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.
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.someone called Anna Brees?
'Anna Brees also quizzed the network if it had ever received any “formal or informal complaints” about Mills “relating to safeguarding, inappropriate conduct or harassment” and whether they had carried out had an internal investigation - but she did not receive a response.
Anna said: “Someone who knew I used to work for the BBC volunteered some information about Scott Mills messaging someone inappropriately.
“It was a credible source and I was concerned so I decided to contact the BBC to make them aware of it and see if they came back with anything. I didn’t get a response.”
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.But you can’t fake a DBS check. That comes from the police. Any organisation who relied onself-declaration to make safeguarding decisions would be making a massively unethical and possibly illegal breach.
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 revealwww.mirror.co.uk
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.Balance of Probability as a test in employment law doesn’t mean they decided whether he is a pweirdo or not, though. They don’t have to decide if he’s guilty of a sex crime, as an employer.
But in any case, as has been said many times its most likely he was required to disclose any police matters - like being questioned under caution for a sex crime against a minor - and he failed to. That’s an easy dismissal for breach of trust.
If you’re asked to fill out a form about criminal/safeguarding etc at the start of each year/contract/move whatever, and don’t, then you’ve lied by omission and the evidence is clear to see.
It depends on the offences, history and job role.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.
https://giphy.com/o54Wuz7HIrjARFJWzABBC knew last year, intresting that it says a former presenter contacted them https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-bbc-knew-scott-mills-36951242
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.It depends on the offences, history and job role.
I know. They’re all civil service that’s why they need SSC.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.
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.But you can’t fake a DBS check. That comes from the police. Any organisation who relied onself-declaration to make safeguarding decisions would be making a massively unethical and possibly illegal breach.
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 revealwww.mirror.co.uk
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 shit all over the licence payers and take the nation for mugs.Yeah - Anna Bress
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 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
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?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.
We just have to see what comes out.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?
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?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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?