Scott Mills

[Bread]

No
because as has been said, the “balance of probabilities” test would be applied to an employment/contractual charge such as “bringing the organisation into disrepute” not “is this a nunce we have working here?” An employer would never need to decide if there has been abuse of a child, that’s the police’s job.

I didn't say that they would. The employer would need to decide, I was asking, if an allegation should or shouldn't affect someone continuing working with them and that may depend on the context/severity/evidence. If they are privy to it. If they aren't, Scott may well have been able to tell whoever he told/who asked that he was being done under "lewd conduct". Otherwise then one allegation is sufficient to end someone's career, as happened with Matthew Kelly. Although, having looked him up, he is doing sterling work in theatre, which is great to read.

Matthew Kelly looks completely unrecognisable – 22 years after disappearing from spotlight | HELLO!

 

[KatLit]

I didn't say that they would. The employer would need to decide, I was asking, if an allegation should or shouldn't affect someone continuing working with them and that may depend on the context/severity/evidence. If they are privy to it. If they aren't, Scott may well have been able to tell whoever he told/who asked that he was being done under "lewd conduct". Otherwise then one allegation is sufficient to end someone's career, as happened with Matthew Kelly. Although, having looked him up, he is doing sterling work in theatre, which is great to read.

Matthew Kelly looks completely unrecognisable – 22 years after disappearing from spotlight | HELLO!

Matthew Kelly is a damned fine theatre actor. He has been in things on TV too, and I remember watching him as a serial killer in a drama, which was creepy as hell!

 

[Bread]

A theatre career possibly has more longevity than a TV one too. I'm really chuffed to read how busy and happy he looks.

 

[Ubu1uk]

That Daily Mail article posted above mentions that the BBC treated him like royalty. IMO that is part of their problem, they suck up to the people they see as their stars and ignore any warning signs just as they did with Huw Edwards. Then if it all comes out they are totally impotent and unable to stem the fallout for them as well as the "star" in question.

 

[IndominusRex]

That Daily Mail article posted above mentions that the BBC treated him like royalty. IMO that is part of their problem, they suck up to the people they see as their stars and ignore any warning signs just as they did with Huw Edwards. Then if it all comes out they are totally impotent and unable to stem the fallout for them as well as the "star" in question.

This really is the key to me. If all this is true he should never have been in a position where he was in the top job. It’s so much worse with radio than news or acting too because radio has a very different audience dynamic. To simplify we felt like friends and now we feel complicit.

 

[pixxyy]

This really is the key to me. If all this is true he should never have been in a position where he was in the top job. It’s so much worse with radio than news or acting too because radio has a very different audience dynamic. To simplify we felt like friends and now we feel complicit.

Good point about how different radio is, as you get to 'know' them more especially a show like Scott's which is every weekday
I was a regular listener of the podcast in his R1 days

 

[Bread]

To simplify we felt like friends and now we feel complicit.

This is perfectly put.

 

[CrushedIcePlease]

To simplify we felt like friends and now we feel complicit.

Yes this is exactly it! I was struggling to articulate but this is the crux of it. And now the fact he’s not coming out with denials etc just makes me think there is substance to it and it’s almost a feeling of guilt for liking him, and also feeling a bit let down by him that he made all these “friends” knowing there was this behaviour in his past.

 

[cazellie]

Yes this is exactly it! I was struggling to articulate but this is the crux of it. And now the fact he’s not coming out with denials etc just makes me think there is substance to it and it’s almost a feeling of guilt for liking him, and also feeling a bit let down by him that he made all these “friends” knowing there was this behaviour in his past.

I really like Gary Davies and he was good covering previously but it is notably different what without the quiz, one minute greeting etc. It has made me realise how much I really enjoyed Scotts show and the banter he had with the rest of the crew. I follow a local page on social media and was reading the comments off the back of a reposted statement from Scott and find the comments unbelievable. Saying the BBC have treat him badly, he doesn’t deserve this etc etc etc and anyone that dares say otherwise is jumped on! Yes I get he was popular and had a lot of fans who find this shocking but they seem to look beyond the seriousness of it all!

 

[HotesTilaire]

I didn't say that they would. The employer would need to decide, I was asking, if an allegation should or shouldn't affect someone continuing working with them and that may depend on the context/severity/evidence. If they are privy to it. If they aren't, Scott may well have been able to tell whoever he told/who asked that he was being done under "lewd conduct". Otherwise then one allegation is sufficient to end someone's career, as happened with Matthew Kelly. Although, having looked him up, he is doing sterling work in theatre, which is great to read.

Matthew Kelly looks completely unrecognisable – 22 years after disappearing from spotlight | HELLO!

You had asked “would the organisation even see the evidence available to the CPS ” and I expanded on why they wouldn’t.

Matthew Kelly recently starred in an Inside No9 on BBC2

 

[Eureka]

Yes this is exactly it! I was struggling to articulate but this is the crux of it. And now the fact he’s not coming out with denials etc just makes me think there is substance to it and it’s almost a feeling of guilt for liking him, and also feeling a bit let down by him that he made all these “friends” knowing there was this behaviour in his past.

