Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
landlordhell · 31/03/2026 12:04

Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 12:03

What do you think he'll be charged with now that he wasn't charged with in 2019?

It might not be about that allegation. It might be something else.

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 31/03/2026 12:04

The thing is for him to actually be suspended and then sacked means it’s something serious. BBC wouldn’t just sack him unless it was watertight HR wise, they don’t want him to bring an employment claim about this. My guess is that HR have been in touch with CPS/police for quite some time.

Fast800goingforit · 31/03/2026 12:06

Ohcrap082024 · 31/03/2026 12:01

Agreed. Either there’s more to come or SM has broken his contract in some way. Could it be possible that in light of Saville, Edwards and Brand that new BBC contracts for big talent have a disclosure clause. Something along the lines of a duty to report any and all current and past contact with authorities regarding cases involving minors?

Any legal bods about who can shed light on if such a contract clause is possible/ legal?

In any case, I strongly suspect that in the next 48 hours, we will know much more.

Edited

He may well have done something which he has admitted when asked about it that breaches his contract terms and/or the BBC code of conduct. In that respect whether it is criminal offence or there was enough evidence to reach the threshold for the offence and the CPS to charge him with it is not relevant from an employment perspective.

Ihateboris · 31/03/2026 12:06

landlordhell · 31/03/2026 12:04

It might not be about that allegation. It might be something else.

I'm thinking something much more serious.

OP posts:
MissyMooPoo2 · 31/03/2026 12:06

Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 12:02

Totally agree. It is beyond stupid for the BBC and Radio 2 itself to be doing a phone-in on this. It's like everyone's decided he must be guilty when the CPS already ruled seven years ago that there was no case to answer in court. I understand he's a pretty fragile character and prone to heavy drinking – his own former colleagues adding to the pile-on is shameful.

Let's treat this with the concern it deserves.

I don't give a flying fuck if he's a 'fragile character and prone to heavy drinking' if, as being suggested, he was sexually abusing a boy under the age of 16.

I hope that justice prevails.

landlordhell · 31/03/2026 12:09

He’s news updates to under 16.

ShhhhhItsASurprise · 31/03/2026 12:10

I just knew yesterday this was related to Mitchell. It’s been 20+ years but none of us have forgotten that SM was there when he overdosed and I couldn’t believe it hadn’t come up over the years. RIP Mitch.

Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 12:11

Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain · 31/03/2026 12:04

The thing is for him to actually be suspended and then sacked means it’s something serious. BBC wouldn’t just sack him unless it was watertight HR wise, they don’t want him to bring an employment claim about this. My guess is that HR have been in touch with CPS/police for quite some time.

The CPS wouldn't give details to someone's HR dept to help them avoid an unfair dismissal claim! As far as the CPS and police will be concerned, the matter from 2019 is closed, unless new information came to light that warranted the investigation being reopened. If that had happened, the BBC would have had to suspend him first while the new allegation was investigated, as per due process. So the fact they went straight to dismissal means either they've decided to believe the complainant and think they have reasonable grounds to do so, despite the CPS ruling in 2019, or they've messed it up and sacked him prematurely, without due process.

Starlight1979 · 31/03/2026 12:11

ShhhhhItsASurprise · 31/03/2026 12:10

I just knew yesterday this was related to Mitchell. It’s been 20+ years but none of us have forgotten that SM was there when he overdosed and I couldn’t believe it hadn’t come up over the years. RIP Mitch.

Who's Mitchell???

Ihateboris · 31/03/2026 12:12

MissyMooPoo2 · 31/03/2026 12:06

Let's treat this with the concern it deserves.

I don't give a flying fuck if he's a 'fragile character and prone to heavy drinking' if, as being suggested, he was sexually abusing a boy under the age of 16.

I hope that justice prevails.

So many peadophile apologists on here. It's so depressing

OP posts:
Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 12:12

Starlight1979 · 31/03/2026 12:11

Who's Mitchell???

He was Scott's boyfriend and died aged 21 of a drugs overdose. So nothing to do with his sacking whatsoever.

MissyMooPoo2 · 31/03/2026 12:14

Ihateboris · 31/03/2026 12:12

So many peadophile apologists on here. It's so depressing

I can't believe it, I really can't.

pteromum · 31/03/2026 12:18

Not sure that worked. A discussion on Jeremy vine tv show this morning

Ihateboris · 31/03/2026 12:19

MissyMooPoo2 · 31/03/2026 12:14

I can't believe it, I really can't.

Sadly, I can believe it

OP posts:
ShhhhhItsASurprise · 31/03/2026 12:19

Starlight1979 · 31/03/2026 12:11

Who's Mitchell???

Sorry, hadn’t RTFT and assumed it would have been picked up.

Mitch was Scott’s BF that died of an overdose. The press have dug up the details. Point being SM was into all sorts of seedy stuff in the late 90s.

KidsDoBetter · 31/03/2026 12:20

Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 11:55

The police haven't said a peep about reopening the case though, which means the BBC are going off the word of someone whose previous allegations were dismissed by the CPS. Very dodgy ground to be on.

Edited

We don't know that this is what the BBC is going off though.

There is a chance that SM has admitted he had a sexual relationship with a boy under the age of 16 in the late 1990s when senior management put this to him last week.

Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 12:20

Ihateboris · 31/03/2026 12:12

So many peadophile apologists on here. It's so depressing

Which bit of the CPS said there was no case to answer in 2019 are you not getting?

Honestly, I am so fed up of people being hanged by the public court of opinion. We may as well scrap the "not guilty until proven otherwise" as the fundamental principle our legal system is founded on. What's the point when the public knows better about their guilt, eh?

