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.
First time trying to archive, hopefully this links to itI've just checked on DM and the story is still there, I found the story of SM no longer suppoting Boyzone gig and it was one of the headlines linked on that page, it behind a paywall but its still there;
Why Scott Mills' accuser came forward, the fall-out for his celebrity friends, 'trouble' around booze and the anger, wailing and devastation inside Radio 2. Insiders tell all to KATIE HIND
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.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.
It’s a legal minefield, they will be saying as little, as neutral as possible.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:
View attachment 3950641
So - not a lot. I think their wording is rather careful. BBC News is probably the closest source to the coalfire and it says:
View attachment 3950657
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?
I read this in Ted Hastings voiceThe Police do not pass anything on to an employer, they work within the law, to the law.
They don’t explain them selves to many people!
Right. Thanks for clarifying that.The contact stopped years before the allegations, contact was til 2006 first allegation was 2016
Cling film fetish? WTF?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.
I'm mildly intrigued by this tooCling film fetish? WTF?
https://giphy.com/ZYKVjtcMfOMtv8dhgKCling film fetish? WTF?
That's the world we live in - or rather the men in it.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.
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.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.
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.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."
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.I was just reading / thinking about this … So a couple of charities SM represented have dropped him and now Channel 4 has pulled his Bake Off episode.
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?
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?