Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

Yes makes sense.

Thatcher loved him even after the Sarah Keays affair. Think Maggie kept in in the Cabinet

Yes, you’d have thought they’d have it all as it’s so historic.

That was an image he portrayed. I always think of Bunny in Extras when I read about these stories

I have nothing of note to add but I'm so sad about this. I'm of an age where I grew up listening to Scott in the afternoons on Radio 1 and I have always really liked him. Thought his Eurovision coverage was great too. I feel very disappointed right now, you just can't trust anyone.

Gosh, yes. At the time that the first allegations were made about an unnamed news reader, I remember thinking "I hope it's not Clive" and feeling relieved that he was still there, reading the news so it couldn't be him.

I don’t see why, to be honest. Even if he came out to defend himself, he’d just be feeding the tabloids at this point.

I don’t think the statement is that significant. The officer investigating has two evidential tests that they need to meet in order to proceed with a prosecution. The second ( and greatest ) of the two thresholds is the “ full code test”. In plain terms the CPS will not proceed if they don’t think they have a realistic prospect of winning in court. If they don’t proceed it doesn’t mean there’s no evidence but it’s likely to be one persons word against another… no corroboration or physical evidence etc. If there was zero evidence or major concerns about the victim there’s a chance it wouldn’t have gone up to the CPS at all. By saying they had a full file they’re saying they spent some time on it. ( it was taken seriously ). That being said I don’t think someone should be binned off without a decent investigation ( internal or external ) because people in the public eye must attract all manner of allegations.

@Northerngirlabroad I feel the same.

I think you're getting hung up on something that is just standard police speak

A full file of evidence. Ie a completed investigation. A file of evidence.

They dont tend to provide empty files of evidence.

There is the recent story of former Tory MP Crispin Blunt. 65 year old and enjoys Chemsex parties. Worth a read. Bit of fame/privilege and they lose all reason it would seem. Rape, drugs, a Minister of the Crown.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8dgxz54yno

his agent and an expensive Lawyer will be advising him to say nothing.

Yes I get all of that. What I don’t get is why the Met feels the need to state all of that. They didn’t need to say anything at all, let alone state that they took it seriously, fully investigated over a number of years, the age bracket of the victim, the fact that they gathered evidence and presented it to the CPS, and that the fact there wasn’t a charge as the CPS decided not to proceed.

So much information that didn’t need to be in any statement from them.

Without their statement, a radio presenter was sacked for falling foul of his contractual obligations. Nothing more. Their lengthy, arse covering statement indicates there’s something about to come out.

I read that one of the big bosses is gone & wanted to stick the boot in before he left.

BBC news has just reported that The Mirror’s front page tomorrow says that he was sacked due to new evidence that came to light last week and following the original police investigation.

Exactly! Look what happened when G Wallace piped up and “took to social media”

You're muddling up a couple of things there though. The police are just making a statement about their work. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact he has been sacked isnt just about contractual obligations I would have thought, its the way the BBC are viewed by the public due to this investigation (whatever the outcome would have been and was).

So no doubt they've been asked for public comment so they're just setting out their processes and work

Yes that will be the next step, he'll say he has autism or something.

The met didn’t use his name though -they said a man in his 40s was interviewed under caution.

CPS dropped it as not enough evidence, not the police. CPS only go to court with a reasonable chance of prosecution. That can be lack of evidence, withdrawn statements and a few other reasons.

How old is he then and how old was he in 2016, he was interviewed in 2016?

Yes, but why? Why are they making any statement?

I think I might be slightly older than you as I remember catching the end of his early show when I got up for school at 6.30am! I remember him as the default stand in guy at R1 and I was delighted when he got his own show at a more sociable time of day! I also feel very disappointed by this news.

I see what you mean, I thought you were just questioning the wording

Well quite

Its done and dusted.

Unless its not done and dusted if there is a new allegation but then they can make a statement about that then, but they didnt.

I think they did need to say they took it seriously, esp as it concerns a child. Too many failings in the past, esp with famous or powerful people. The police had missed a chance regarding one of Jimmy Savile's victims etc.

Also, the police do get fed up when they do their work and the CPS throw it out. So perhaps it's a bit of a chance to say what they wanted to say...