Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

’National treasure’ Stephen Fry who’s married to a man 30 years his junior

Never saw that child, even though she was disabled and needed brain surgery at the age of four. Put a gagging order on them, effectively erased her existence.

Yes, exactly.

It’s as though the Met are defending themselves of taking something seriously before they’ve even been accused of not taking it seriously. They are defending their actions before the story has even broken. They are the only ones creating a story.

We wouldn’t know about a police investigation or an under 16 year old boy if the Met hadn’t released their statement. The BBC didn’t say anything. SM hasn’t said anything. The Met didn’t say anything 10 years ago when they investigated or 7 years ago when they dropped the case.

Why are they suddenly making a statement now unless something controversial that might cause people to start pointing the figures at them is about to be released?

So someone at the BBC answered late at night and pulled SM from his show before 6.30 in the next morning?

Doubt it.

There are plenty of high-ranking media men in relationships with much younger women, too.

I agree. But it was trailed for days and there were interviews with Martin Clunes and reviews available before transmission, which could have led to the individual involved in going to the BBC.

No doubt what actually happened will be revealed in time.

It's now being reported that he was sacked due to "new information" that only came to light last week.

There are so many questions for the BBC:

Why has the BBC not reported this to the police?

What was the new information?

Why did the BBC ignore the allegations in 2025?

What did the BBC know about the 2016 allegations?

Did alleged abuse take place at the BBC?

Who else at the BBC has been subject to these sorts of allegations?

How can the public have any confidence in the BBC given that this keeps happening and is there a single high earner at the BBC who isn't a screaming nonce?

It’s just police terminology, in cases where it is a not guilty anticipated plea a full file is required.

Yeah, true, something else may land.
Even if it doesn't, as we know now, the information will trickle through into the press anyway, so I presume just 'coming out front' with a press statement.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/bbc-forced-sack-scott-mills-36951768

Already happening

Probably because the boy, now man, is going to go public and doesnt feel he was supported enough or police put the evidence togethe rproperly?

I do think the world may well end if Clive Myrie turns out to be a wrong 'un.

Yep, that’s what I think. Everyone is getting their ducks in a row (to coin a MN phrase) before shit hits the fan.

Not like the MET hasn’t had bad press at all in the last ten years … bloody obvious why they are making sure to say they fully investigated!

Exactly all public bodies are now forced to speak and act defensively.

So the young man has come forward to either complain he wasnt supported enough or to make new/different allegations?

So there should be due diligence about that via the police if they're of a criminal nature? I wouldnt get sacked at work before the outcome of a police matter, I might be suspended, but not sacked.

Typical BBC. Again.

I can't get the archive link to work, but if you paste this link on archive.ph, it's very interesting reading.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/31/bbc-knew-about-scott-mills-allegations-almost-a-year-ago/

No it’s not. He will have been advised to stay silent by his legal/PR team.

I know from the last thread you want him hung out to dry, but this is not a “sign”.

Im waiting for facts, not conjecture.

And, why now?

Exactly, as if anyone in their right mind would say anything

It would be normal for someone wrongly accused of sexual offences against a young teenager to issue a brief statement drafted by their lawyers along the lines of “SM strenuously denies any allegations of wrong doing and fully cooperated with the police investigation that cleared him of any wrongdoing doing at the time…”

I mean, even the guilty ones put out a brief statement claiming innocence.

Yes that’s true, they could have seen the media around it before screening. It was a big launch.

A complaint was made to the BBC last week.

This wasn't just a case of him being interviewed and NFA'd. The investigation - which was into allegations of 'serious sexual offences' against a then underage boy - got as far as being submitted to the CPS, who decided that the evidential threshold for prosecution hadn't been met.

That means the police investigation concluded that the allegations against him had merit.

The Director General of the BBC at the time of the investigation was unaware of it, which means he likely didn't disclose it (or certain details of it) to his employers. This would be a breach of his contract.

The BBC was aware of additional complaints against him in May last year and did nothing.

And I would be the first to call that out too if it felt wrong

Surely you must admit, the males involved in the cases that have been brought forward over the years seem 1. Incredible vulnerable 2. Exploited

Urgh I know a guy like this, he’s very popular on our community, I think because he’s gay and flamboyant and snobby, people lap him up. He’s often in relationships with teens, he’s in his fifties.
everyone laughs it off , oh he’s got another twink / boy toy etc but it makes me cringe.
one of these lads became suicidal after they split , he seemed vulnerable and with disabilities, he was broken afterwards. I felt so sorry for him and everyone else just focused on this ex bring a bit unhinged rather than he was taken advantage of