Scott Mills sacked

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.

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.

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!

Judges advise juries they without corroborative evidence of the child’s allegation it’s unsafe to convict

I’m so sorry to hear that, icanhandthemback. Thank you for sharing - maybe your post will make some of the doubters realise that things outside of their own experience do happen.

Thanks icanhandthemback for saying exactly why some charges are historic and why sadly some are not charged at all.
💐

This has been handled very badly by the BBC. If Scott Mills' dismissal relates to the charges in 2019 this should have been investigated and then the relevant information released, rather than allegations made via newspapers and the BBC quoting the Met but seemingly without proper confirmation. If the reason is something else this should be clarified, even if details cannot yet be released.

Why on earth are we all speculating about a person none of us know anything about?

Another example of 'trial by media' Paperbackwriter .

Because there is a process for dealing with misconduct, this seems to have been ignored, no reasons given for an abrupt dismissal, leaving speculation rife.

Flippin2

FriedGreenTomatoes2
I'd said to son earlier I bet it's historic,why don't these people make allegations at the time ,why wait ? and if it's not proven to be true then what,I abhor this coming out of the woodwork stuff

Allegations are often not made through fear.

It is always likely that someone may have pictures/videos that they do not want being made public, also these “celebrities” are very capable of grooming and blackmailing.

The young man in the Huw Edwards case was clearly groomed.

I have read through the BBC’s safeguarding policy, if any member of staff suspected something and did not report it then they should be also sacked.

From the BBC News website today:

In a statement, a BBC spokesperson said: "Scott Mills had a long career across the BBC, he was hugely popular and we know the news this week has come as a shock and surprise to many.

"We also recognise there's been much speculation in the media and online since Monday. We hope people understand that there is a limit to what we can say because we have to be mindful of the rights of those involved.

"What we can confirm is that in recent weeks, we obtained new information relating to Scott and we spoke directly with him. As a result, the BBC acted decisively in line with our culture and values and terminated his contracts on Friday 27 March."

The spokesperson added: "Separately, we can confirm the BBC was made aware in 2017 of the existence of an ongoing police investigation, which was subsequently closed in 2019 with no arrest or charge being made. We are doing more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC at this time."

AS I said, badly handled.

As I suggested, new information was what led to him being sacked.
news.sky.com/story/bbc-knew-about-police-investigation-into-scott-mills-in-2017-13526088

Casdon

As I suggested, new information was what led to him being sacked.
news.sky.com/story/bbc-knew-about-police-investigation-into-scott-mills-in-2017-13526088

I daresay the Police and BBC are duty bound to listen and act on new information no matter how historic.

And, the bbc is rather damned whatever it does

It’s dealing with big ego’s who often seem to believe they’re bullet proof

The way I read it, this is not about that teenage boy, it’s new information, presumably related to his conduct with somebody else.

eazybee

Because there is a process for dealing with misconduct, this seems to have been ignored, no reasons given for an abrupt dismissal, leaving speculation rife.

Is he an employee, though? Or a contractor?

The employment regulations will differ.

Regulations may differ, but no reason for not giving some reason for leaving, even if it along the lines of parted by mutual agreement.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC defines its cultures and values.

The BBC has been “hoist by its own petard” - the normalisation of ALL sexualities and predilections which is continually pushed on its audiences will ultimately result in things going very wrong - you can’t have it all ways I’m afraid.

Scott has made a statement, Sky News, sorry I can’t do the link

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gv7yj71llo

Some young people are very naive and trusting. I recently found some old photos of myself and a holiday romance with a Spanish boyfriend.
From the picture I can now see he was about 30!
Luckily he was the perfect gentleman but who knows as the holiday was soon over.

True kirubbin, also easily flattered by older people who treat them as grown ups. Especially those in entertainment

It is unfortunate that he has said that evidence was sent to the CPS and was insufficient for a prosecution.
I would have been tempted to say "like hell I did this" assuming that is the case.
I think he would have done better to say nothing.

It is a historic case and the BBC knew about it many years ago and took no action. Apparently they are only just aware that the young man involved was under 16 yrs. The case was abandoned at the time because the CPS decided there was not enough evidence to proceed. None of us presumably knows more detail than we've heard on the news but it seems to me that if there was insufficient evidence to proceed then why isn't he assumed to be innocent?
Obviously a fine line to tread and I'm in no way condoning any sort of paedophilia but anyone could make a complaint without evidence and someone's life or livelihood could be ruined. BTW I'd never even heard of this man before the news story so no bias involved.