[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

No, the police presented a file of evidence to the cps they said it did not meet the threshold of evidence needed for them to agree to the police to charge him

Apologies it was CPS said that. But you still can’t label someone guilty if there wasn’t enough evidence to bring any actual charges.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Glenn.

Parm has a weird fetish that gay men are peadophiles. I’d take what he says with as much intent as you would a three year old talking gibberish.

I was right about Westwood, and I'm right about mills.

Just you wait and see.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Apologies it was CPS said that. But you still can’t label someone guilty if there wasn’t enough evidence to bring any actual charges.

Starmer cleared saville.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Apologies it was CPS said that. But you still can’t label someone guilty if there wasn’t enough evidence to bring any actual charges.

I can actually, because if he was innocent the police would not have found any wrongdoing and would not of asked cps to charge him

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Parmy

Starmer cleared saville.

Evidence came to light later on proving his guilt.

We don’t have anything for Scott Mills. Not to say we won’t later down the line but he can’t be labelled guilty for now.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by Parmy

I was right about Westwood, and I'm right about mills.

Just you wait and see.

But sooooo wrong about soooooo many other things. You haven’t got the leverage you think you have.

[arista]

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

A part of me feels they’ve done this to distract from something/someone else.

Possibly.

I would like to know if Scott Mills Husband knew about these allegations? Because I feel sorry for him if he has been caught up in this very suddenly.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Parmy

Starmer cleared saville.

Tbf to Starmer, what evidence was he working with at the time?

I mean after all, he does like to "protect the kids.”

But I honestly believe that Starmer wouldn't deliberately clear a Paedophile.

[Cherie]

The BBC said they knew of the original case but fresh evidence has come to light which was the reason for the sacking, the fresh evidence has not been made public, of course they should produce it since they are funded by the tax payer and its in the public interest to know why exactly he was sacked. I assume Mills will sue if he was sacked for no reason

[Crimson Dynamo]

Notice in his carefully lawyer-drafted statement he does not deny the accusations laid against him!

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The BBC said they knew of the original case but fresh evidence has come to light which was the reason for the sacking, the fresh evidence has not been made public, of course they should produce it since they are funded by the tax payer and its in the public interest to know why exactly he was sacked. I assume Mills will sue if he was sacked for no reason

Reports of the fresh information (it’s not fresh evidence) being reported by media is:

The BBC sacked presenter Scott Mills after learning the alleged victim in the police investigation was under 16, it is understood.

It is not clear if BBC managers at the time of the investigation in 2017 knew the age - but current management only became aware in recent weeks and took action, BBC News understands.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Reports of the fresh information (it’s not fresh evidence) being reported by media is:

If that is the case he will sue, however I have heard differently on LBC this morning that the fresh evidence has not been made public

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Cherie

If that is the case he will sue, however I have heard differently on LBC this morning that the fresh evidence has not been made public

The BBC need to clear this up as there’s a massive difference between information and evidence, they’ve made an absolute shambles of the whole thing.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

The BBC need to clear this up as there’s a massive difference between information and evidence, they’ve made an absolute shambles of the whole thing.

Yes I agree, they have tanked his career and have now closed shop

[Crimson Dynamo]

why, when he had the chance, did Mills not say he was innocent yesterday?

[Ammi]

…the BBC are abhorrent in this, as they’re beginning to show and be in so many things…if they didn’t know the full details of the investigation of someone they decided to employ to represent then then they should have and could have known…but there seemed to be no urgency in finding those things out while Scott Mills was a popular asset to them, who they then went on to give his current/eventual popular radio slot to…but now that it appeared that the media were going to expose some of the details of the allegations, the BBC are now trying to distance themselves…whatever anyone thinks of Scott Mills or any past allegations against him etc, the BBC are completely abhorrent in their behaviour of their and in their own decisions ….

[Crimson Dynamo]

Contacted in May last year about the serious accusations against Mills what did the BBC do?

Totally ignored it and never replied

[Cherie]

Now I have read that the BBC while aware of the investigation were not aware that the alleged victim was under 16, it just gets worse

[arista]

Yes the BBC
had no idea he was under 16 year old,
young lad, that Scott was with.

However, way back when, he was on Radio 1
I would think his manager at that time
would have known

[Cherie]

Troubling whispers are swirling around the BBC's newsroom after Scott Mills' sudden departure.

