Scott Mills

[Merpedy]

This from GB news says no suggestion the inappropriate messages were to same person, I thought one of the Mirror articles said itwas but now cant see that https://www.gbnews.com/celebrity/scott-mills-bbc-knew-inappropriate-communications

It's not clear whether the initial enquiry, which was raised due to something someone working at the BBC disclosed to this journalist, was about the same individual*

The Mirror does say the information is regarding the same person as the investigation concerned

* though with how quiet it all is I doubt this is a case where there are many victims

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

Well the fail says

https://www.archive.is/oldest/https.../Scott-Mills-BBC-Radio-2-replacement-axe.html

If they think Greg James is a risk, wait and see what happens to the listener figures if OJ Borg gets it. At least Greg is known to millions. OJ has a niche following from the night shift crew.

 

[Nelly's mum]

Well there’s not much else to say regarding Scott at the moment! There’s no new info.
His show was on Radio 2.

Hah! You can tell I don't listen to radio

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

https://archive.is/G28pm

He's been seen out and about, so he cannot be that bothered to not be keeping a low profile. The BBC have to say what new evidence came to light. They are encouraging a pile on by being vague.

 

[HotesTilaire]

It’s a bit of a nightmare if the situation is as he says - he was investigated years ago, he disclosed the age to the bbc, no action was taken by CPS…then years later it blows up and he gets sacked.

If there was a complaint but it didn’t meet the threshold for prosecution then he’s stuck. He can’t clear his name but he isn’t tried or found guilty either.

 

[Yel]

I always think of Jenna when anyone says OJ

 

[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.

 

[pixxyy]

I've asked a couple of times but now theres more of us, The wording of serious sexual offences would that be used purely because of it being a underage lad or would that be called something different

 

[L3moning]

When was the age of consent in gay relationships reduced from 21? I feel like it was still 21 in the 90s but am unsure.

IIRC it was reduced to 18 in the late 80s (maybe as part of the same law that is still used for indecent images?) then to 16 in 2000

 

[Happy Alpaca]

Jeremy was far more vocal in his support for Huw Edwards in those early days and weeks than he has been for Scott, which is interesting given he is now saying he knew Huw was a bully. I know being a bully is not the same as grooming / CSAM but you’d think it was unpleasant enough to exercise a bit more caution before speaking so publicly in support of him.

That's interesting. I hadn't seen/heard Jeremy's previous comments re Huw, and don't know much about Jeremy at all, except that he has a brother called Tim . So yes, I agree, if he is now saying that Huw was known for bullying, why would he have previously spoken up for him..... it makes J seem disingenuous.

 

[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.

 

[HotesTilaire]

Could it be to protect the victim/survivor? If they were only 13 at the time and all this was apparently common knowledge amongst his social circles, it could be to stop them being named for their own protection and privacy- they very well may have their own children to protect these days

It’s unlikely because the victim (who is now an adult) wouldn’t be named in the press.
The chances of the victim applying for an injunction and getting it are even more remote than Scott getting it. And that wouldn’t stop other stories about Scott and others, anyway (If there were any).

 

[Marchioness Cha-Cha]

So is it/could it be that the recent "malicious communication" mentioned that happened more recently is with the same underage boy from the first complaint from years ago? Or am I getting it all wrong?
ETA sorry it was "inappropriate communications" reported by that journalist, I think that's all we know about them?

Anyway I said I wouldn't try to guess so I'm going back to wondering about @Bread's Allegeter/alleger

 

[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.

 

[secretsrsafe]

Nooooooooooo i love her at teatime who hell can replace her slot

Gary maybe

 

[Happy Alpaca]

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

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?

Again, I'm not sure we have the answer....I'm just wondering

 

[Borbora]

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

Because blurring the lines takes away from other victims

 

[L3moning]

It's also likely the charge wasn't one we'd use today (since it happened before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was in effect) so they might have just been told he was being investigated for a 'buggery' charge or 'lewd and lascivious behaviour' which wouldn't immediately ring alarms in the way a 'sexual activity with a person under 16' charge would today.

It would most likely be Gross Indecency or Indecent Assault, under the 1956 Act.

 

[GingerJones50]

Mate again, where are you getting this from? Are you just surmising?

I posted something earlier. The Mirror and other sources have reported that this involves a new and separate allegation from the same person.

A journalist Anna Bree approached them last year regarding Mills sending inappropriate and harassing messages to someone. The BBC have confirmed she contacted them and have apologised for not investigating her claims further at the time. Which suggests it relates to these allegations because otherwise, why would they be apologising for not investigating earlier?

So I am reading between the lines somewhat, but given it’s a new and separate allegation it does suggest there has been contact between him and Mills since the allegation and what was contained in that contact wasn’t very nice.

So I think saying he was sacked over the allegation 10 years ago is probably wide of the mark as the BBC confirmed they were fully aware of it and let him keep his job. Something new has happened involving the same person since then and that’s what he’s been sacked for.