Anna Brees is anything but a credible source. I can't remember if I posted this on the other thread but she's a nasty piece of work and I doubt her story about her source. However, this doesn't make her wrong.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Nope, it’s very common for organisations to ask you to declare criminal convictions etc then when they compare what you wrote to what’s on your DBS and there’s a difference, it often leads to dismissal for breach of trust. That’s the whole point of why they ask you first. They don’t just then rely on that.
Nobody was discussing DBS fake or otherwise, it was if there was a duty to declare something which could bring the BBC into disrepute in his contract - that could include safeguarding issues, interview by police under caution, or things like selling drugs, dressing up as Hitler, having a massive racist rant online, stealing carrier bags from self-checkouts…if he failed to report it then they found out, it’s breach of trust and confidence.
Last edited:
New updates in The Mirror, published just a few minutes ago:
www.mirror.co.uk
BBC forced to sack Scott Mills after compelling new information emerges
BBC bosses were forced to act after receiving new evidence by the person at the centre of a previous 2016 police investigation, the Mirror can reveal
They're going to trickle out non-info for the next few days aren't they? Probably the only big story they have broken recentlyNew updates in The Mirror, published just a few minutes ago:
BBC forced to sack Scott Mills after compelling new information emerges
BBC bosses were forced to act after receiving new evidence by the person at the centre of a previous 2016 police investigation, the Mirror can reveal
My concern/best guess now is that the young person has been inside the BBC or at a BBC event back in the day with Scott and that’s what’s done it.
If you are required to be vetted for SC, you need to disclose everything, you are in more trouble if you fail to disclose, than if you have any violations, you can still pass vetting if you have a past, but only if you disclose, if you attempt to deny/hide, it’s a guaranteed fail.
It depends on the offences, history and job role.
Security Clearance and DV wouldn’t really apply outside of govt.
Last edited:
Yeah - Anna Bress
Indeed, but having worked cabinet office, boe, police, mod, trade floor, moj etc, i have worked with people whom were not 100% squeaky, and people who were refused entry to airbase on 1st day.
I know. They’re all civil service that’s why they need SSC.
Cabinet Office etc doesn’t offer to to SSC or DV on non-govt jobs.
And nowadays, you can subscribe to a constant DBS checker for about £14 a year (it's basically a DBS that constantly updates). Schools and nurseries require this now. Because otherwise, a DBS is only valid the day it's produced - a crime could be committed but not shown up until the next DBS, potentially up to 3 years later.
So this confirms that the more recent "inappropriate communications", involve SM and the complainant that the previous police interview was about.New updates in The Mirror, published just a few minutes ago:
BBC forced to sack Scott Mills after compelling new information emerges
BBC bosses were forced to act after receiving new evidence by the person at the centre of a previous 2016 police investigation, the Mirror can reveal
I wonder if SM has been paying someone to stay quiet, and they now want their voice to be heard...
if there's no police investigation or anything pending Scott should release a statement to finish the story and stop reach retch dripping something new every 12 hours to keep the story alive.
I don’t know who this Anna Bress is but if it’s true the Beeb have known for a year or longer then it really just proves they continue to tit all over the licence payers and take the nation for mugs.
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
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
I think it’s good that people are considering different options because we don’t actually know. We can’t just jump to condemning him on the basis of an allegation that didn't go to court. There’s a lack of info, apart from the Mirror and it’s slow drip feed.
I think it’s more frustrating that people are slating the Beeb for dealing with it as some kind of evidence that they are idiots who only employ sex offenders and wronguns. I’m certain thees a lot of people shitting themselves at other channels who just haven’t been found out yet.
That would make sense and would explain everything, if that's the case. I wonder if this information was offered to police as part of their investigation years ago?
We just have to see what comes out.
The Beeb are clearly protecting their rep so something like a load of backstage/dressing room photos with a kid wouldn’t prove a sex crime but would damage the reputation.
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.
- Status