What if it was your brother or father who'd been wrongly accused of a serious sexual offence but thankfully for their sake it never made it to court because CPS believed the charges didn't stack up, but everyone thought they were guilty anyway and condemned them for it? How would you feel if people still called them paedos?

AzureIsBlue · 31/03/2026 12:21

This thread is very distressing. We, as women, should all know that a rape or abuse case not going to prosecution doesn't mean that the accused is not guilty. These cases often struggle to get over the line. Yet that doesn't mean the abuse didn't happen. I am not saying Scott Mills is guilty, I know nothing about him and have no feelings either way, but for people saying 'Well he wasn't prosecuted therefore' is awful. We don't know the details and this involves a child. It may be that new evidence has come to light, it may be that the BBC were unaware of the details and now are and having reviewed that they feel there is enough to sack Mills, they may be being overzealous given the history of issues within the BBC and accusations of abuse and poor behaviour around sexual relations - we do not know yet. But to suggest that all is well because the CPS didn't prosecute does everyone a lot of disservice and damage. I have never listened to Scott Mills but he is clearly a favoured disc jokey at the BBC. I highly doubt they would fire him if they didn't have fears over this situation. Instead of deeming him innocent simply because the case never reached trial - or guilty because there has been an accusation - maybe hold tight and see if any further details came out and statements are made. But please don't do victims a disservice by saying 'no prosecution equates to no guilt', and yes, I know of a local case where a girl accused a man of sexual abuse when he turned out to be innocent (she was being abused by a family member, but instead accused this man in desperation) and yes, it ruined his life. Yes, we know false accusations happen, yes they are horrific and terribly damaging to both innocent people and to real victims. But no case does not mean no crime, and to suggest that is so dangerous for victims who have brought their situations forward and been dismissed, to those going through it, to those who might be thinking about bringing a a case forward and to those who are too frightened to - and potentially to someone who could be a victim in this situation.

ShhhhhItsASurprise · 31/03/2026 12:21

Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 12:11

The CPS wouldn't give details to someone's HR dept to help them avoid an unfair dismissal claim! As far as the CPS and police will be concerned, the matter from 2019 is closed, unless new information came to light that warranted the investigation being reopened. If that had happened, the BBC would have had to suspend him first while the new allegation was investigated, as per due process. So the fact they went straight to dismissal means either they've decided to believe the complainant and think they have reasonable grounds to do so, despite the CPS ruling in 2019, or they've messed it up and sacked him prematurely, without due process.

Wasn’t he contracted rather than employed?

Jellycatspyjamas · 31/03/2026 12:23

Ihateboris · 31/03/2026 12:12

So many peadophile apologists on here. It's so depressing

I don’t see anyone acting as an apologist, do you have examples of anyone here saying paedophilia is excusable?

KidsDoBetter · 31/03/2026 12:23

Ohcrap082024 · 31/03/2026 12:01

Agreed. Either there’s more to come or SM has broken his contract in some way. Could it be possible that in light of Saville, Edwards and Brand that new BBC contracts for big talent have a disclosure clause. Something along the lines of a duty to report any and all current and past contact with authorities regarding cases involving minors?

Any legal bods about who can shed light on if such a contract clause is possible/ legal?

In any case, I strongly suspect that in the next 48 hours, we will know much more.

Edited

It would be possible / legal. SM signed a new contract late 2024 for the breakfast show. I don't doubt it had very robust disclosure obligations that went beyond standard "pending charges / convictions".

Lalgarh · 31/03/2026 12:24

Was "only the young" his catchphrase?

nitter.net/scott_mills/status/534668706878861312#m

Passingthrough123 · 31/03/2026 12:25

AzureIsBlue · 31/03/2026 12:21

This thread is very distressing. We, as women, should all know that a rape or abuse case not going to prosecution doesn't mean that the accused is not guilty. These cases often struggle to get over the line. Yet that doesn't mean the abuse didn't happen. I am not saying Scott Mills is guilty, I know nothing about him and have no feelings either way, but for people saying 'Well he wasn't prosecuted therefore' is awful. We don't know the details and this involves a child. It may be that new evidence has come to light, it may be that the BBC were unaware of the details and now are and having reviewed that they feel there is enough to sack Mills, they may be being overzealous given the history of issues within the BBC and accusations of abuse and poor behaviour around sexual relations - we do not know yet. But to suggest that all is well because the CPS didn't prosecute does everyone a lot of disservice and damage. I have never listened to Scott Mills but he is clearly a favoured disc jokey at the BBC. I highly doubt they would fire him if they didn't have fears over this situation. Instead of deeming him innocent simply because the case never reached trial - or guilty because there has been an accusation - maybe hold tight and see if any further details came out and statements are made. But please don't do victims a disservice by saying 'no prosecution equates to no guilt', and yes, I know of a local case where a girl accused a man of sexual abuse when he turned out to be innocent (she was being abused by a family member, but instead accused this man in desperation) and yes, it ruined his life. Yes, we know false accusations happen, yes they are horrific and terribly damaging to both innocent people and to real victims. But no case does not mean no crime, and to suggest that is so dangerous for victims who have brought their situations forward and been dismissed, to those going through it, to those who might be thinking about bringing a a case forward and to those who are too frightened to - and potentially to someone who could be a victim in this situation.

I do get what you're saying, and I'm sorry if this is a situation that's close to home for you. But by the same token, people should not assume that just because a serious allegation's been made that didn't make it to court, the person accused probably was/must be guilty still.

YourMagentaCat · 31/03/2026 12:26

ShhhhhItsASurprise · 31/03/2026 12:10

I just knew yesterday this was related to Mitchell. It’s been 20+ years but none of us have forgotten that SM was there when he overdosed and I couldn’t believe it hadn’t come up over the years. RIP Mitch.

What? Who?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.