Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

Under 16 is still a child. But maybe they met at PRIDE?

And that would be relevant exactly how??

If this is the reason, I think he could sue the BBC for unfair dismissal. The complainant’s age has no relevance because the CPS said there was no case to answer. The matter ended with that decision. If the BBC sacked him 10 years later because of the age they are basically suggesting he must have been guilty of a crime but got away with it and from a legal perspective that is hugely problematic.

Unless he lied.

Lied about what?

I’m sort of inclined to think this is what happened. It was all too common back then to see these sort of couple situations and it went largely unquestioned. I’ve been there myself in the early 00s (as the younger party).

Then you grow up and you look at it differently.

Lied about the age of X to the BBC.

No smoke without fire , the age difference when sm was 24 to the alleged victim is telling
another nonce working at the bbc

I would assume that any conversation with Mills has involved legal advice on both sides, and - if this was the advice/agreement- a settlement in return for an agreement to waive rights to go to tribunal.

When Mandelson’s appointment was terminated, he allegedly asked initially for something like £700k and was given about a tenth of that.

ETA public entities are often in a bind - risking the legal fees of a tribunal is a waste of taxpayer money, paying a settlement to someone who is (then or later) shown to have acted badly is also a waste of taxpayer money. It’s all a balance.

PRIDE is a safe space.

Im.surprised that they were quite public that they sacked him...but then unable to give a tangible reason.
In previous generations people might have chatted about it, now all and sundry can speculate and make assumptions online and on social.media like MN . Im surprised he wasnt kept off air "for personal reasons" (that's still obviously open to speculation) ....and then sacked or suspended when the story became public....or reinstated if nothing could be proven....

At my DC school the head teacher suddenly disappeared for a while - with a very vague letter from the governors. About 6 weeks later an update was they "had chosen to leave" which the general consensus was they jumped before they were pushed - although there were several rumours what the reason might be.

@canisquaeso I agree. This is is no way defending SM - or suggesting 1997 was the 80s - but this thread has reminded me how much was tolerated not that long ago.

in the 80s you had Bill Wyman (52) marrying Mandy Smith (18) having met her when she was 13. I don’t remember him ever being prosecuted? But I do remember their wedding being all over the papers.

If you had a relationship with a much older man you were likely labelled a ‘wild child’ and feted in the tabloids. I remember a girl called Emma Ridley who IIRC married at 15 to a much older man being interviewed in the teenage magazines.

As I say, no way defending this or suggesting SM’s behaviour happened at a similar time, but it is quite astonishing how far we’ve come in our attitudes in a relatively short time.

Nice bit of victim shaming there.

A safe space for groomers?

No I mean, or what I should have said in my original post is that they couldn't have met in a bar or sauna.

But PRIDE is open to anyone.

Good old PRIDE

Of course it is..

I see the homophobes are in the room

Mandy's mother(!!) was taking her to night clubs in order to meet people like Bill.

Exaclty!!!!

Oh its ok, they met at Sainsburys!!!

Amanda de Cadenet was part of that as well wasnt she? Didnt she marry John Taylor in the end?

She did at 19. Later divorced Posh girls from money as opposed to girls from deprived backgrounds being groomed.

Other posts have set out any number of reasons why he was sacked. Working in the BBC, you cannot be someone who will bring the company into disrepute.
Most employers have a similar clause.

Add to that that he was one of their biggest celebs, and one of the highest paid.
If they didn't know the boy was under 16, he clearly omitted that info or blatantly lied about it.

They have MORE than enough reason to sack him.

What on earth do you mean?

Oh. Is it me that’s the homophobe?