Scott Mills

[YeahBrackie]

Nobody is saying that’s okay if he did it. But it was investigated by the police and he wasn’t prosecuted. He’s not been convicted of anything but because the BBC had a knee jerk reaction, hysterics like you are pranding him a pweirdo over something that may well never have happened.

The BBC are going to haemorrhage staff over this. They’ve created a situation where any fixated person or nutter can make allegations against their staff and they’ll sack them and throw them to the pitchfork mob like you and ruin their loves, even if nobody is sure they actually did what’s alleged.

I wouldn't call it a knee jerk reaction. The BBC have just released another statement saying they were aware back in 2017 that he was being questioned for the serious sexual allegations. He wasn't charged, so the BBC didn't take any action, and recently gave him probably the most coveted radio slot (and probably one of the highest salaries.)

It's only since being given more information a few weeks ago that they made the decision to sack him. I'd say they were more than fair given what he was questioned for initially. He received no professional repercussions (understandably since he wasnt charged), and a promotion after they knew he was being questioned.

 

[Merpedy]

It is confusing to me how somebody has been fired for behaviour for which there is no evidence. Either Scott has admitted the behaviour or this is surely open to challenge. It is hard to think what purpose is served by firing the man, other than bolstering the BBC's image as zero tolerance. Which we all know it isn't.

I think it’s quite likely that whoever complained or wrote in likely suggested that they would go to the media

Given the BBCs current reputation any news that has some factual basis of a relationship between their talent and someone underage is not going to go down well and put the company into disrepute

There clearly has to be some evidence if a whole file was sent to the CPS at the time

 

[MarshMallowMonster]

I do think about the alleged victim in this case, watching all this unfold.

There is a lot of support for SM despite his statement which was not a compete denial of what may or may not have happened.

The statement has been carefully curated with knowledges that we aren’t privy to. Scott knows what he did and didn’t do. He knows what evidence the boy has. Scott knows the case was closed in 2016 due to lack of evidence, knows precisely what he was accused of back then.

The boy can rightly sell his story to the press if he wants, I wonder if he is thinking to do that?

CSA survivors seeking justice can be very driven, a voice that needs to be heard. Even many years later.

 

[Reversible Octopus]

BBC have apologised after admitting it knew about SM complaint last year!

Why not surprised....

 

[DoreenMachine]

Good luck getting a consistent answer on that.

Its not inherently anything to do with age (I'd call Gok Wan a twink, for example, and he's over 50), although i think some people do probably see it that way.

Sorry... Gok Wan a 'twink' - I'm dead

 

[L3moning]

As expected, MWT now piping up

Mark Williams-Thomas likes to vague post about everything and then claim he knew as soon as the next person is accused.

 

[Yel]

Scotts statement seems like it was just put out to say something, but that he's not going to say anything other than thanks because he doesn't know what else is coming.

 

[AnonymousMumOf4]

Chris Moyles and Charlotte Church, but also Chris Evans and Billie Piper. He bought her a Ferrari and sent it to her house when she was only 17. They got married when she was 18 and he was 35. Something about DJs and younger people, its repulsive

 

[Yel]

My gut feeling with this was Scott had a relationship of sorts with someone 14-15 when he was 22-23.

I'm not sure if his statement disproves this as if this was the case admitting it, even with the caveat of thinking the boy was older, would be admitting a crime that the CPS have found not enough evidence to charge. There's the guidance about if you genuinely believe someone is 14+ then that is a defence, but this seems very grey.

Back when I was 15 so many of us had fake ID and said we were 18. I can't remember challenge 25 being a thing 30 years ago.

Obviously my gut feeling is biased by my personal opinion of Scott and that (unlike many others) there hasn't been a lot of rumours about him that predate the sacking.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

Statement:

'The recent announcement that I am no longer contracted to the BBC has led to the publication of rumour and speculation. In response to this the Metropolitan Police has made a statement, which I confirm relates to me.

'An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully cooperated and responded to in 2018. As the police have stated, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which determined that the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges.

'Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed 7 years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter.

'I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues, and my beloved listeners, who I greatly miss.'

I notice he didn’t say it was a false allegation.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

Verifying Device

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?

