents found out, could have been a teacher or the school too! There’s loads of people the first allegation the police got given could have come from

 

[Bread]

That’s splitting hairs because I just said dropped and didn’t say by who.

Anyway, the CPS doesn’t take any action on making or dropping charges anyway. they make a decision on whether there will be charges or the case dropped and return it to police who take the actual action of pressing charges or dropping the case on their instruction.

We don’t know much at all. But we do know that something has emerged now from the person involved which is different from the information in the police investigation. The BBC felt the info from the first investigation wasn’t strong enough to warrant a sacking. The person concerned has now come forward with new information not included in the first police investigation which the BBC felt was serious enough to warrant his immediate sacking.

You have to question why this information wasn’t given to the police investigation. Given he and Mills remained friends after the investigation I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that he didn’t cooperate with the enquiry and didn’t hand over all the evidence he had. Why would he and Mills have stayed friends if he was the complainant and cooperated with the investigation? It’s much more likely the complaint came from elsewhere.

There is information that the person involved has handed over new evidence because the BBC has said that he has come forward with new information that is different to that in the original investigation.

That person is probably around 40 now, perhaps a father themselves or an uncle to teenagers and is starting to see what happened in a different light.

It's not splitting hairs: it's explaining why the case didn't proceed, which is not that it was dropped but that the CPS did not think there was sufficient evidence to meet their (pretty high) threshold to prosecute.

You've also said that evidence wasn't given to the police initially.
That isn't true. The BBC have sacked him because they didn't know the age of the complainant. New information has apparently come to them, not the police.

I mean I know you're just guessing so it doesn't matter if what you say isn't true, but you may as well be accurate with the bits we know to be true!

 

[Bread]

Thanks for understanding. If true, it really does sound like this chap didn’t make the initial complaint. I really can’t see how anyone would stay friends with someone who accused them of a serious sexual assault. I think it’s more likely his parents.

He didn't. The complaint wasn't made until 2016. As already mentioned on the thread, it is not uncommon to remain in touch with someone who groomed you (if indeed that is what happened).

 

[mindlessness]

You have to question why this information wasn’t given to the police investigation. Given he and Mills remained friends after the investigation I think it’s a pretty reasonable assumption that he didn’t cooperate with the enquiry and didn’t hand over all the evidence he had. Why would he and Mills have stayed friends if he was the complainant and cooperated with the investigation? It’s much more likely the complaint came from elsewhere.

Did they 'remain friends' or were they just in contact? There is a bit of a difference imo.

 

[PickledRadish]

I’m genuinely surprised that the long Easter weekend has now been and gone with nothing more on this story in the media!

 

[Tangerine Dream]

There's a bit in the Mail claiming the BBC have "wiped" his Top of the Pop episodes from the archive and removed a plaque dedicated to him.

From reading, it sounds like the word "wiped" just means not screening anywhere but still.

They are acting like he's on par with Savile. Probably because since then they've been caught with yet more sleaze, and because people were extremely angry abuot the handling of Huw Edwards which was so recent. So they are now going in a direction that seems over the top but in reality is them wanting to show everyone they are doing something, we promise!

Though then again an adult man getting into anything with an underage boy is something I'd certainly want the book thrown at them for.

 

[GingerJones50]

It could have been a friend of theirs, it doesn’t have to be the parent, it could be they stopped contacting him when the parents found out, could have been a teacher or the school too! There’s loads of people the first allegation the police got given could have come from

It could well be. Which is why I said probably in my original post.

 

[GingerJones50]

It's not splitting hairs: it's explaining why the case didn't proceed, which is not that it was dropped but that the CPS did not think there was sufficient evidence to meet their (pretty high) threshold to prosecute.

You've also said that evidence wasn't given to the police initially.
That isn't true. The BBC have sacked him because they didn't know the age of the complainant. New information has apparently come to them, not the police.

I mean I know you're just guessing so it doesn't matter if what you say isn't true, but you may as well be accurate with the bits we know to be true!

The difference between dropped and dismissed is splitting hairs. They both have essentially the same meaning. The case was closed and no further investigation done.

I know the new info went to the BBC and not the police, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s something that wouldn’t be relevant to the police if the person involved wanted to report it to them.

The BBC haven’t much, but they have said it’s something DIFFERENT from the previous investigation. So that makes it sound unlikely that they sacked Mills because they didn’t know the victim was underage. Mills was open about the investigation and it’s something the police would have had a duty to pass on so they could put appropriate safeguarding measures in place whilst the investigation was ungoing. The Sun ran a story at the time which seemed to be about Mills and said the victim was underaged so if the sun knew, it’s bloody unlikely the BBC didn’t. That’s why I think it’s something different involving the communications after the event.

 

[GingerJones50]

He didn't. The complaint wasn't made until 2016. As already mentioned on the thread, it is not uncommon to remain in touch with someone who groomed you (if indeed that is what happened).

Read the post slowly and properly. I said I couldn’t see why Mills would stay friends with someone who had accused him of sexual assault. Not the other way around.

I just said in my post above he may have realised he’d been groomed after seeing the Huw Edwards show. I’m not disputing that.

 

[GingerJones50]

Did they 'remain friends' or were they just in contact? There is a bit of a difference imo.

The story with this info in it said they ‘remained friendly’. But surely Mills wouldn’t even stay in contact if the person concerned had been cooperative with the original investigation?

But as other people have pointed out, people who are groomed may take years to accept that’s what it was and at the time and for years after may have seen it as a normal relationship.