Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

Okay, apologies for that mistake. Sacked by his employer is what's happened. Still, it's not a good look at all for him. Something's happened with an underage boy, I think that much is clear.

Can’t have been under 13 as the Met said it was a teenage boy. So anywhere between 13-15.

My understanding is that the "inappropriate allegations" case that the Beeb were told about a year ago is separate from the case of the boy who was under 16 in the late 90s.

So 13, 14, 15 = 1997, 1998, 1999.

Perhaps.

The age of consent for gay men didn't drop to 16 from 18 until 2000. Wrong, and rightfully changed, but he could have been under 18 for the whole period

Well the police said an under 16 year old thats why I was trying to work out whether he would have been under 16 for the entire period of the time that the offences were said to have taken place (or the allegations about them as I dont think we can say offences given he wasnt charged)

Fair enough, I suspect he was under 16 at the start and still under the age of consent by the law of the day at the end.

That’s really awful! I know a few of those types and it feels like being flamboyant lets them get away with some questionable behaviour “what’s he like” etc

Towards the end of last year there was a poster talking about the most heinous behaviour going on at the BBC at a local station.. A man with whom she had a situationship. It was beyond belief. Masturbating at work and sexual harassment. The poster was afraid to say anything to the bosses as they were apparently the same. It was two very lengthy threads.

My ex boss (lawyer) who was gay but not out, had parties with vodka jellies and maybe drugs at his huge house with footballers style bath. A couple of his employees mentioned waking up and thinking something had gone on but no proof. Yes they were the age to consent. But still if it happened criminal activity.

The final sentence is the least of the concerns arising from all of this. Call these acts what you will - but paedophilia and abuse of power are evil and should be called out as such without abiding to your precious sensitivities.

Unless the young person at the centre of all this was pre pubescent at the start of all of this then there is no paedophilia.

This kept being mentioned on that other thread where the OPs 16 year old son wanted to stay over at a 30 year olds house. As another poster said, it dilutes what that is.

The Daily Mirror seems to be enjoying itself far too much at all of this.

@HelloDenise Well that’s a leap and no proof - at the moment.

BBC knew about Scott Mills sexual offences investigation in 2017 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywvrye76lo

According to this article:

BBC knew about the investigation in 2017

Director General didn’t

The sacking now relates to new information (which I assume doesn’t necessarily mean a new crime/incident/‘event’ but could be additional info about an event they already knew about) which the BBC learned recently

Edited to add: the ‘new information’ could also potentially be the communications the Telegraph reported on, which an ex-BBC presenter contacted the BBC about in 2025 and hadn’t heard back. Maybe this was being investigated and the sacking is the upshot of that?

Or could be an entirely separate third issue.

Completely agree with this.

The 'full' file of evidence really stood out for me, plus the fact the police are commenting at all. As you say, it's like they completely wanted to press charges, but were hampered by the CPS (which is unfortunately often the case in sexual offences).

You're contradicting yourself. If they don't tend to provide empty files of evidence, why the need to say 'full'?

"Serious sexual offences" are a bit more than a drunken kiss.

I wonder if Sam will "LTB"?

Yes, exactly that. I think it’s been prevalent in show business since forever, in the theatre etc, hence blind eyes being turned everywhere in celebville

Edited to add: the ‘new information’ could also potentially be the communications the Telegraph reported on.

The 'new information' relates to additional claims made by the same individual, separate to the once previously investigated by the police, according to The Mirror.

Just a thought ... the new information could potentially be SM contacting the original complainant and asking him not to go the press etc? Something very concrete that they then brought to the attention of the BBC.

Because its just terminology. Its 'overspeak' if you like. Modern language is full of professional overspeak, particularly in the public sector

'we produced a piss poor file of evidence'

'we produced a FULL file of evidence' beams at cameras

Who is Sam?

Scott’s husband.