The BBC knew about Scott Mills at least a year ago

[ProudAmberTurtle]

It's being reported tonight that an unnamed "former BBC presenter" made allegations about Scott Mills to the corporation in May 2025, but the BBC did nothing about them.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/breaking-bbc-knew-scott-mills-36951242

It's scarcely believable that the BBC did nothing given that the Huw Edwards conviction was just a few months earlier, but it does appear to be the case.

It appears to be an allegation from 2016 that was known about at the time by BBC?

No longer shocking news. The BBC harbours them. Can't really understand why anyone has a TV licence etc they're just disgusting

I can't see how the BBC wouldn't have known about the 2016 allegation but they haven't confirmed this.

We're now having to rely on ex BBC employees telling the press anonymously about what they notified the BBC about re his behaviour to piece together what the BBC actually knew, as they are refusing to tell the public.

The BBC has now admitted it made a mistake re Scott Mills last year - by ignoring a series of questions about his behaviour and allegations against him that had been asked by a former BBC news presenter

mol.im/a/15695709

It really is time for the BBC to be defunded. It's just a celebrity six figure salary gravy train and far too many of them turn out to be wrong uns amid a usual theme of cover ups. It's viewing figures just continue to tumble long past any relevancy.

According to the BBC website the boy in question was under 16. The BBC are disgraceful.

Good for the BBC.
It’s been, quite rightly, equal opportunities for all genders , sex, sexualities, colour etc.
If a man turns out predatory then that needs sanctioning.

The BBC is turning out to be quite a revolting place.

The 2016 investigation is reported by the bbc to go back to 1997-2000! The police investigated between 2916-18 and no charges were brought. None. It’s not clear if the BBC knew the young person was under the age of 16 but the police must have known so what did they tell the BBC. If anything?

There is nothing on the bbc web site about anything else. However, the BCC updated its disciplinary policy last summer and the number of possible reasons for gross misconduct are now very long. Reputational damage is clearly an issue but SM has not been charged with anything after a 2 year investigation!

Either something else has happened or they are going through old investigations and came up with this. I do not believe the bbc are entirely to blame as SM was not prosecuted - maybe blame the police first? Under 16 was the issue surely but what took 15-20 years to investigate? This was someone coming forward very late on I think.

How many threads must we have about this loser?

The allegation was dropped by the cps you cannot sack people without evidence.

You can sack without evidence. Whether you can get away with it at a tribunal is another matter but in this case I think they are safe. Very well paid presenters can no longer have a history of sexual exploitation at best, paedophilia at worst.

The BBC are now saying - the Met are saying further information has come to light regarding serious sexual offences.

Well something else did happen - according to Katie Razzle. No details though.

The media were the rule of law is guilty until proven innocent.

When did this come out? When I saw the news earlier this evening they were saying no new info has come to light. But clearly something has happened to trigger his sudden sacking.

This constant drip feed is appalling.

The BBC have confirmed tonight that Mills was sacked due to "new information" in addition to the 2016 allegations.

The BBC needs to go to the police IMMEDIATELY with this new information and it needs to come clean to the public about what it knew then, what it covered up, what it chose not to investigate and what it's only just found out now.

There are also needs to be a clear out at the BBC until there are people there who can be trusted to investigate themselves.

@RudolphTheReindeer Katie Razzle on the 10 pm news.

The Mirror reported it tonight and within minutes the BBC were admitting that it is true

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/bbc-forced-sack-scott-mills-36951768

Yet the police decided no crime had been committed.

If I were Mills, I'd be reaching for my lawyers.

The police didn't decide this. The CPS made the decision that there wasn't enough evidence to take to court. It's not in the public interest to prosecute cases that they're not confident of getting a conviction on.

I have to say I'm not impressed by the BBC at all and I am leaning on the side that Mills has been a victim of overzealous self-preservation and PR management by the BBC, but Jeremy Vine and others are wrong to categorically say 'no crime has been committed'. The CPS has to make a judgment call weighing up the costs involved, public trust/interest and their own 'success' rate against whether they have enough to get a conviction. The two things can be the same, but the CPS choosing not to move forward does not always mean 'no crime has been committed'. Plenty of rapes take place with the CPS deciding there isn't enough to (successfully) prosecute, for example. The crime has still happened.

It makes sense that there has been new information relating to this and that’s the reason he’s been sacked. I think the way this has been presented has been confusing, because the 2016-2018 investigation which didn’t lead to charges let alone a conviction wouldn’t be enough to do anything with. I mean, one person who was similarly investigated ended up suing the BBC for invasion of privacy for how they covered the police investigation into him.

I didn't rate his radio show but I thought he seemed quite a nice sort of man. They never fail to disappoint do they (men that is) and the BBC come to that.

That doesn’t mean it’s not been investigated though - plus hearings and en appeal maybe? A year ago sounds a long time but perhaps they didn’t feel it was relevant if there was no proof? A bit of she said, he said? I don’t know but seems like they have acted now.

Why have you started a new thread about this? I wish HQ would close this sort of duplicate thread down. It all gets so very tedious.