Scott Mills Sacked Thread 2

[KidsDoBetter]

to continue previous discussion

Nothing in terms of going to the police?

These allegations are around a separate incident, not related to the historic complaint.

They relate to 'inappropriate communications' made by Mills and originated in a press request from a freelance journalist. It was not responded to or investigated at the time due to the 'limited information' provided in the query.

The BBC have released a statement acknowledging that they should have asked for additional details.

I'd imagine it wasn't passed up the chain at the time and was disregarded due to the 'journalist' not being of any standing, lack of substance and nobody else following up on it.

I cant read that article

@likelysuspect The Telegraph’s point about the Beeb not following up on a different complaint for more info was covered on News At 10.

The BBC has also apologised for not looking into a separate allegation of "inappropriate communications" involving Mills, first reported in the Telegraph, external, raised by a journalist last year.
The BBC said: "We received a press query in 2025 which included limited information. This should have been followed up and we should have asked further questions. We apologise for this and will look into why this did not happen.
"More broadly, we would always urge anyone who has concerns or information to raise it with us."

The Met didn’t say anything 10 years ago when they investigated or 7 years ago when they dropped the case.

The police will only name a suspect once they are charged, unless certain exceptional circumstances apply. For example; a threat to life, to help the prevention or detection of crime, or if it is a matter of public interest and confidence.

They have still not referred to Mills by name, only as 'a man in his 40s at the time', FWIW.

Why are they suddenly making a statement now unless something controversial that might cause people to start pointing the figures at them is about to be released?

Because a complaint was made last week, resulting in the sacking of a high-profile public figure from his tax-payer funded job. They will have been inundated with requests for comment as to what role - if any - they played in the process and have issued a statement with the relevant information.

Remember, the police put forward a case to charge Mills, which means they believe he was guilty of something criminal. It was the CPS that decided not to move ahead.

I read on another celeb thread that Scott has known this might come out for his whole career and it was just a matter of time. And the victim.

Its crazy that he was given the biggest gigs after the 2018 ? Police quiz.
BBC knew it had happened but not enough evidence. So they just want to hide it away because Scott Mills is the best.. and the public cant know otherwise.
Or he used to go into Radio 1 drunk, with Scott even saying he would sack himself.
But bosses just say and do nothing.
He absolutely did not need to be given the BBC 2 Breakfast Show.

Just screams BBC ignore amber flags about their presenters.

Also screams lack of talent of honest genuine people. And laziness from bosses.

He did well to have 25 years + on BBC Radio primetime slots!

I think most people knew but did the usual thing.

I’m waiting for much more to come out as this can’t be full extent for him to be sacked.

Large age gap, yes, but not inappropriate and not comparable with SM. Fry met his now husband when the latter was 25, not a teenager.

Tom Daley was 18 when he got together with his now husband and there's a 20-year gap.

He had serious allegations made against him, and the police referred it to the CPS, ie they had enough evidence to believe he could be prosecuted. He is a very prominent celebrity, hosts the flagship radio programme, hosts the Eurovision buildup/spin-offs, etc.
His employer has every right to sack him, regardless of whether he was charged.
If we could only sack people who were found guilty of crimes, it would be terrifying.

Its crazy that he was given the biggest gigs after the 2018 ? Police quiz.
BBC knew it had happened but not enough evidence.

The DG of the BBC wasn't aware of the allegation/investigation at the time, and there's no indication (currently) that they received any complaint related to it, or request for comment on it, before last week.

The most likely scenario is that his sacking is a result of not disclosing the police investigation or potential for a complaint to his employers.

So they just want to hide it away because Scott Mills is the best.. and the public cant know otherwise.
Or he used to go into Radio 1 drunk, with Scott even saying he would sack himself.
But bosses just say and do nothing.
He absolutely did not need to be given the BBC 2 Breakfast Show.

Why not? There's no denying that he's always been an exceptionally talented and beloved broadcaster.

Getting a bit of leeway to push boundaries isn't unusual for top talents (especially when that's what his audience tunes in for), but today's BBC aren't covering up serious criminal allegations for anyone.

I think most people knew but did the usual thing

It seems that like unlike the Schofields of the world, Mills was seen as squeaky clean by his colleagues. And if the BBC were made aware of something criminal, or likely to bring the organization into disrepute, they'd have suspended him as they did with Hew Edwards.

I think I struggle with this a lot

So a journalist raises a 'query'? Is that giving or sharing information then, or asking for information?

The press query then raised the allegation of inappropriate communications? Did they report that to the police (the journalist)?

I do find it odd this emphasis on the employer being an 'investigator'. Its not the same as this being a teacher or carer? Surely if any employer receives information of a criminal nature they should be reporting this to the police or informing the complainent (journalist in this case) to report to the police?

whether you’re gay or straight, age gaps of 20 years plus are creepy as fuck

So a journalist raises a 'query'? Is that giving or sharing information then, or asking for information?

