Scott Mills

[Nelly's mum]

He's lost his job and probably has high outgoings. The DM can print what gets shares and know Scott is in a weak position to do much. If he did lawyer up they could just update the article with a whoopsie.

Time will tell, will there be a correction made, will more of the details come to light etc
I feel people are sympathetic to SM as they like him and enjoy listening to his show - but people can be engaging and also be deceptive, people only show you what they want you to see.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

Time will tell, will there be a correction made, will more of the details come to light etc
I feel people are sympathetic to SM as they like him and enjoy listening to his show - but people can be engaging and also be deceptive, people only show you what they want you to see.

For me it's a case of not wanting to get involved in a pile on for someone who hasn't been charged nevermind arrested and feels confident enough to hire lawyers for a possible unfair dismissal case, which could be costly for someone who won't be getting new work offers.

Should more come out like it did with those who DID get arrested like Huw Edwards then my opinion would change.

 

[Lolly505]

When you are young, you may not realize that a relationship or sexual encounters were wrong/abusive etc. Don't know whether it's true that watching the Huw Edwards program prompted him to report again.
The new bit is apparently the bbc didn't know before that he was under 16, leading me to conclude they were ok with sexual offences as long as the victim wasn't underage.
So much unknown, seems like the bbc are handling this with their usual half assed storyline. Is it really not possible to lay out a coherent timeline.

I don't think it's necessarily that the BBC would be 'ok with sexual offences ' but that, as people have been repeatedly saying about Mills since the story broke, you can't simply fire someone for an alleged sexual assault when there's been no charge made. That wouldn't hold up in an employment tribunal.

However, if there's enough evidence that confirms there was a relationship with someone who was under 16 at the time, even if CPS aren't taking it further and/or the victim isn't supporting a prosecution, then they do have grounds that he engaged in illegal conduct in a way that could damage their reputation if they continue to associate with him.

The press likely has some insider info to verify what they're reporting, as otherwise it'd be considered defamation (since the BBC only gave the very neutral 'personal conduct' reason at first).

 

[HotesTilaire]

I read he gets his bbc pension which is over 100k a year i could be wrong though

I would be very surprised if he is able to draw a BBC pension at the age of 53. We don’t know for sure whether he was a BBC employee or a contractor. I can’t see a contractor having a BBC pension.

He might have paid into a BBC pension at some point in the past. He probably hasn‘t “lost” his pension as yet because he hasn’t been found guilty of a crime and you don't automatically lose your entitlement if you’re sacked. It’s a public funded institution but SM hasn’t committed misconduct in Public Office, he’s not a GP/Cop/Teacher.

The pensions arm of the police didn't have an easy time removing Wayne Couzens’ one and he actually is in jail for murder, so even if the Beeb were to be looking to remove SM’s pension (if he has one) it would take months even years to do.

But yeah if he has a BBc pension, he hasn’t yet had it removed, then he has a pension. Which could be worth a lot. Not at all the same as “he’s getting his £100k a year pension”.

 

[HotesTilaire]

I don't think it's necessarily that the BBC would be 'ok with sexual offences ' but that, as people have been repeatedly saying about Mills since the story broke, you can't simply fire someone for an alleged sexual assault when there's been no charge made. That wouldn't hold up in an employment tribunal.

However, if there's enough evidence that confirms there was a relationship with someone who was under 16 at the time, even if CPS aren't taking it further and/or the victim isn't supporting a prosecution, then they do have grounds that he engaged in illegal conduct in a way that could damage their reputation if they continue to associate with him.

The press likely has some insider info to verify what they're reporting, as otherwise it'd be considered defamation (since the BBC only gave the very neutral 'personal conduct' reason at first).

They can sack him for not telling them the truth of the Reason the police interviewed him, and bringing the org into disrpute. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not to the employer, it’s the failure to disclose the safeguarding risk and reputational risk.

It’ not that they are “OK“ with (allegations of) sex offences against adults

 

[L3moning]

Outside of like the police or civil service its basically impossible to remove someone's pension. He won't be able to take it until he's 55 though, however much it's worth.

 

[plattyjoobs]

His salary is published which would suggest he’s a direct employee wouldn’t it?

 

[Lolly505]

His salary is published which would suggest he’s a direct employee wouldn’t it?

Yeah, I interpreted them saying he's "no longer contracted" with the BBC as referencing to a contract of employment, which they've now terminated. In jobs where I've been a full-time employee, I still had to sign a contract of employment outlining my job, working hours, etc.

I think it's just neutral corporate speak for 'we've fired him and it was our decision' so that people don't just think he decided to step down himself as they might with a phrase like 'no longer works for the BBC'.

I've said before but the BBC really wants to be seen as being proactive in deplatforming him (even though it's several years late, they ignored a complaint just last year, and I still suspect they've only actually taken action now because it was going to be made public and they wanted to get the jump on it). Now the narrative looks like the BBC publicly dropped him and then the press have found out why that is, even though as has been noted, The Mirror who broke the story clearly had the details ready to go quickly so they must have known ahead of time (because it'd need vetted by the paper's Legal team ahead of publishing).

 

[NowIsGood]

I wonder if his husband will stay with him and if Scott had told him before they married?
I assume Sam is rather financially dependent on him.
I'm sure the lifestyle and hobnobbing with the rich and famous was no doubt an exciting aspect of the relationship and that's now gone.

 

[HotesTilaire]

His salary is published which would suggest he’s a direct employee wouldn’t it?