It feels a bit sordid doesn't it? A bit like he has groomed his fans too.

 

[HotesTilaire]

It feels a bit sordid doesn't it? A bit like he has groomed his fans too.

It’s a parasocial relationship just like people who think they ”know” influencers.

The scary thing about it with these types (and this is not specific to SM as we don’t have full info) is that people around them are “groomed” in a way, to think they‘re nice/decent/fun/ordinary. Whether it’s the Vicar, Scout Leader, Football coach, DJ, politician, actor etc and it’s scary pvecisely because you can’t know and you are duped.

That teacher Jeremy Forrest who ran off to France with a 15 year old pupil, the Safeguarding investigation into that actually stated he effectively groomed the other teachers into thinking he was lovely, great, no problem so that he wasn’t ever suspected.

 

[L3moning]

Only takes one tree to make a thousand matches, only takes one match to burn a thousand trees, as Stereophonics put it.

 

[GlitterFluff]

Today's Popbitch

 

[Lolly505]

I didn't say that they would. The employer would need to decide, I was asking, if an allegation should or shouldn't affect someone continuing working with them and that may depend on the context/severity/evidence. If they are privy to it. If they aren't, Scott may well have been able to tell whoever he told/who asked that he was being done under "lewd conduct". Otherwise then one allegation is sufficient to end someone's career, as happened with Matthew Kelly. Although, having looked him up, he is doing sterling work in theatre, which is great to read.

Matthew Kelly looks completely unrecognisable – 22 years after disappearing from spotlight | HELLO!

The key thing with the BBC is that it's a publicly funded institution and one that has already had multiple scandal with high profile, very high paid staff doing similar things, which has harmed public trust in them.

If Mills has confirmed to them that there was a relationship or any kind of 'inappropriateness' with someone who was under 16, even if there was no legal conviction, then the BBC cannot be seen to protect him any more than they have after the Huw Edwards scandal.

By being publicly letting him go before the public got wind of the reason why, the BBC can now say "We took action as soon as we found this out" instead of it could public when he still works there. They've basically given him the push before anyone could demand he jump. Might seem like an overcorrection to some but if it came out later that there had been several more times the BBC were made aware of this and they kept it hush to protect their reputation, it was be 100x more damaging.

It's like with David Williams were he got a pass for a long time but as soon as there was new management, he was out in his a for his behaviour.

 

[Bread]

You had asked “would the organisation even see the evidence available to the CPS ” and I expanded on why they wouldn’t.

Matthew Kelly recently starred in an Inside No9 on BBC2

I didn't expect them to be making a judgment on the case, is what I meant, but it makes sense that they wouldn't be privy to anything more than the alleged perpetrator told them. Maybe that's the issue.

I entirely missed Matthew in Inside No 9 - will have to check it out as I love that. It's made me stupidly pleased to see how much in demand he is.

 

[Bread]

It’s a parasocial relationship just like people who think they ”know” influencers.

The scary thing about it with these types (and this is not specific to SM as we don’t have full info) is that people around them are “groomed” in a way, to think they‘re nice/decent/fun/ordinary. Whether it’s the Vicar, Scout Leader, Football coach, DJ, politician, actor etc and it’s scary pvecisely because you can’t know and you are duped.

That teacher Jeremy Forrest who ran off to France with a 15 year old pupil, the Safeguarding investigation into that actually stated he effectively groomed the other teachers into thinking he was lovely, great, no problem so that he wasn’t ever suspected.

One of our teachers who turned out to be a prolific paedophile was incredibly charismatic, charming and energetic. We all thought he was wonderful. It's painful to remember that given what came out about him.

Someone up-thread said they felt sorry for Scott's friends and colleagues, and while obviously the young victim is paramount, I do also feel sorry for those who loved and trusted him because when you find out someone isn't who you thought they were it's a sickening feeling.

 

[HotesTilaire]

I think it could be relevant that in 2017/18 when he was interviewed (under Winter Key or other) #MeToo hadn’t quite happened, it was starting out and gathering pace. It’s possible that a decision made after 2018 would be different and more victim-aware. Just thinking out loud.

 

[Skippy81]

So the latest is he was sacked now because the BBC have only just found out that the alleged incident was with a minor under 16 which I find hard to believe when the Winter Key investigation was exactly that investigating child abuse allegations.

I'm still of the opinion that he's been sacked because of BBCs now zero tolerance policy which I understand but he was not arrested or charged. Would this happen to someone in a normal job? All employees must now be whiter than white.

They were rubbish with the way they handle the Huw stuff and have gone extreme with this sacking. I'll happily hold my hands up if proper evidence comes to light but at this moment in time there is nothing to go on.

 

[L3moning]

Would this happen to someone in a normal job? All employees must now be whiter than white.

For high profile roles yes, because its easy to argue its bringing the company into disrepute. Most jobs thats irrelevant, but companies are still allowed to make decisions based on risk to reputation.