It can take a while for a victim to realise that they’ve been groomed/abused. I think the BBC said it was a third party who first reported it (when there was insufficient evidence to proceed) so maybe at the time he didn’t realise he’d been groomed, and it took the Huw Edwards documentary for him to realise that whatever happened had been inappropriate.

 

[Periwinkleblue]

I find it interesting that there are a number of people determined to find the most charitable explanation of what happened, in a way that I’ve not seen in other scandals like this. The BBC are also being criticised for doing what initially seemed like the opposite to the thing they were criticised for with Huw Edwards.

Given it’s been reported that the BBC is in contact with the alleged victim , it seems he’s been in contact with the BBC and raised this with them. They were already aware Scott had been interviewed in 2016 and now they have the victim giving his story. We were all incensed when the BBC ignored the complaint from the family about Huw Edwards. Perhaps they’ve acted decisively to try to avoid a similar situation. Especially if there’s been a mention of going to the media

But there is a massive difference is there not between the risk posed by someone that acted with one individual twenty five years ago and someone who was up until his discovery (and afterwards) actively pursuing multiple individuals?

Between someone found guilty in a court and sentenced, and someone who was not charged.

Between viewing dozens of images of child sex abuse including toddlers and someone whom from the facts we have MAY only have entered into a 'consensual' relationship with someone who was fifteen

People are reacting differently because these are very different offender profiles representing very different risks and because not to appreciate this is truly to be part of the mindless, braying, almost always hypocritical mob

People are reacting differently because these are two different things.

 

[Yel]

Anyone that's a regular on tattle should know the mail make up an article out of nothing. With all the shit they've made up about tattle because they have business interests with influencers and tattle is a threat.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

Why do you keep saying boy?

Because he was under 16? What else would he be described as?

 

[L3moning]

Im sorry (not sorry at all actually) but i honestly think a lot of you will be ashamed when you others step forward and more comes out.

I don't think there's anything to be ashamed of in saying "wait for more info", which is what the majority are saying.

 

[Lukeal70]

You weren’t around in the 90s then I guess. Adults sleeping with underage people, girls in particular, was something the authorities turned a total blind eye to between the mid 90s and mid 00s. It was completely common for men in their 20s to be named as the father of an under 16s baby on a birth certificate and no action would be taken. The grooming gangs inquiry revealed that the Labour government took an official line that younger teenagers were capable of taking informed decisions about sexual activity and the age of consent was rarely legally enforced.

For years the age of consent was more of a guideline than a law, relationships between teens under the age of consent and people in their early 20s were much, much more societally accepted. Attitudes have undergone a huge sea change in the last 15 years or so.

I know a girl who had a child around 2008, she was 15. The father was a 28 year old alcoholic. Social services got them a flat together. I thought he should have been prosecuted. Obviously he didn't stay long.

 

[Gym&Tonic]

Huge ‘unwise but not illegal’ age gap relationships were certainly looked on differently back in the 90’s into the early 2000’s. In about 99/2000 I worked with a girl the same age as me who was 17 and in a relationship with a man who in his mid 40’s. She’d met him when he was her school bus driver. Nowadays he’d be rightfully seen as an old pervert.

 

[Phil Anne Throw Pee]

Wow a lot of you are really trying to make excuses for the fact that he was involved with a CHILD. And by involved I mean groomed/abused. I don’t care how many years ago it was. That’s FUCKED UP.

We have no proof that he was involved with and/or groomed/abused a child. Let's not speculate until we know the truth.

 

[HotesTilaire]

It feels a bit sordid doesn't it? A bit like he has groomed his fans too.

It’s a parasocial relationship just like people who think they ”know” influencers.

The scary thing about it with these types (and this is not specific to SM as we don’t have full info) is that people around them are “groomed” in a way, to think they‘re nice/decent/fun/ordinary. Whether it’s the Vicar, Scout Leader, Football coach, DJ, politician, actor etc and it’s scary pvecisely because you can’t know and you are duped.

That teacher Jeremy Forrest who ran off to France with a 15 year old pupil, the Safeguarding investigation into that actually stated he effectively groomed the other teachers into thinking he was lovely, great, no problem so that he wasn’t ever suspected.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

Because blurring the lines takes away from other victims

He was a child when he was a victim. Why is his age now relevant and what lines would it blur?