Scott Mills and the BBC

[EssexPhil]

The Summary Dismissal of Scott Mills looks rather sad.

Here are the facts we do know:-

1. Mr Mills was questioned by the Police in 2018 in relation to "historical sexual offences". No action was taken, and Mr Mills was notified of this in 2019

2. The possible "offences" related to the period between 1997 and 2000, and involved a "teenager"

3. Mr Mills was clearly suspended by his employer on 24/3 or 25/3, and summarily dismissed on 27/3 or 28/3.

Let's fill in some if those gaps, because the Press (and, in this case, the BBC) won't let the facts get in the way of a good story:-

4. When the Police refer to "historical" sexual offences, this is what they mean. It means that the alleged offence was once illegal, and the Law has changed so that it no longer is illegal

5. The age of consent for "straight" relationships has been 16 for a very long time. But the age of consent for gay men (not gay women) was 21 until 1994, and 18 until (you've guessed it) 2001

6. So the evidence appears to be this. 8 years ago, a Man was questioned about what he may, or may not, have done with a man aged between 16 and 18. Between 26 and 29 years ago. And, for whatever reason, the Police did not proceed with criminal charges

7. There is no evidence that Mt Mills sought to hide this. Or, indeed, that the BBC (and others) didn't know all this fine well.

So-what changed in 2026? Simple. The Press got hold of this story. And the BBC-mindful of the terrible publicity concerning other employees-panicked. That, or decided seeking the moral high ground was better than looking after its employees.

The 1 bit that annoys me (apart from the obvious) is this. The BBC has (quite rightly) said they cannot comment on this. And yet feels able to publicly demand a comment from their former employee in the "news". Even on the R2 programme he fromted a week ago. Which, in my experience, is going to go down spectacularly badly if this goes to an Employment Tribunal.

Which would provide lots of Press stories. And a big bill for the taxpayer.

[doubleup]

6. So the evidence appears to be this. 8 years ago, a Man was questioned about what he may, or may not, have done with a man aged between 16 and 18. Between 26 and 29 years ago. And, for whatever reason, the Police did not proceed with criminal charges

They now say that the alleged allegations involve a sub-16yo. Though if that was sub-16 right at the beginning of any alleged contact hasn't been released.

I take your general point though and can't really see Mills letting this go without a decent payout and a statement of apology. Which ironically will enrage the non-license payer types even more that the action they have taken.

[EssexPhil]

Largely agree.

The timeline related (according to the police) 1997-2000. That could involve anything from just over 2 years to nearly 4 years. But, given that the age of consent had already dropped to 18 years, it necessarily follows that, for at least some months, the person must have been under 16.

However, the narrative seems to have been concentrated on historic offences. That almost certainly means that the police quickly accepted that nothing untoward happened before the person was 16. And took rather longer to decline to prosecute for under 18.

The next point is why this only began in 2016. The likeliest reason for that is that they were in a consensual relationship for some years afterwards and that inly once that had definitely ended was the complaint made.

The Mirror's involvement is also unusual. If they had heard this from the original complainant they would be saying so. In reality, it is more likely to be a different person cashing in on something they found out. Causing likely damage to the original complainant as well as Scott Mills.

As a Straight man, life was always easier. Once someone was 16, provided not in position of authority, open season. Whereas gay men had to be much more cautious before someone was 21/18. An innocent friendship can easily made to look like Grooming.

I wonder whether Mt Mills has been given anything at all. Would be strange if he had been given money and a Compromise Agreement, only for the BBC to immediately demand that he comments on allegations if it were them that were preventing it.

Taxpayers tend to have simple views on life. It is perfectly possible that Mr Mills will decide to move on with his life. But, were he to decide to fight, the potential costs to the taxpayer, both in legal fees and award, could be absolutely massive.

Here's a possible scenario. As 1 of his Employers, you knew for at least 10 years of the allegations. You knew that no further action was taken. In the meantime, you give him several promotions, and a 6 figure pay rise. Then, once a newspaper asks questions, you suspend your most senior employee within 24 hours, manage to give notice of, and hold a detailed disciplinary Hearing, and decide to dismiss within 3 days. Then, inside a week, insist all his friends and colleagues dish the dirt, while claiming you couldn't possibly comment.

The BBC has 1 of the largest employment law teams and HR departments in the country. And, if I worked there, my CV would be getting updated pronto

[Enut]

From the bits I have read (admittedly not a lot), he wasn't prosecuted because there wasn't deemed to be enough evidence at the time, so possibly the other person involved refused to give evidence? Male or female surely if this happened under age 16 then it is a serious offence.

Many years ago a friend of a work colleague was put in prison for having a one night stand with a 15 year old girl. He was found guilty when she turned up in court looking all sweet and innocent with her hair in pony tails and stated that he had forced her. In reality he had met her in a night club, wearing a tight mini dress (her, not him!) and the activities they got up to were at her instigation. She only changed her story when her parents found out about it, then she claimed that he forced her. I remember thinking at the time (and still do) that it was grossly unfair, but I suppose legally he was guilty. The only safe way seems to be to ask for a birth certificate or drivers licence before taking things further, not particularly romantic though is it? 

[EssexPhil]

Some bits you have read appear to have been written by the Police

It is misleading for the Police to say "there wasn't deemed to be enough evidence". It's simpler than that. There wasn't enough evidence. Full stop. Not least because some 20 years elapsed between the alleged offence and anything being brought to the Police's attention. A 35 year old man suddenly remembering that something inappropriate may have happened 20 years ago. As opposed to only starting 17 years ago.

Let's put that into context. My parents were married for 61 years. They met when he was 18 and she was 14. Do you think they (or indeed any other childhood sweethearts) have ever been interviewed by the Police 20 years into their relationship? Of course not.

On a side note, I hear what you say about your work colleague's friend. In the majority of cases of that sort I have dealt with, the sexually naive one was the adult. Because (for example) any normal adult teacher knows the boundaries fine well. And, prior to 2001, Gay Men had to be more aware than the rest of us.