Yeah, but I've known people to bounce around from person to person, no commitment and so am assuming he used to see this person on & off over 3 years.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
What a job that must have been. At least AI can probably do that now it must have be mind numbing.
BBC have apologised after admitting it knew about SM complaint last year! 
Why not surprised....
Why not surprised....
We will never see his samba dressed as a crab ever again
We need an eye roll reaction on here.
You can. If he is an employee of the BBC, the test is on the balance of probabilities, not beyond any reasonable doubt. So if there was some evidence of wrongdoing, that might have been enough for the BBC to dismiss. Or they could’ve just taken the risk and sacked him.
However, from my reading of the situation, I think it’s a case that he didn’t tell them at the time of his appearance before the Police and the CPS being involved and preparing a file about the case. If his contract contained provisions around telling the BBC of Police matters then could dismiss on the dishonesty angle alone along with the potential reputational risk.
Doing that to him is a bridge too far.
So last week, perhaps Wednesday or Thursday, Clare Runacres was doing the news but no surprise as Tina doesn’t do every day as often she does BBC TV news. Anyway on Radio 2 Instagram on that day Clare had either tagged Radio 2 page or it was in their stories about stepping in at the last minute to cover the radio. I follow Tina and she usually has stories on her page but there has been nothing. May be a co-incidence?
and yet they want to up the licence fee and expect us all to pay it. Corrupt.BBC have apologised after admitting it knew about SM complaint last year!
Why not surprised....
God he used to mention that Bridge all the time
!He was also supposed to be DJing at the Boyzone concerts this Summer- one thing about Scott was he unapologetic loved cheesy pop music!
BBC 'knew about Scott Mills allegations a year ago' as they issue apology
Scott Mills, known for presenting on BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 for over two decades, has been fired from the broadcaster after allegations were made against him
This says it was a press query, not an actual report or anything providing them with evidence
Maybe the police are going to need to actually re open this case, and prosecute Scott, so that there is clarity about what exactly happened?
I completely understand that the BBC and the HR team do have the right to sack SM, for disreputable or illegal activities that bring the BBC into disrepute. But this case doesnt seem to have been taken to court, or completely assessed to say if SM was guilty or not guilty? So why didnt they choose to suspend him until they actually found out exactly what happened? It feels a bit like an over reaction.
If they couldn't get enough evidence to take the prosecution forwards in 2019, surely this doesn't mean he was automatically guilty? Maybe he was, maybe he wasnt? Others were prosecuted, Scott wasnt.
As it is, Scott seems to have been assumed guilty by the entire British population.
But guilty of what? Aged 24, at the start of his career, with an on off relationship, which could mean anything, with a 16 year old boy.
I feel really sorry for whoever the boy is, and for Scott, who probably didnt want or need their private lives slapped all over the mainstream news.
I completely understand that the BBC and the HR team do have the right to sack SM, for disreputable or illegal activities that bring the BBC into disrepute. But this case doesnt seem to have been taken to court, or completely assessed to say if SM was guilty or not guilty? So why didnt they choose to suspend him until they actually found out exactly what happened? It feels a bit like an over reaction.
If they couldn't get enough evidence to take the prosecution forwards in 2019, surely this doesn't mean he was automatically guilty? Maybe he was, maybe he wasnt? Others were prosecuted, Scott wasnt.
As it is, Scott seems to have been assumed guilty by the entire British population.
But guilty of what? Aged 24, at the start of his career, with an on off relationship, which could mean anything, with a 16 year old boy.
I feel really sorry for whoever the boy is, and for Scott, who probably didnt want or need their private lives slapped all over the mainstream news.
Serious sexual offenses with someone under the age of 16...
Though I don't know how you could write the quoted bit and not find that alone questionable for someone with a position of power
They have said he was ‘under 16’.
Well the cancellation is complete, the plaque is gone! That was this afternoon, I wonder how quickly they took it down.God he used to mention that Bridge all the time
Mark Williams-Thomas likes to vague post about everything and then claim he knew as soon as the next person is accused.
I posted this in celeb gossip thread but now we've a thread and thought someone might know.
It's about the wording of Serious Sexual offence, would they use that if the 15 year old consented( not that he can at that age but as I said in other thread not sure how to phrase it)
It's about the wording of Serious Sexual offence, would they use that if the 15 year old consented( not that he can at that age but as I said in other thread not sure how to phrase it)
What if Scott says he believed the boy was 18? I was under 16 in the 90’s and going to nightclubs, looking and acting a lot older and lying about my age when asked so if they met in a club, would it be a fair assumption that he was at least 18?
It is hard to look at the 90’s with 2026 brains as they were very different times.
It is hard to look at the 90’s with 2026 brains as they were very different times.
We don’t know that. He’s been on CBBC, hosts Children in Need and was on Radio 1 which has a lot of children who listen and did Road Shows etc. The BBC even has basic criminal records checks for extras on shows involvig children and the BBC routinely does DBS checks and background checks on DJs because they are high profile. So Mills almost certainly had an enhanced DBS which has to be renewed every 3 years and will contain details of sexual abuse allegations involving children even if they didn’t lead to a conviction. This is because the whole system was introduced because of the Soham murders were Ian Huntley had been accused multiple times of sexually abusing minor children without being charged.
The BBC almost certainly knew about it, but they would have have carried out a risk assessment and because it was a single, historic allegation with no other allegations in intervening years suggesting a pattern of behaviour they must have assessed him as not posing a risk. He wasn’t like Huntley where multiple unconnected people had reported him, there was a pattern and his job involved situations where he would be alone with children and was in a position of authority over them. They would probably have also noted that the allegation took place during operation Yewtree when a lot of nutters, including Carl Beech, came forward and made unfounded allegations against public figures.
Either the BBC massively ducked up by not following its own, published safeguarding policy by not regularly checking him or they knew but assessed him as no risk but are now backtracking on their own assessment. I suspect it’s the latter.
Someone mentioned the balance of probabilities. Given the allegation was made about a time when internet use was not widespread and mobile phones were not as common, especially amongst under 16s, it wasn’t reported until almost 20 years after the alleged incident/s and a report not not made the BBC until 10 years later, it’s hard to see how the BBC could have made a meaningful assessment of the situation unless there was bombshell evidence, and if there was bombshell evidence there would have been charges in 2016.
I’m not surprised he’s taken legal advice. Unless there’s something huge we don’t know, it does seem rather unfair, and if there is something huge, why no charges in 2016? Yewtree was desperate to prosecute people to the extent they were pursuing sick, dying and very elderly men for incredulous allegations that saw Carl Beech jailed. They weren’t letting people off even if allegations only had limited evidence.
I doubt the rest of their high profile staff will be feeling happy either. They are now in a situation where anyone who dislikes them, is obsessed with then or is just a crank can make unproven, unsubstantiated allegations against them and they’ll be out of a job. That’s not a very comfortable situation for any of them to be in.
If that was the case, do you not think that would have magically been leaked to the media already?
Also, I really doubt that in the 90s I would look at someone under the age of 16 and think "aye they're quite attractive...", come on now.
- Status