Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Happy Alpaca

VIP Member
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 🐊🤣
According to this screenshot, it was the same person.....

I think I'm losing track now though, were the inappropriate communications recent, or just known about recently?
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: 2

Prince fan 1999

VIP Member
I love listening to sara at teatime so hope she isnt moved,not sure she'd want to go back to breakfast though so hopefully

I've got a feeling they might move vernon to breakfast,i prefer his mid morning slot though
I think if Vernon was going to move to breakfast it would have been announced by now(perfect opportunity to switch it up when he gets back off of holiday on Monday 😕).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

Bread

VIP Member
Google it, it’s a big story, there are documentaries about it.
I did and that's the first thing I found after following links from her Wikipedia, but I do think the documentary is still available on iPlayer... I'll watch it tomorrow. She's written a book as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

AnonymousMumOf4

Active member
How would he get a super-injunction approved anyway? They usually give them to people where there’s a secret love child involved, and it would be damaging for the child for the story to run. You can’t just get a court to grant an injunction against mean unkind articles, otherwise there would be nothing printed.
You also cant get a super injunction to cover up criminal activity (should that be the case with Scott Mills, we dont know at this stage)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

pixxyy

VIP Member
He wasn’t legally cleared - the CPS didn't find enough evidence to proceed.

Unfortunately that means it’s in legal limbo - can’t be progressed, can’t be undone. It could be he did something bad, it could be he’s being unfairly accused by a person with issues.

I think it’s difficult for the BBC to say they didn’t know/he didn’t declare it given the BBC reported on it at the time, but who knows.

This is a minefield because the victim has a right to anonymity, Scott’s reputation career and earnings have taken a hit, the public doesn’t have a right to know why he was sacked. He is allowed to say nothing, as he’s doing. Yet because of the suspicion and info vacuum the public and the media are going to keep picking it apart until there’s more details, correct or not.
I hadnt seen that the BBC reported on it at the time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

HotesTilaire

VIP Member
We don’t know this, the police keep saying serious sexual offences for all we know this amounts to 100s of rapes/sexual incidents over the period, it might not be. But you can’t equate number of victims to severity automatically, we don’t know enough to know if there’s actually any others that have never reported things and have moved on.
It could be just the one person we know about but it’s impossible to say just because no one else has come forward yet that’s it.
Yes but the friend isn’t saying anything untrue, there’s only been one victim so far. How people read into that is a different thing. If anything, it could inspire people to come forward who hadn’t been sure whether to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2

AllSeeingEye123

VIP Member

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

GJD

Member
It’s risky to support someone who’s being investigated for CSA. I remember when the Corrie actor Michael Le Vell was the subject of a malicious complaint. Lots of his co-stars including Brooke Vincent, Charlie Condou and Malcolm Hebden stood up for him publicly which made me think that it was indeed a pack of lies. Usually, colleagues remain silent and it’s provably wise unless you know the case really well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

Marchioness Cha-Cha

Active member
According to this screenshot, it was the same person.....

I think I'm losing track now though, were the inappropriate communications recent, or just known about recently?
The Telegraph reported that Anna Brees (mentioned earlier) contacted the BBC in May 2025 about allegations of inappropriate communication.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

L3moning

VIP Member
But I think the point they are making is people do look and act older and especially if they are in a nightclub or a bar. You wouldn't think to question someone who you perceive to be of age.
Which is why the law is written as it is, and includes a defence for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

NowIsGood

VIP Member

He wouldn't be wasted cash on expensive lawyers when he isn't earning, if he wasn't confident.
I suppose if he wants any possibility of working again he needs to clear his name. I imagine this legal action will rumble on for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

GingerJones50

VIP Member
I'm baffled at the lack of outright denial in the statement. You usually get some type of "I categorically deny these allegations" line, yet this is basically "the CPS deemed there was not enough evidence to charge me, and it was ages ago, so please stop talking about it." Obviously he would have been advised by the relevant people who know exactly how to word these things from both a legal and PR perspective, so it doesn't look good (to me, at least) that there was no denial.
I think that’s splitting hairs a bit because saying the police took no action against him makes it clear he denies the allegations because if he didn’t the case wouldn’t have been dropped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

plattyjoobs

VIP Member
Yes, there was an article that said the relationship spanned 13-16, maybe it starting at 13 was the additional information. Age of consent was 18 for gay people then afaik, but a 16yo partner would rightly be viewed differently than a 13yo.
I haven’t seen that article, do you have the link for it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

AllSeeingEye123

VIP Member
I feel more will come out in future and we'll see if this was an innocent misunderstanding or more of an HE situation. If you like a person it is difficult to imagine they have done something awful, I know I initially found it difficult to believe the HE allegations, time will tell..

His friends don't even know, apart from Scott might be suing for unfair dismissal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2