revtothelimit - motorbike forum

I know some might see this as current affairs, but that ban was to stop the endless political debates, not to block any discussions of the world in general.

I was reading the article about him getting sacked and it pointed out others like Tim Westwood who've been canned and then you've got the older more obvious celebrity issues of course.

But how/why does all this come about ? As soon as people get famous they turn into predators who prey on younger/inappropriate ? Or am i missing something here...

It seems utterly bizarre.

Once you get to a certain level of fame/money I can only assume that the people around you become so sycophantic that you start thinking that you're untouchable/can do anything.

If I was rich I'd do loads of illegal stuff and buy my way out if I got caught.

KungFooBob wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 8:11 am Once you get to a certain level of fame/money I can only assume that the people around you become so sycophantic that you start thinking that you're untouchable/can do anything.

If I was rich I'd do loads of illegal stuff and buy my way out if I got caught.

I would too, but it wouldn't involve touching teenage boys (or girls for that matter). I assume if you're fawned upon time and time again, one day this seems to kick in and you take what's being offered.
I do wonder how much of it goes on in 'society' though that we never hear anything about and never will.

Humans... they're a bit fucking weird.

I dunno. Perhaps it's something to do with young people being attracted to fame, not necessarily in a sexual way, but wanting to be around famous people, have their photo taken with them and stuff like that. It probably gives the famous person a sense of entitlement and they take advantage of the situation, maybe?

I've never understood the adoration of people on telly. I've only ever seen a few in real life, Frank Muir, Nasty Nick Cotton and Gareth Hunt But I didn't feel the need to rush up to them and ask for an autograph or a picture.

Maybe Taipin was right and poor laddo was being double teamed by Mills and Scofield.

I think it's just cancel culture. TBH I've started to disbelieve a lot of it now. Famous people have always had the bonus of the attractiveness it provides, and cancel culture seems to provide a form of retribution to the spurned.

It is slightly alarming that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of predatory types employed by the BBC? But then look at ITVs Schofield, whose behaviour was one of TVs worst kept secrets!

There's plenty of these dodgy sorts in society, but if you're in the public eye it seems to be in the public interest. I'd imagine if we dug deep enough into the " high flyers society " they'd be plenty more.

To my mind being questioned by the police and having no charges brought due to lack of evidence is a tacit acknowledgement of innocence.

That said, he may have broken an internal employment clause in his contact by not disclosing it, hence him getting the fiddler's elbow...

The thing is, I am sure a lot of us can look back at our sex lives , esp when we were 14/15 and rummaging around in girlies / men’s underwear round the back of where ever, and think, that would potentially be regarded as sexual assault. because of age, rather than unwillingness.
If you are famous, there is an opportunity for folks to crawl out of the woodwork and do an expose on you.
I’m not too sure that anyone I got downstairs inside with, is likely to come hunting me for compensation/ to get even.


Mills is a gay man - and quite likely kopped off with someone who now appears underage . If it was Huw Edwards style grooming he deserves what’s coming , other than that …

weeksy wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 8:04 am
But how/why does all this come about ? As soon as people get famous they turn into predators who prey on younger/inappropriate ? Or am i missing something here...

The fact that it's in the news indicates that it's not normal behaviour among the deities we worship on the pedestal of celebrity. That said, I think to want to be part of that world makes you naturally narcissistic. Add to that the adoration of star-struck young people and you create situations where misguided (or worse) interactions can occur.
In the current climate, the perpetrator is hung, drawn and quartered without recourse to trial.

I get both sides of the argument below. For the obvious questions arising over the BBCs vetting procedure, do you have to declare an investigation, even if no charges are brought against you?

This does beg the question, why now? Is it the same as Schofield, where he was forced to come out as the story was about to break and this is the BBC attempting damage limitation in similar circumstances? I have the feeling more info will come to light shortly...

I think some industries are really late in coming to the party as to what is/isn't acceptable.

Decades ago, in the workplace, it seems you could get away with pretty much any kind of debauchery, sauciness, sexy nonchalance & general touching-up- right up to the point of (not including) sexual assault and folk would go "yeah, whatever, get over yourself, just a bit of fun". Then there was a sea-change, most workplaces accepted that this couldn't carry on and have applied harassment policies to the letter.

