Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

Scott Mills raped a child?

Horrified by how much sympathy is being given to the man who has been accused of and not denied sexual offences against a child.
Appalling that the bbc were aware of the charges and carried on paying him hundreds of thousands of pounds when I’m sure there are hundreds of other capable candidates better suited.

Puzzled by the deletions. The boy concerned was under the age of consent.

I reported the last deleted post that stated Scott Mills raped a child, yes. Do you have evidence he raped a child?

Well, he had sex with a person under the age of consent…..

Consider that for a moment. An underage child makes a complaint about sex offences committed by an older man and still the CPS doesn’t want to prosecute. Sexual activity with a minor/rape of a minor does not need victim cooperation to proceed either. Could it be because the complainant’s account didn’t stack up? And yet here is MN, deciding SM must be guilty because he’s a gay older man.

You know that for fact?

I’m not crazy about his statement, I found it quite disappointing, to be honest. There’s no denial (or confirmation, obv) in it, which only makes it sound even more like “yeah legally they couldn’t do anything”. Yikes.

But then again without details we simply don’t know what happened. Something irrefutable must have resurfaced for him to get booted this way.

Wow this thread has gone wild. Reign in your acusations parading as facts, please. There are very few facts known about why or what but whatever happens, I feel this week's news will eventually be last week's story at some point as usual and then soon left behind in some weird memory state for most of us. These are people though, whatever we each feel or think and the people involved will be going through a very very difficult time.

I so hope all the people involved are feeling a level of safety and support and that they are not alone, whoever they are.

Yes, totally agree.

Have worked with people who worked on Operation Soteria (a Home Office-funded research project looking into how police and the CPS deal with cases of rape and serious sexual assault).

The cards are stacked against the victim from start to finish. From the often 'unreliability' of the victim to them withdrawing their statements because of insufficient support, to the ingrained, unconscious prejudices of investigators and the lack of physical evidence.

Less than 3% of reported rape result in a charge. There's no way that 97% of cases are false.

Nope. Nothing to do with his m being a gay man. All to do with him being a man who was sexually inappropriate with someone underage

You keep stating that he committed an illegal act as fact. Where is your proof he did anything? How do you know it wasn't a false claim and that's why the CPS didn't want to proceed?

The fact there is all this suspicion of a heinous crime is precisely WHY the BBC needs to COME CLEAN about what it knew and what it now knows

I'll leave you these screenshots.

When 97% of reported rapes do not result in a charge, let alone a conviction, do you think that's because they're all false claims?

why on earth did the bbc sack him then? Or terminate his contract? Whichever it was.

It could be a myriad of reasons - bringing the corporation into disrepute, not divulging the full extent of the initial investigation.

I tried to calculate things yesterday. I think Scott Mills was 24 in 1997.

They said that illegal sexual activity took place for three years from 1997-2000.

That suggests, the boy may have been 13 when it started and it stopped being illegal when he was 16.

But... The gay age of consent was lowered from 18 to 16 in the year 2000.

Does that potentially mean that we're dealing with the higher age of consent in 1997?

That would potentially make the boy 15 in 1997.

It's still a creepy age difference and far too young for a 24 year old to be in a relationship with, but it's not in the same league as a 13 year old.

I'm not defending Scott Mills, I'm just trying to understand the dates and potential ages.

Of course I don’t. But the CPS not pursuing criminal charges doesn’t automatically mean the person must be guilty but has got away with it either.

I agree. Their lack of transparency is appalling. If you are going to end someone’s career over a case that never went to court, you need to provide clear context.

You need to provide clear context to the former employee, perhaps. Not the world.

True, but they made it a public spectacle with their sudden sacking and as a taxpayer funded organisation there has to be accountability for their actions too.

They must also not prejudice any future proceedings or say anything which risks a libel action or similar. Both of those are more important than public curiosity.

They sacked him, and made no spectacle at all. An email to staff was made public by someone. Then the Met made a statement, which was clearly linked to SM, and released way more info than anyone else did.

It's now being reported that he was sacked because the BBC discovered the teen was under 16 at the time of the alleged offences.

I cannot understand any of the "the case was dropped, so how can the BBC say he's guilty" comments.
SM was not sacked on a whim. They were made aware of new information, which seems to be the age of the child.
They will have made sure there was zero doubt, and SM very probably admitted it, or at least didn't deny it during the disciplinary meetings.
A case not going to court does not equal innocence.