It's asking for an 'on the record' statement; an official, publishable response to an allegation/incident/situation.

It may also include some evidence, such as messages, emails, pictures etc to verify the legitimacy of the claim.

The press query then raised the allegation of inappropriate communications? Did they report that to the police (the journalist)?

Journalists - or anyone else for that matter - generally have no legal obligation to report criminality, or allegations of criminality, to the police.

Same goes for employers, with exceptions for things like terrorism, money laundering, or child safety where not reporting is an offense in itself.

Obviously there is a moral obligation on all of us to report proven or credible suspicion of criminality.

Journalists have to weigh this against their obligation to protect the identity and safety of their sources.

I do find it odd this emphasis on the employer being an 'investigator'. Its not the same as this being a teacher or carer? Surely if any employer receives information of a criminal nature they should be reporting this to the police or informing the complainent (journalist in this case) to report to the police?

With this case specifically, there is no suggestion that the 'inappropriate communications' were criminal in nature. They weren't followed up due to the lack of information in the query, so we don't know that the BBC was even aware of their contents or nature.

No the amount of people saying he is guilty is worse

Not enough evidence for a court case.

You think everyone who is arrested / questioned about something is guilty?

His name doesn’t begin with M does it?

if the MET investigated and the CPS decided there was no case I don’t why the BBC seem to have decided he’s guilty.

The CPS's decision wasn't that there was 'no case', but that the case presented didn't meet the required threshold for a reasonable chance of successful prosecution. As we know, that threshold is high with sexual offences.

Regardless, unless damning new evidence has come to light, or he's admitted something amounting to serious misconduct, the BBC sacking Mills isn't them deciding that he's guilty.

It appears that they were not made aware of the investigation/allegations at the time, which would be a breach of his contract. Even without police involvement, not disclosing something with the potential to bring the organization into serious disrepute would be a sackable offense.

I wouldnt get sacked at work before the outcome of a police matter, I might be suspended, but not sacked.

You may not be, but an employer can absolutely, legally dismiss someone accused of a crime prior to conviction (or even charge), providing they conduct an investigation and follow a fair process. For example...

If their investigation gives them reasonable belief that you committed the offence.

If the alleged offence amounts to gross misconduct (eg, a violent crime, some form of fraud/dishonesty that irreparably destroys their trust in you).

If the allegations bring the organization into disrepute, or lead to clients refusing to do business with them.

If the allegations make it inappropriate for you to remain in your role.

If the allegations result in colleagues reasonably refusing to work with you.

If you are remanded or your liberty is restricted such that it prevents you from fulfilling your duties while awaiting trail

If the unsubstantiated allegations of one person from decades ago, which the authorities didn't believe met the evidential standard, means that people can be drummed out of a job, we should all be afraid. I mean I could say I was the illegitimate child of the Duke of Edinburgh who took advantage of my very innocent 15 year old convent educated mother. (As far as I know my mother only ever saw the Duke of Edinburgh, who was accompanied by the Queen, from a distance of some metres when they visited the city we lived in and I was, in fact, born in 1964 when my mother was 34 years old, married to my father, and living in Australasia and she wasn't even convent educated.) Allegations are simply allegations. It doesn't mean they are necessarily true or even likely to be true. It all reeks a bit of the Salem witch trials and the outlandish and unlikely allegations made there being believed and people hanged as a consequence.

My guess is that the person involved in (alleged victim of) the 2016 investigation has gone to the Mirror with this.

Hence the Mirror being ahead of the story and drip feeding the new information. They don’t want their identity made public but they are behind this detail.

It could even be someone still working for the BBC, hence the Mirrror had the wording of the staff email and inside track on colleague’s reactions.

Agreed. There'll probably be a Mirror exclusive with the guy at the weekend.

Not sure why I said ‘still’ working at the BBC. What I meant was that the victim could work at the BBC. Or be in contact with people who do.

Thank you for being the voice of reason in a thread of people desperately looking for conspiracy theories to explain why their favourite boring bloody radio man at the BBC couldn’t possibly have been inappropriate with a child. People on here are disturbingly eager to defend this man.

The journalist was a former BBC News presenter!

Both creepy & with a massive power imbalance.

Do you have nothing better to do at six in the morning on a Tuesday other than making up utterly outlandish statements that would never in a million years happen?

Also, this is absolutely nothing like the Salem witch trials, unless they decide to start throwing the numerous BBC nonces into ponds with their arms tied to see if they sink or swim. Scott is a millionaire who is free to make any statement he wants about his innocence. He hasn’t done that of his own accord. He’s a 50 year old man and while I’m sure he’d appreciate the hordes of hysterical posters on here blindly defending him, I certainly don’t think he needs it.