Not necessarily.
The point is that he’s not getting a £100k a year pension just now, for many reasons.
He’s not getting a BBC pension at age 53 anyway.
He might get a BBC pension in the future. It’s fairly unlikely he’ll lose the BBC contribution part of any BBC pension he may have.

 

[Bread]

Read the post slowly and properly. I said I couldn’t see why Mills would stay friends with someone who had accused him of sexual assault. Not the other way around.

I just said in my post above he may have realised he’d been groomed after seeing the Huw Edwards show. I’m not disputing that.

I did read it. As I said, there's no evidence they were "friends" or in contact by the time the allegations were made. Though there's only hearsay evidence that they were in contact in the first place. There's very little evidence of anything.

 

[pixxyy]

I did read it. As I said, there's no evidence they were "friends" or in contact by the time the allegations were made. Though there's only hearsay evidence that they were in contact in the first place. There's very little evidence of anything.

yes the 'friend' source said SM and the person were still in contact in 2006. First allegation (via a Third Party articles say) was 2016 so seems the contact stopped a long time before that.

Unless they mean the inappropriate messages comment. Which Anna told the BBC last Year but there was no info on when that messaging took place or who messaged who.

 

[DoreenMachine]

I'm still really surprised that no further information has been released!

 

[HotesTilaire]

I'm still really surprised that no further information has been released!

I’m not, as nosy as I am I think there has been too much info in the press and public domain in the past and we are rightly getting to the point where we don’t get to know anything whilst it’s under investigation. People are also more cautious on social media which is good.

 

[GingerJones50]

Yeah, I read ‘remained friendly’ as not quite the same as being friends.

We just can’t know exactly how it all transpired I guess. Meanwhile with the limited information available lots of assumptions are being made (about how in contact they were, the exact age of the young person etc).

Surely if someone had actively accused you of a serious sexual assault you wouldn’t even ‘remain friendly’ even if you weren’t actual friends? Anyone with any sense (and Mills seems to have some) would cut off that person entirely because any contact with them, however innocent, could be misconstrued and twisted into a new allegation (although I’m not assuming the original allegation was untrue, if it was true the victim could well have used their friendly communication to gather evidence to back up their claims).

I just really can’t see Mills continuing any sort of communication with someone who had themselves made or supported such a serious allegation against him.

 

[GingerJones50]

This was in an article in the Daily Mail on 5th April;

He was fired nine days ago after bosses were made aware that the alleged victim of a serious sexual offences probe against Mills in 2017 was under 16. It was confirmed last week that the accusations related to a male who was aged between 13 and 16 at the time of the alleged offences, which are said to have run from 1997 into the 2000s, when Mills was in his 20s.

I guess SM would sue the a off the DM if this was not true?

I’m not getting any result through that link so maybe the story has been pulled? The DM reporting has been absolutely appalling on this. Last week they confidently claimed Mills had been sacked because he hadn’t told the BBC about the police investigation which the BBC has confirmed was untrue.

The best reporting on this seems to be coming from the Mirror, evrn though I don’t usually rate thrm.

 

[pixxyy]

Surely if someone had actively accused you of a serious sexual assault you wouldn’t even ‘remain friendly’ even if you weren’t actual friends? Anyone with any sense (and Mills seems to have some) would cut off that person entirely because any contact with them, however innocent, could be misconstrued and twisted into a new allegation (although I’m not assuming the original allegation was untrue, if it was true the victim could well have used their friendly communication to gather evidence to back up their claims).

I just really can’t see Mills continuing any sort of communication with someone who had themselves made or supported such a serious allegation against him.

The contact stopped years before the allegations, contact was til 2006 first allegation was 2016

 

[Bread]

Surely if someone had actively accused you of a serious sexual assault you wouldn’t even ‘remain friendly’ even if you weren’t actual friends? Anyone with any sense (and Mills seems to have some) would cut off that person entirely because any contact with them, however innocent, could be misconstrued and twisted into a new allegation (although I’m not assuming the original allegation was untrue, if it was true the victim could well have used their friendly communication to gather evidence to back up their claims).

I just really can’t see Mills continuing any sort of communication with someone who had themselves made or supported such a serious allegation against him.

Why do you keep saying that he did? Nobody is saying that he did!

 

[Lola123]

Surely if someone had actively accused you of a serious sexual assault you wouldn’t even ‘remain friendly’ even if you weren’t actual friends? Anyone with any sense (and Mills seems to have some) would cut off that person entirely because any contact with them, however innocent, could be misconstrued and twisted into a new allegation (although I’m not assuming the original allegation was untrue, if it was true the victim could well have used their friendly communication to gather evidence to back up their claims).

I just really can’t see Mills continuing any sort of communication with someone who had themselves made or supported such a serious allegation against him.

You’re underestimating cohesion and control. He stopped contact when the allegation went in but before that, for a 6 year period it’s reported they were in contact, now that could also have been to keep the victim in their place, lots of people manipulate situations and are very calculated (not saying SM is) but this can be a reason why

 

[Nelly's mum]

I’m not getting any result through that link so maybe the story has been pulled? The DM reporting has been absolutely appalling on this. Last week they confidently claimed Mills had been sacked because he hadn’t told the BBC about the police investigation which the BBC has confirmed was untrue.

The best reporting on this seems to be coming from the Mirror, evrn though I don’t usually rate thrm.

I've just checked on DM and the story is still there, I found the story of SM no longer suppoting Boyzone gig and it was one of the headlines linked on that page, it behind a paywall but its still there;
Why Scott Mills' accuser came forward, the fall-out for his celebrity friends, 'trouble' around booze and the anger, wailing and devastation inside Radio 2. Insiders tell all to KATIE HIND