Problem is, that is the most packed-non-story ever. It's like she has sat down and just thrown some random 'facts' together and mentioned sources.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Honestly, I don't think anyone needs to get into another drawn-out disagreement with you about police protocol. If someone with experience and knowledge can clarify whether or not the police would have had a duty to pass on the details of the investigation at the time to Scott's employer that would be great because if you are sayingt he police would have had a duty to do so, either the BBC are lying or the police failed to pass on the information.
To clarify - or not! - this is all the BBC have said:
So - not a lot. I think their wording is rather careful. BBC News is probably the closest source to the coalfire and it says:
Which makes it clear that the previous allegation is related to the sacking; however, the BBC themselves haven't mentioned this in their statement. Does anyone know why this might be?
Last edited:
It’s a legal minefield, they will be saying as little, as neutral as possible.
The Police do not pass anything on to an employer, they work within the law, to the law. They do not have a duty to pass on anything in relation to SM‘s alledged historical sexual offences at this point. IF there were for example issues that relate to the BBC like it happened in their grounds etc they would investigate the BBC staff as necessary via an investigation, not by blabbing what’s happening to the HR dept.
The police don't torpedo investigations by sharing them with employers!
An employer should pass anything of concern to the appropriate authorities including police if necessary. Authorities have no duty to share things with employers beyond the likes of DBS etc through formal channels.
Last edited:
Thank you. It did sound unlikely.
They don’t explain them selves to many people!
Right. Thanks for clarifying that.
In the past hour I’ve heard radio 2 promo a show starring a man who pays for sex, play a song by a man who had relationships with underage girls and play an archive clip of a man whose wife left him due to his cling film fetish. I’m not saying they were wrong to sack SM because it does sound like it’s well deserved but I’d very much like the BBC to publish a values report to understand what they’re fine with.
Cling film fetish? WTF?
I'm mildly intrigued by this too
Last edited:
That's the world we live in - or rather the men in it.
Should they never play Bowie or the Stones again? (I have no idea who the cling film fetish guy is
)If they’ve wiped the SM episodes of TOTP etc then I kind of think they should be consistent and not play them to be honest.That's the world we live in - or rather the men in it.
Should they never play Bowie or the Stones again? (I have no idea who the cling film fetish guy is
I’ve just come off a cruise and one of the speakers was Chris Kimsey who was a sound recordist at Olympic Sound Studios, he worked with so many people from the Stones to Bowie to Prince and was very interesting until he showed an interview with Bill Wyman and said they still met up for meals etc, how can anyone still have anything to do with the man. He also showed an interview with Fish from Marillion who happens to be called Derek, it doesn’t have the same appeal.
Bill Wyman is horrible. He would not get away with that now for sure.
I also think of Polanski who absconded after admitting to drugging and sexual relations with a 13 year old, why is he still revered?
I also think of Polanski who absconded after admitting to drugging and sexual relations with a 13 year old, why is he still revered?
Rylan and Sam Ryder were on This Morning earlier talking about this year’s Eurovision and Rylan hosting. They are (were) both very good friends with SM but they did a good job of being bright and breezy acting like nothing has changed.
Scott Mills episode of The Great British Bake Off will not air, Channel 4 says
The former DJ, who was sacked by the BBC last month, was due to appear on the show's celebrity spin-off.
www.bbc.co.uk
Channel 4 the latest to axe him.
He had already filmed The Great Celebrity Bake Off for Stand Up To Cancer, but Channel 4 said it had "carefully considered the circumstances" and "taken the decision not to air" the episode featuring him.
"Acknowledging the seriousness of the accusations that have been made against Scott, we don't believe it would be appropriate to air the episode at this time," Channel 4 said.
"An alternative episode of Celebrity GBBO will go out in its place."
I was just reading / thinking about this … So a couple of charities SM represented have dropped him / asked him to step back and now Channel 4 has pulled his Bake Off episode.Scott Mills episode of The Great British Bake Off will not air, Channel 4 says
The former DJ, who was sacked by the BBC last month, was due to appear on the show's celebrity spin-off.
Channel 4 the latest to axe him.
He had already filmed The Great Celebrity Bake Off for Stand Up To Cancer, but Channel 4 said it had "carefully considered the circumstances" and "taken the decision not to air" the episode featuring him.
"Acknowledging the seriousness of the accusations that have been made against Scott, we don't believe it would be appropriate to air the episode at this time," Channel 4 said.
"An alternative episode of Celebrity GBBO will go out in its place."
Do we know whether the charities and Channel 4 were given the same information as the BBC (possibly via SM), or are they making decisions based purely on the assumption that whatever led to the BBC letting him go must have been serious?
ETA: I just saw that line in the C4 statement ""Acknowledging the seriousness of the accusations that have been made against Scott, we don't believe it would be appropriate to air the episode at this time," Channel 4 said." so that answers the question for C4. I wonder if it's the same for the charities.
Last edited:
Yeah I’ve wondered what they know or if they are being extra precautious - i guess they could argue him being dropped by BBC is enough to justify them also dropping him, from a legal perspective.
One thing I keep thinking about is how the public had no idea that Huw Edwards was arrested then charged with his crimes until he was due in court (https://archive.ph/CwC0y). The public really have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes. If the police ever reopen the investigation then I wonder if we will even hear about it.
- Status