Scott Mills

[GingerJones50]

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

www.dailystar.co.uk

This says it was a press query, not an actual report or anything providing them with evidence

This sounds like the alleged victim was approaching journalists.

 

[savedlatin21]

I’m not sure how I feel about this. A historic allegation from 30 years ago, that he was investigated for and nothing came of it. Now having his career and reputation cancelled and ruined for good. It does feel unfair

 

[L3moning]

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.

As I said in the other thread, the current law has a defence if someone "reasonably believes" the other person to be over 16. In practice if that defence actually got before a jury I'm not massively convinced it would ever work, but it might well make a difference to whether the CPS are willing to prosecute.

The complication is that the current law is from 2003, and prior to that you had the 1956 law, which was, tbh, barking mad, and allowed that defence but only if you were under 21 and had never claimed it before, which was pretty clearly not going to survive modern legal drafting or scrutiny.

Which creates some issues with prosecuting things which took place before 2003.

 

[Bread]

It makes me go quite cold to think of what skeletons may lurk in my cupboard. I can't think of any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If I worked at the BBC I would be feeling very uneasy. But any unease could be assuaged by telling them stuff you think you ought to have told them, I suppose.

Anna Brees: that name rings a bell and not a good one. Isn't she one of those who was running around denying COVID?

ETA yes she is. She's a fruit loop

 

[PickledRadish]

I think the BBC has gone zero tolerance now & that has come at Scott's expense.

I just can't get my head round any of it, and honestly as this moment in time think he met someone they told him they were older was a fling like relationship not a serious/proper relationship and off the back of all the Yewtree stuff he went to the police in 2016 and then by 2019 not enough evidence was found so is innocent. Not condoning anything but back in the 90s things were different, I was going out to night clubs at 16 but I had friends that were 15...

I’m not proud to admit this, but there are men out there who I told I was 17 or 18 when I was no older than 15. Honestly, possibly 14. It was the same sort of era. I certainly looked the part.

I’m trying to withhold judgment until more comes out on this story but I can’t help but feel sad for Scott at the moment.

 

[Merpedy]

This sounds like the alleged victim was approaching journalists.

I think if this was someone with false accusations or some questionable behaviours in the past this would have been settled behind the scenes in some way a long time ago

 

[GingerJones50]

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.

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.

 

[pixxyy]

This sounds like the alleged victim was approaching journalists.

Would make sense after the police investigation got closed

 

[SaLou]

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)

Why do people think he was 15? I assumed 'under 16' could be anything from 13-15 seeing as under 13 usually has it's own category.

 

[GingerJones50]

I think if this was someone with false accusations or some questionable behaviours in the past this would have been settled behind the scenes in some way a long time ago

Well it effectively settled when the police said there was not enough evidence to charge him. I don’t know how else you think it could have been settled. Proving false allegations is just as difficult ss proving sexual offences.

It could be a victim determined to get jistice. Equally it could be someone fixated or with a grudge, because they can be equally persistent if not more so.

 

[GingerJones50]

Would make sense after the police investigation got closed

9 years after?

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

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.

Getting an age wrong can be baddddd. I remember a lads night out about 20 years ago. One of my mates had to tell a random guy the lass he was dancing up close with and trying to chat up was only 15. We knew this as her parents ran a pub in the area. She looked well old enough and wasn't even dressed grown up, she had trousers on for a start.

But you just never asked to see photo ID before flirting in an adult setting.

 

[HotesTilaire]

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.

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.

 

[pixxyy]

Why do people think he was 15? I assumed 'under 16' could be anything from 13-15 seeing as under 13 usually has it's own category.

oh for me its because thats awful enough, I dont want to consider lower

 

[HotesTilaire]

I’m not sure how I feel about this. A historic allegation from 30 years ago, that he was investigated for and nothing came of it. Now having his career and reputation cancelled and ruined for good. It does feel unfair

Possibly, although I’m keeping an open mind. People were jumping to defend Huw initially and look how that went.
I do have some sympathy if he is innocent of any pweirdo behaviour though, because it’s an impossible situation for him, if so. Nothing can clear him because you can’t prove or disprove a rumour.

 

[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.

 

[WhyYouCry?]

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 was around in the 90s and never found someone under 16 attractive.

 

[Merpedy]

Well it effectively settled when the police said there was not enough evidence to charge him. I don’t know how else you think it could have been settled. Proving false allegations is just as difficult ss proving sexual offences.

It could be a victim determined to get jistice. Equally it could be someone fixated or with a grudge, because they can be equally persistent if not more so.

But it wasn't settled because he wasn't judged to be guilty or innocent. The legal burden of proof is quite high and as many people mentioned that is the reason a lot of sexual offences go unprosecuted

If you had money and had an inkling that someone was lurking in the background with a grudge or trying to expose you, would you really just sit there and wait for them to strike it lucky? Because I really doubt someone with a grudge wouldn't let it be known somehow to you that they are out to get you

The fact is that we don't know anything about this beyond the basic allegation. The BBC HR team knows more than you or me.

 

[Merpedy]

I was around in the 90s and never found someone under 16 attractive.

And to have a three (?) year long relationship with someone and not notice that they're much much younger than you... lol

Even in online spaces it becomes quite obvious if someone is considerably younger than you imo

 

[Notworthy]

Well it effectively settled when the police said there was not enough evidence to charge him. I don’t know how else you think it could have been settled. Proving false allegations is just as difficult ss proving sexual offences.

It could be a victim determined to get jistice. Equally it could be someone fixated or with a grudge, because they can be equally persistent if not more so.

The Police did not say there wasn't enough evidence they felt there was, prepared a file and sent it to the CPS. It was the CPS that decided not tp prosecute.
The barrier to press charges on an historical se offence is incredibly high hence why the prosecution % rate for grape is in single digits.