Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

It is a bit creepy. But seems accepted when the woman is the younger party.

@JadeSnake It’s also worth reading the Disciplinary policy published by the BBC last summer. It’s on line. Their previous policy outlined the fairly standard behaviours that are gross misconduct and dismissal offences. Essentially the ones ACAS list. As of last summer, the list is extensive. Certainly the reputation of the BBC is now a consideration. It’s a very long list when compared to most organisations. So SM has, presumably, been investigated in the light of that.

It’s not clear what the journalist unearthed but it must have rattled SM and now his employer. It’s also worth noting that SM didn’t work for the BBC at the date of the previous allegations in the last century. Whatever has happened now, it’s fallen on the wrong side of their new disciplinary policy which is certainly a very robust one.

Maybe not after one arrest and release. He's now been arrested a second time for similar alleged offences....

He's now been arrested a second time for similar alleged offences....

Source?

I haven’t seen anything saying he’s been arrested, where have you seen/heard this please?

That’s what I think. It’s definantly seems to a The Mirror led story. Is the alleged victim behind it? For money? Revenge? Or a clever bit of investigative journalism? Was it a case of a drunken kiss with a minor in a nightclub, or a grooming and/or repeated series of offences? A mistaken one night stand kiss (but nothing more) is a completely different scenario to Huw Edward’s, for example.

Nothing at all. It's now on Sky:

news.sky.com/story/bbc-apologises-for-response-after-scott-mills-allegations-raised-last-year-13526048

The final sentence in this post is vulgar and defamatory. It's not appropriate for a public forum.

This young man if he was employed by the BBC may have found it hard to get work now. Look at Matthew McGreevy, I found him via Google trying to get tv work and he’s worked/worked in a pub. But basically his career is ruined. Schofe still has his money, houses and so on.

I’m guessing that the person didn’t feel strong enough to testify ten years ago or so now, causing a case collapse and now does or someone else/something else has come to light and tipped the scales on the evidence front into CPS acceptance

i dont know why most are assuming the boy was fifteen, under sixteen could be any age 🤢 I’m pregnant and it makes me terrified that their are all these raging nonces walking around

I think its impossible to measure those things though.

Who says that Matthew Mggreevy would have had a career in TV or the media, perhaps he wouldnt have done so anyway?

Im not sure I get the point about the young man involved with SM, if he was employed by the BBC, why would he find it hard to get work now?

Given the dates are 1997 to 2000, was he underage that entire time? He must have been

I don’t know the background on Matthew M’s career, but lots of people who want to work
in TV end up not doing so. Looking at his TV credits, I think they stop a fair while before the Schofield investigation happened.

What makes you say “he must have been”?

I read that thread, I think it happens a LOT - both with straight and gay men. When I was 17 I had a (secret) relationship with a 40 year old man. At the time I thought I was dead sophisticated but, with hindsight, he was a dirty old man. Technically not illegal as I was over 16, but definitely grim.

I think the police are slightly a*se covering in that they're stating they sent a full file to the CPS, as it was on the CPS to make a charging decision: the implication being they did their part of the job and conducted a robust investigation. The MET police could do without any negative media for sure!

Because the crimes are said to have been committed between 97 and 2000?

Say he turned 16 in 1998, what are the other crimes in 99 and 2000. Unless they are sexual assault allegations on a person over the age of consent

Trust me the media situation, his name eventually being mentioned, would maybe count against him.

My brother works in tv and it’s quite tight knit, who you know. All sorts work there from arseholes to lovely people like my brother. He really is lovely btw!

I had an open relationship with a 40 year old man when I was 18/19. God knows what I was thinking.

Oh yes, I see what you mean now!

Well that would be like the Tom Daley situation wouldnt it? And they're married now apparently.

I dont think people should berate themselves for being in relationships with people that are over the age of consent but illadvised in terms of what you have in common and how long lasting it might be. Thats what being young is, you link up with people and then realise they're not for you.

If there is actual abuse that is a completely different matter, I hope there wasnt for you of course.

Although I am making an assumption that the crimes he was investigated for, are sexual activity with a child under 16.

If it was under 13 that becomes rape. Although we dont know the nature of exact allegations I suppose.

Deeply unpleasant either way but conversely, CPS did not take this any further.

https://www.channel5.com/show/a-very-british-sex-scandal-the-love-child-the-secretary I recently saw this programme. I remember the main characters but wasn't aware of the details including the gagging order. He was brought back into the Conservative fold by Thatcher and Hague. Despite the lurid title this is an excellent, though tough to watch, documentary.

According to media sources, quoting the BBC, the latest allegations, which the Beeb was first asked about last year, involve "inappropriate communications".

I find very large age gap relationships, both gay and straight, extremely icky (yes Stephen Fry, Michael Sheen, Nick Knowles, Jack Nicolson, Leonardo, even my previously beloved Jeff Goldblum 😥) but it's not quite relevant here.

There wasn't a massive age gap between SM and the person under 16 at the time. Please note I am in no way excusing or defending it. It's just we're talking about SM as if his wealth and fame are a factor in him grooming a young person. Whereas it happened nearly 30 years ago.