Perhaps Scott told them about the allegation, but not the age of the allegator? (Alleger?)
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Yes - wait for more information, fact-checking
BBC news says the police informed the BBC before Mills was questioned.
Not sexual but drugs - Tulisa
I heard the bbc were alerted in 2018 and kept him on until recently when further details reemerged. It also has not been denied by SM. Ithink they way peoplr gave jumolped to defend him us dangerous knowing its a boy as thw alledged victim. People need to be careful running in defence about innocent until proven guilty. Not necessarily.
I think it wouldve died down if people didnt all speak in defence of him. Either way is he even popular?
There were two posters on the previous thread who said they weren’t surprised and knew he’d done bad things in the past.
Lord, I'd forgotten about that. I wouldn't say it's an allegation - she came out and pretended she could get drugs - but the whole thing is absolutely crazy. What was the point of it all?
She didn’t though. It was all lies, hence why the guys behind it went to jail. And you still think she did it! She was set up and never actually had any drugs.
Last edited:
Why didn't his statement include a denial
Eh? I didn't say I thought she did it. I said she pretended she could get hold of them; which she herself says she did:
I think she was treated appallingly - but I don't understand why they (the "journalists") did that in the first place. It was so pointless and cruel.
they pestered her to call a dealer over a period of months, all on the pretence that she was in line for a Film part, flying to LA, despite her saying she hated drugs, wouldn’t ever use drugs, had relatives lives destroyed by drugs.
She was disgraced nationally and lost the X Factor gig, she’s never really recovered from it.
Many victims of the same journo have spoken of how he did the same to them, in fact he even at times bought drugs for the fake dealer to supply once the person gave in to the pressure.
So that’s how many people were cancelled by a malicious allegation, we have seen it happen.
She was disgraced nationally and lost the X Factor gig, she’s never really recovered from it.
Many victims of the same journo have spoken of how he did the same to them, in fact he even at times bought drugs for the fake dealer to supply once the person gave in to the pressure.
So that’s how many people were cancelled by a malicious allegation, we have seen it happen.
Last edited:
Scott’s statement seems to be going for the least said soonest mended approach. I doubt the truth will ever come out if it doesn’t this weekend. By this point you’d expect the papers to have got hold of a sniff of evidence (like they did with the photos of Huws a) or an interview with ‘a source close to the victim’
Matthew Kelly. What happened to him was horrific, and prompted parliament to debate changing the law around how allegations are reported.
He managed to re-establish a career, but not as high-profile as he was previously (though maybe it’s his choice to be less visible as a consequence of that).
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.
His statement doesn't match the BBCs. He says historic. They say it's about newly reported and they knew about the historic already.
Good point - I had been thinking about him earlier to be fair when someone said that Scott didn't look like a paedophile. (You're not a paedophile if you go for underage teenagers apparently - paedophiles target pre pubescent children) I remember reading on Handbag #oldschool someone saying that they'd never liked Matthew Kelly's eyes (presumably because they had stars in them?) so he must be guilty.
I'll have to refresh myself on his case.
Google it, it’s a big story, there are documentaries about it.
Yep and he doesn't mention that at all. Which in itself is pretty damning.
Yes, in strict ‘technical’ terms it’s ephebophilia for post-pubescent (14+ ish) attraction and hebephilia for 11-13-ish, but I’ve never seen a media report that makes the distinction as I doubt most people would have a clue what the other terms meant.
So many people jumped straight to ‘guilty’ for Matthew Kelly because of his gentle, slightly ‘camp’ (awful word, but I don’t know how else to describe it) demeanour, which apparently obviously made him secretly sinister
I did and that's the first thing I found after following links from her Wikipedia, but I do think the documentary is still available on iPlayer... I'll watch it tomorrow. She's written a book as well.
- Status