Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

24hrs in Police Custody covered a case of historic abuse of young men and it shows the difficulty of getting the evidence to meet CPS thresholds. What was so awful was the fact that it involved young, vulnerable boys who became troubled adults and this was the reason that the case became so difficult to "get over the line". There were few victims willing to come forward to court, I imagine having spent years dealing with their demons, it would be a huge trauma. Some tried to complain at the time and in the interim period, but were not believed.

The witnesses were troubled, they were not considered to be credible and would have had a very hard time against a defence counsel, so the police needed so much more evidence to ensure the CPS could meet their prosecution threshold.

This is a very distrubing case TW if you are going to watch. https://www.channel4.com/programmes/24-hours-in-police-custody/on-demand/68464-011House of Horrors

I just want to be clear that I am in no way saying SM case is a parallel here, I just think there are interesting points on how police investigate and the issues that are not necessarily directly related to the alleged crime that informs the decision to proceed. Also how and why there may have been a time delay in bringing this forward and again. It could very well be that the complainant is/has been vulnerable and that the changing tide of public opinion due to other cases and may also play a part.

The 'full' file of evidence really stood out for me, plus the fact the police are commenting at all.

It's literally just a turn of phrase. The police issued a brief statement to media in response to requests for comment, as they always do, containing the basic facts they're allowed to disclose. There's no hidden meaning. You're reading something into nothing.

it's like they completely wanted to press charges, but were hampered by the CPS

Of course they wanted to bring charges, that's why they they built a case and passed it on to the CPS. The CPS aren't 'hampering' them by declining to proceed with a prosecution that's unlikely to succeed (at the taxpayer's expense).

It could. Which ties in with what @Kimura said:

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.

and as such could (or equally could not) be the ‘inappropriate communications’ the Telegraph wrote about. The ones which were flagged to the BBC last year.

Or that could be a separate thing entirely.

So:

1. Potential wrongdoing in 1997-2000, investigated in 2016, stopped from going to court by CPS

1. Claims of ‘Inappropriate communications’, flagged to BBC in 2025, ostensibly not investigated (or at least, the person who flagged them said she hadn’t had a response, but the BBC might have been investigating behind the scenes)

1. Additional claims by 1997-2000 complainant cited as the ‘new information’ that led to SM’s sacking now.

not sure why all my points are number 1 but you get the gist…

Thanks. To be honest I dont know much about this bloke, I know the face and his name obviously. I am not sure if I've remembered him correctly as I said up thread I couldnt stand him, now Im wondering if Ive muddled him with someone else as I dont actually remember listenting to any of his shows and was quite surprised he has been around so long.

To be honest all these people meld into each other.

And what does 'LTB' mean?
🤔

‘Leave the bastard’. Often suggested as advice to posters on here with rubbish husbands.

The BBC will have something that justifies this to prevent them from being sued for unfair dismissal. Maybe they have evidence. Maybe they have finally written into their employment contracts that any misconduct or police investigations are not permitted? I wouldn't be surprised with how many wrong'uns the BBC has employed along the way.

I am shocked at the level of support for Mills on social media, and the comments i have seen questioning why hes been sacked when not convicted.

Surely if we have learned anything over the years is that its unbelievably difficult to get a conviction for these things. When it comes to sexual misconduct against minors, where theres smoke, theres usually been fire. For this same issue to come up twice in 20 years means theres something to it

Potentially, it could be the following?
We know that the BBC knew there had been a case that had been dropped due to insufficient evidence.
But presumably they wouldn't be privy to the specifics, and therefore only had the word of SM that a mountain had been made out of a molehill.
We also know the boy has been in touch with the BBC, so they are possibly only fully learning how serious it was - and presumably have seen evidence of this (messages/photos or something?), which made it extremely clear that this was not someone who should be representing them publicly.

This is nuts.
You can make allegations about whoever you like, but unless there's sufficient evidence, there won't be a court case and you wouldn't be sacked (unless you were literally making it all up and wasting everyone's time).

Ergo, the BBC must have seen or heard something concrete, which meant SM was no longer someone they wanted associated with their brand and image etc.

You're saying that you shouldn't be allowed to be sacked if you've not been convicted of something? That would def be something to be afraid of.

So the BBC is now saying:

• It knew about the allegations about Scott Mills in 2017 but the DG was never told
• The sacking was because new information came to light about those allegations
• It has NOT revealed if it has handed the new information over to the police

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywvrye76lo

Do you maybe remember him from Celebrity Race Across The World instead? He and his husband were on it a couple of years ago.

• It has NOT revealed if it has handed the new information over to the police

I am not sure why you think the BBC should say anything about this publicly.

ETA and I’m sure the police can request information as and when they need it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15699077/Scott-Mills-breaks-silence-BBC-axing-Radio-2-star-releases-statement-wake-sex-offence-allegations.html

Statement from SM. Nothing of substance save that he emphasises that its all historic and more or less echoes the Met's statement. I guess he doesn't deny any wrongdoing per se.

Mills has made a statement. As ever with these things, it’s as notable for what it doesn’t say as what it does.

The statement contains no denials. He doesn’t say the allegations made against him & investigated by the police were ‘false’, ‘untrue’, ‘baseless’, ‘malicious’ or anything of the sort. Just that ‘the evidential threshold had not been met’, ie they couldn’t prove it.

Draw your own conclusions…

Nope!!

Indeed (sadly!)

Or maybe he's been told to release an anodyne statement because of legal action he might take?

He also doesn't need to say anything in justification. The CPS said there was no case to answer. You might not like it, but he doesn't owe anyone anything more than that.

I think the BBC needs to be transparent about this new information and say whether they have passed it to the police or not. If they've sacked him on the word of a person who is revisiting allegations pertaining to events of 30 years ago that have already been ruled by the CPS as not criminal acts then they really should have done their due diligence.

I am fairly sure someone can be sacked from a childcare profession despite no conviction on the balance of probability. There obviously was evidence whether or not it met the threshold. So maybe it’s something similar here for the BBC. But why new information has so suddenly appeared and changed things is strange - unless the new information was “I’m now going to the press”.

You might not like it, but he doesn't owe anyone anything more than that.

Perhaps now he’s released a statement, the villagers will put out their torch flames and go home.

Agree with this: "I think the BBC needs to be transparent about this new information and say whether they have passed it to the police or not."

I think there's truth in that – the Mirror broke the story and had so much detail.

The notable part of his statement was that the alleged offence happened when he was around 22, I thought?

Otherwise I’m not sure why he released it.

Still as clear as mud then 🤔😩