That was it!!!Cold Blood? He’s a great actor, loved him in Benidorm too.
That was it!!!Cold Blood? He’s a great actor, loved him in Benidorm too.
I had no idea! He was still in national legend status in my mind I used to love his show!Oh god I can’t believe you didn‘t know!
I think he avoided full and furious cancellation by being dead.
According to this screenshot, it was the same person.....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![]()
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 MondayI 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 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.Google it, it’s a big story, there are documentaries about it.
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)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.
Yes, it seems to fit. But how bloody stupid would he have to be to re-engage in conversation with the victim!According to this screenshot, it was the same person.....
I hadnt seen that the BBC reported on it at the time?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.
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.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.
The Telegraph reported that Anna Brees (mentioned earlier) contacted the BBC in May 2025 about allegations of inappropriate communication.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?
Which is why the law is written as it is, and includes a defence for that.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.
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.![]()
Scott Mills to sue the BBC over shock Radio 2 sacking in bombshell development
Scott Mills has enlisted lawyers to sue the BBC after they sacked him in relation to a police investigation concerning an underage boy, the Mirror can revealwww.mirror.co.uk
He wouldn't be wasted cash on expensive lawyers when he isn't earning, if he wasn't confident.
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.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.
Because the boy is now a 40yo man. Its disingenuous.Boy / young man / alleged underage victim / youth / teenager
What does it matter?
I haven’t seen that article, do you have the link for it?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'm mildly intrigued by this tooCling film fetish? WTF?
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..