For some reason, a lot of the industries (I'm looking at you "Politics", you "Celebrity" and you over there "Media") decided they were either too important, cool, popular or sexy for this to apply to them - they just carried on.

Taipan wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 1:26 pm

Oh noes.!

How guilty do you have to be for Ann Widdicombe to show up "on your side"?

Who cares, he's a nobody, here today and gone tomorrow the same as any other talking head on the TV or radio, and no charges were brought against him.

Time to defund the BBC, burn it to the ground and rebuild it on a subscription model, let people decide themselves if they want to fund kiddie fiddlers / peado's / nonces rather than be obliged by an archaic law no longer fit for purpose.

DefTrap wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 1:28 pm (I'm looking at you over there "Media")

Which, given the outcries from said media camp, would be fucking hilarious if it wasn't so hypocritical.

In terms of the “why now?” question.

BBC has had a poor record over recent years under the outgoing DG Tim Davie, think Huw Edwards, Trump speech (albeit by Panorama), Kaye Adams recently etc and with the new DG Matt Brittin being announced last week it was more than likely to “clean the house” before the new guy took over.

Mr Moofo wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 9:24 am The thing is, I am sure a lot of us can look back at our sex lives , esp when we were 14/15 and rummaging around in girlies / men’s underwear round the back of where ever, and think, that would potentially be regarded as sexual assault. because of age, rather than unwillingness.
If you are famous, there is an opportunity for folks to crawl out of the woodwork and do an expose on you.
I’m not too sure that anyone I got downstairs inside with, is likely to come hunting me for compensation/ to get even.


Mills is a gay man - and quite likely kopped off with someone who now appears underage . If it was Huw Edwards style grooming he deserves what’s coming , other than that …

Pretty much this.
I'd say when the dust settles on this one,Scotty boi will be reaming the Beeb for a few quid.

Skub wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 2:23 pm

Mr Moofo wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 9:24 am The thing is, I am sure a lot of us can look back at our sex lives , esp when we were 14/15 and rummaging around in girlies / men’s underwear round the back of where ever, and think, that would potentially be regarded as sexual assault. because of age, rather than unwillingness.
If you are famous, there is an opportunity for folks to crawl out of the woodwork and do an expose on you.
I’m not too sure that anyone I got downstairs inside with, is likely to come hunting me for compensation/ to get even.


Mills is a gay man - and quite likely kopped off with someone who now appears underage . If it was Huw Edwards style grooming he deserves what’s coming , other than that …

Pretty much this.
I'd say when the dust settles on this one,Scotty boi will be reaming the Beeb for a few quid.

well the latest BBC says the person was under 16.... there's arguably very little defence for that... (unless you're also under 16) as Mills is nearer 50, he's got very little going for him.

weeksy wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 2:27 pm
well the latest BBC says the person was under 16.... there's arguably very little defence for that... (unless you're also under 16) as Mills is nearer 50, he's got very little going for him.

You're assuming the alleged offence happened. Clearly the CPS found there was insufficient evidence that it did. I'd call that a pretty good defence.

gremlin wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 2:31 pm

weeksy wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2026 2:27 pm
well the latest BBC says the person was under 16.... there's arguably very little defence for that... (unless you're also under 16) as Mills is nearer 50, he's got very little going for him.

You're assuming the alleged offence happened. Clearly the CPS found there was insufficient evidence that it did. I'd call that a pretty good defence.

You could also argue that it means "he definitely did it, we just can't proove it in a court of law, we'd get laughed out with the evidence we've gathered up to this point". That's kinda the point of the CPS vs Police "discussions" - the police gather what they can and present what they feel is legally valid, and the CPS evaluates it and says yay or nay.

Without futher details all we really know is that an allegation was made, but CPS currently think whatever evidence there is, is not sufficient for a successful prosecution in court. We don't actually know what that evidence was... but.... it's more than just hearsay because it's actually got as far as the CPS... If it was just someone shouting loudly without admissable proof, the police wouldn't bother passing it up to the CPS.