Scott Mills

[Bread]

I think one thing worth remembering is until 2000, the age of consent for 'homosexual acts' was still higher at 18, even though it was 16 otherwise. So someone would still be 'underage' in the eyes of the law at 16-17, even though they can consent to sex with the opposite gender. 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.

Personally I'm not sure how much the police would actually disclose to an accused's employer though beyond any charges and incident dates.
I've had a justice-related job where we sometimes had to contact police forces regarding cases, and most forces flat-out refuse to answer any questions while enquiries are still ongoing (even when you're just asking to clarify a typo in the date the police already gave, because I don't think it is going to 'jeopardise the case' if you just confirm nobody time travelled to future so I can log the correct date please ).

This is a very good point. In which case they would have dismissed it as homophobia.

 

[GingerJones50]

Yeah, I read ‘remained friendly’ as not quite the same as being friends.

We just can’t know exactly how it all transpired I guess. Meanwhile with the limited information available lots of assumptions are being made (about how in contact they were, the exact age of the young person etc).

Surely if someone had actively accused you of a serious sexual assault you wouldn’t even ‘remain friendly’ even if you weren’t actual friends? Anyone with any sense (and Mills seems to have some) would cut off that person entirely because any contact with them, however innocent, could be misconstrued and twisted into a new allegation (although I’m not assuming the original allegation was untrue, if it was true the victim could well have used their friendly communication to gather evidence to back up their claims).

I just really can’t see Mills continuing any sort of communication with someone who had themselves made or supported such a serious allegation against him.

 

[cazellie]

I just hope whoever comes in gets rid of pause for thought

I don’t mind some of them but other cheese me off! I remember it going when Terry did the breakfast show so doubt it would be stopped

 

[pixxyy]

From my reading, I don't think this latest thing is anything related to the previous allegations. I think they were brought up incidentally, possibly by the dodgy journalist?

I could be wrong (often am) but I think this is something entirely unrelated. If anyone can tell me where the whole him inappropriately messaging the victim comes from (as in, a proper official report, rather than a claim to have read something somewhere) that would be great.

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

 

[Bread]

I’m not sure about this to be honest, when it’s a serious allegation involving a minor. SM was contracted rather than an employee, but in general the legal threshold for the BBC is balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt, and organisations have a duty of care and need to consider safeguarding and risk management.

We don’t know what evidence was provided to the police, or what the BBC have seen. But I don’t think it’s as simple as he (and others like him) shouldn’t lose their jobs/careers because they were never charged and therefore it’s an unfounded allegation. No charges doesn’t mean there was no evidence whatsoever.

A fair process needs to take place but I think organisations should be able to decide there is still a risk factor especially where safeguarding is concerned and be able to legally remove those employees/contractors from their organisations.

Good point... but would the organisation see the evidence made available to the CPS? Presumably the police would find some allegations had no credence whatsoever and wouldn't go as far as handing evidence to the CPS? That would help distinguish between an unfounded allegation and one with some weight.

 

[Bread]

That was an abrupt volte face!

 

[TwooTwooTwitTwitTwoo]

I haven’t seen that article, do you have the link for it?

It's a couple of pages back in this thread. A Daily Mail one.

 

[cazellie]

I did a Google image search and found another photo of this woman from last year with her whole wall covered in Scott Mills posters.

Until i checked back I assumed it was a man! The pendant is quite peculiar!

 

[HotesTilaire]

I'm not so sure on the Scott bit given that injunctions have previously been granted in some very questionable circumstances

Such as? Did Huw get one?

 

[kurtCobainsguitar]

I wonder if it's the guy who has stories about Roy Orbison in clingfilm. That blew my mind when I learned about him years ago. Looks like his stuff is still online as well.

WHAT?!!!! CLINGFILM??? For the love of GOD! ... Anyway i googled it and all i got was David Bowie and Bing Crosby

 

[GingerJones50]

This reads to me like a separate allegation than the serious sexual offenses he was quizzed by police over in 2016, rather than a case of the original complainant going to a journalist in 2025, as it says that was with regards to "inappropriate communications." I don't think serious sexual offenses would be described as that.

It might explain the BBC's choice of dealing with this if they discovered very recently about the allegations in 2016, then also remembered the other incident last year when there was a different allegation about inappropriate communications which at the time they appear to have shrugged off

I read this as being something the alleged victim had in their possession

I wonder if they DBS people when they are initially employed/contracted and then don't repeat the process. So if any police interviews took place after, they won't know.

There is an update service now for DBS, which wasn't always available. Maybe there was a policy change at the BBC and this was implemented.

Then the BBC fucked uo and they should be open about it. I volunteer fior a children’s hroup and have to be rechecked every 3 years.

 

[Borbora]

I don't understand what is meant here: in what sense does referencing that a victim of past sexual abuse was a child when it happened take anything away from other victims, and what 'lines' are being 'blurred' in referring to said victim as a 'boy' (which he was at the time of the alleged offenses)?

I meant that talking about a 15/24 incident as a 15/50 incident would undermine any new victims that came forward that actually had a 15/50 incident

 

[Serene Serena]

I don’t see him doing it, he’s said before that he’s the super sub

Only because he’s not been offered a permanent job.

 

[HotesTilaire]

There's likely to be a lot about the BBC exposed.

Of course it's not a sacking, as he wasn't an employee, so the terms of his contract will be key but it's very unlikely the contract allowed for dismissal at will.

If their going for "bringing into disrepute" their three main difficulties are:

Is there ANY evidence SM did anything rather than was accused of something without evidence?

Why was it not a case for bringing into disrepute when they first found out but suddenly was (they've briefed it was when the age of the accused became known).

Was SM treated differently from others with contracts, IE was there a lack of consistency / fairness in BBC policy that amount to victimisation?

Unfair dismissal suggests he may have been an actual employee.

Any employee can be dismissed for gross misconduct. He was involved in a suspension and a meeting so they may have followed the necessary steps from the sounds of things. So yes it is dismissal, instantly, without notice, full investigation isn’t even always necessary.

Victimisation would need to be based on a protected characteristic, I don't think he‘s going to attempt to claim on that front. He might have been “victimised” but victimisation has a legal definition.

The whole point is whether they knew the age, or not. How can they defend the sacking if they knew for years?

 

[HotesTilaire]

So it isn't as she said then? I'm very confused. I know she was badly treated and I still don't understand the reason: was it just for clicks?

It's not the same as a malicious allegation because that's without evidence whatsoever. It's "just" someone saying something. This is a very elaborate sting, which is different - although nonetheless malicious - and appears to have been to get a story out of it (as I can think of no other reason why they'd do this).

I did hope that she had at least recovered X Factor as she appeared on some of the later episodes.

Google it, it’s a big story, there are documentaries about it.

 

[VeniVidiVicki]

I never stated he was

Sorry got my quotes muddled! I thought @Tofino had quoted the person who said he was.

 

[pixxyy]

this just popped up on my fb https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/38727660/scott-mills-sex-abuse-victim-friends-sacked-dj/

 

[Merpedy]

It is really interesting if there have been some whispers between BBC colleagues though. I think someone raised that she isn't exactly a good journalist, but I also think you'd need to find a source credible to pursue a story

 

[Borbora]

But the victim was a boy.
Just because he is an adult now, doesn't mean the crime somehow time-travels with him and is now something that was committed against an adult.
He was a boy when this happened to him. Even those here assuming he was 15, I mean saying under 16 means he might have been 12 or younger for all we know.

You've literally proved my point.

 

[Prince fan 1999]

Gary maybe

I think this too.