Scott Mills sacked

Doodledog

Whenever allegations of 'historical' abuse are made there are comments about the timeframe made by people who weren't involved and can't possibly know the reasons why the victims didn't report it at the time.

Why does it matter? The victims had their reasons, and they are nothing to do with anyone else. I'm genuinely interested to know, as it seems a strange thing to complain about. It could be that there was not enough evidence, or that the victim didn't report it for reasons of their own, but those things don't diminish the offence in any way. When circumstances change there is no reason I can see why victims shouldn't get justice, however belated it may be.

I was too scared that I would be blamed for what happened to me. It was only when the "metoo" movement started and there were programmes about the nature of grooming. For the first time since I was 13, I started to realise that it was exactly what my abuser did. I did think about making a complaint (my medical records would have backed my story) but I couldn't face it. Predators often pick the vulnerable who find it difficult to find their voice!

As far as I can tell the BBC has given no reason for Scott Mills’ sacking. All the above about his past is speculation surely?

It may be something he did as he left the studio last week for all we know.

FranP
Some minors may be attracted to someone who is famous but that doesn’t mean that exploitation of minors on this basis is ok. And am sure there are many parents who don’t always know where their fifteen year old children are all of the time.
Also am not sure that Scott was even that famous back then.
And silence is an excuse where victims feel that they will be put through the wringer rather than the perpetrators, which can sadly be the case. Victim blaming is never a good look.
Also the minor in question did speak out at the time and charges were brought against Scott but there wasn’t enough evidence.

I worked with a police liaison officer (in another capacity), and he told me that at that time there was a local police record of "known to" information. The previous allegations would have been put there BUT due to data protection guidance, this was all scrapped.
As Scott's previous was an "insufficient evidence" and not proceeded with, it would not have been available to anyone checking. He was never charged.

Flippin2

Vice versa
If you don't come forward at the time you prevent this from happening again, I don't have an attitude, I speak from experience,if something has happened report it there and then

Agree. I wonder how many of these young men were enjoying the connection to someone famous, the money and access that it gave them. Yes, victims in one sense, but where were their parents??

The maths are conflicting, in that the "child" was about 15, and Scott was anywhere between 18 and 25.

A local Scout master had been at it for years until he picked on one of twins who told the other who went straight to parents. However, one of his assistant leaders had been a victim some 10 years before and continued to work with him and say nothing. I had to point out that he too be asked to stand down - silence is not an excuse.

I am keen that any sexual predator is unable to work in our public institutions, etc but there doesn't seem to be a reason for Scott Mills (who I don't listen to) to be sacked outright at the moment. I'd like to think that there was sufficient evidence for the BBC to make this decision as swiftly as it has but I am a little concerned that it is a knee jerk action because they were so heavily criticised regarding Huw Edwards. I don't think it is good enough to make such a decision without giving more detail about context or information about pay off. It is very odd especially as the police say there are no new complaints. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? It sounds like he his going down the same pathway as John Leslie who has never worked again in broadcasting.

VANECAM

His face is on all the Asda shopping trollies advertising his Radio 2 breakfast programme.

He’s on the Sainsbury’s trolleys as well

jakuss, your comments are frankly provocative nonsense

The investigation of allegations of child/adult allegations is complex. So it should be, alleged victims and perpetrators deserve the best investigations possible.

We don’t know enough to speculate about Scott Mills and these allegations. We know enough to acknowledge that a decision not to prosecute isn’t proof of innocence or guilt

We should never forget that false allegations. Are rare

Just to add, any man can be a sexual predator, regardless of colour, culture, or creed. None are more predisposed to this or less predisposed to it.

jakuss

His crime is being a middle aged white man

What?
So middle aged white men can’t be sexual predators??
It must all be some kind of awful conspiracy??
How do you stand on Savile?
Was he another poor little middle aged white man??
What a weird comment to make.

He needed to be sacked, he is an accussed sexual predator of under age children , should all child abusers futures not be ruined when they have ruined a childs future?
You cannot sack someone simply for being an accused sexual predator, or whatever, without evidence, and the police did investigate the case at the time.
Look what happened with Carl Beech, who has been released before completing his full sentence,without his victims or their families being informed. All his victims have died, apart from Harvey Proctor, who said Beech ruined his life. He said, there are still people who look at me and think, there is no smoke without fire.
Scott Mills was promoted several times since 2019; if the BBC were suspicious of him, why did they do that? Jimmy Savile fought tooth and nail to get control of Children in Need, but there were those who were extremely suspicious of him but lacked evidence, yet resolutely prevented his involvement.

In principle you are wrong in what you said Bridey, regardless of the outcome in this case - that was the point I was making.

Time will tell Casdon whether im right or wrong in this case.

I heard on TV last night. Think it was a news program. That Scott Mills had ALLEGEDLY got the hands of two BBC male staff members and stroked them across his genitals.

This now turns out not to be true. But it has been confirmed that he acted inappropriately towards a teenage boy some years ago. But the court case was dropped.

If this is true. Then it is yet another incident in a long line of awful sexual predatory crimes by their stars and household names.

Where other BBC staff kept their mouths shut as they were frightened. Or to keep their smug, overpaid feather bedded jobs.

How the BBC didn't know about the court case beggars belief.

I think we will hear a lot more about the exploits and wrong doings of former BBC stars in the next few years.

Never liked Scott Mills. Don't care if he did raise a ton of money for Charity. Always thought of him as no talented, false arrogant, slimy type of person . The BBC is full of them.

Bridey

He needed to be sacked, he is an accussed sexual predator of under age children , should all child abusers futures not be ruined when they have ruined a childs future?

That is plain wrong. Anybody can be accused of being a sexual predator - you or I could be. The police obviously have to investigate when a claim is made, regardless. You can’t condemn somebody because somebody else has made a complaint against them, only when it is proven to be true.

Insufficient evidence isn't proof of guilt either.

He needed to be sacked, he is an accussed sexual predator of under age children , should all child abusers futures not be ruined when they have ruined a childs future?

Why do these people have to be sacked. Excluding Huw Edwards. We have lost a few presenters over the years. Probably just as bewildered as we are. Why not suspend them for a period of reflection and rehabilitation. In some cases it happened many years earlier and these people may have already reformed. Now the powerful BBC decide to wreck their futures. Knee jerk again. Who will be next?

I had never heard of this DJ so I looked him up. He has been with the BBC for quite a number of years, and was well thought of.
He is married. His husband is 16 years his junior.
A cancer charity he was associated with has cut all ties with him following the latest revelations.

No doubt more will be revealed in due course about what he has or hasn’t done.

REKA

Doodledog

There is either some new and damning evidence about the previous case, or he was sacked over something else.

Yes, it will be one or the other.

I'm not sure it will be.

If the victim decided to go to the BBC to discuss this then I'm not surprised they removed him.

This case never made it to court. CPS deemed insufficient evidence.

It will be, given there was insufficient evidence at the time to prosecute. Something new on top of that has to have happened, an employer can’t sack somebody because an alleged victim repeats the same allegations that had been investigated but were unproven.

It’s possible that there was a clause in his contract to say that any previous allegations against him made to the police had to be reported to his employer, whether or not they led to prosecution, and he hadn’t done so, in which case he would be in breach of contract?

jakuss

Yes another middle aged white man, they have targets on their ba is, it could be you next

That is just ridiculous.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Apparently he was sacked over an historic male relationship
🤷‍♀️

.....with an underage boy a la Huw Edwards.

His crime is being a middle aged white man

Yes another middle aged white man, they have targets on their ba is, it could be you next

So do I.
He was at "my speed" for morning radio. Can't stand the likes of messy programs like zoe ball and sara cox