The Mirror revealed this week that Mills, one of the broadcaster's most revered radio presenters, has been sacked following a complaint over 'personal conduct'. Gasps of shock were heard across Broadcasting House when the announcement was made, with Mills' production team reportedly having no idea he'd been shown the door. Since then, more revelations have emerged.

On Monday, just hours after his exit was confirmed, we revealed that the Beeb's decision to cut ties with Mills relates to a 2016 police investigation into "serious sexual offences" against a teenage boy. Then on Tuesday, the Metropolitan police has said that the boy was under the age of 16.

The Met said a man, who was in his 40s at the time of the interview in 2016, was investigated over allegations reported to have happened between 1997 and 2000 - a time when Mills was working at BBC Radio 1. The investigation was dropped in 2019 after the CPS deemed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

But far from just a knee-jerk reaction to historic allegations, it's understood BBC bosses were forced to act after receiving compelling new information about the star's alleged conduct. While the new information involves the same person, it is different to the claims made during that investigation, which centred on allegations of serious sexual offences.

Now, fresh questions have been raised about what the really BBC knew - and when. Yesterday, the network admitted it knew about claims against Mills almost a year ago but didn't investigate. In May 2025, a former presenter made contact regarding information about alleged "inappropriate communications" involving the Mills, but didn't receive a reply. Issuing an apology, the BBC has admitted it should have followed up. It is not suggested that the matters raised concern the same alleged victim whose 2018 report resulted in the radio star's police interview.

But today the scandal has deepened further, as it's emerged that the BBC knew about the police investigation in 2017. They said in a statement: "We can confirm the BBC was made aware in 2017 of the existence of an ongoing police investigation, which was subsequently closed in 2019 with no arrest or charge being made. We are doing more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC at this time."

Weighing in on how the Beeb have handled the crisis so far, Mayah Riaz, a celebrity crisis PR expert, tells us: "There are a few possible reasons for this. Sometimes complaints are informal or lack evidence, sometimes they are handled at a departmental level and never escalated properly, and sometimes there is a reluctance to act without something concrete. But from a public perspective, those nuances aren't what matter. Because what people hear is 'they knew and did nothing', and that is where reputational damage really accelerates."

"Behind closed doors, there will almost certainly be conversations happening about culture, oversight and escalation, especially with there being a new Director General starting. These moments force organisations to confront uncomfortable questions, not just about individuals but about systems. I would say that the real risk for the BBC is not the allegation itself, but it is the perception of a familiar pattern again."

The PR guru adds that while the BBC tends to opt for "due process over speed" while "carefully" navigating such situations, this might not be quite the right approach in today's fast-moving online world. "In today's climate, silence can often be interpreted as avoidance. The audience expects clarity, not just compliance. The longer the gap between allegation and visible action, the more the narrative gets away from them."

Sources close to Mills, who married husband Sam Vaughan in 2024, say he is devastated by his sacking, with friends warning he's gone to ground, 'facing oblivion' and is impossible to reach. Colleagues have also been left 'shell-shocked' as the 'nicest man on the radio' faces a complete fall from grace. But another rumour is swirling - that disgraced former BBC news anchor Huw Edwards may have 'sparked' Mills' downfall.

It's been suggested that Mills' complainant may have been inspired to speak out again this year due to the new Channel 5 drama about Edwards. The show, which explores the scandal surrounding the former bastion of BBC News, aired last month - much to Edwards' disgust. With huge publicity surrounding the film, a number of executives at the Beeb believe the unnamed man may have gone to the corporation after it aired. And that it could have sparked a "reckoning".

A senior broadcaster believes that the notion that the Edwards drama was the "spark" behind recent developments is now being widely discussed among colleagues. The BBC declined to comment. With Channel 5's show sparking outrage with viewers, the BBC faces an uphill battle to protect its reputation. "Dramas like the Huw Edwards storyline absolutely shape both public expectation and internal pressure," Mayah tells the Mirror.

"They blur the line between fiction and reality in a way that makes audiences more sceptical and less forgiving. Broadcasters know that, so it can influence how decisively they act. No organisation wants to look like it is repeating the same mistakes that are now being dramatised for millions to see."

Former Strictly star Mills presented his last Radio 2 Breakfast show last Tuesday, just hours after facing BBC bosses in what's been described as a 'tense' meeting. The next day, he was abruptly replaced by co-star Gary Davies. Sources say the star learned his contract had been terminated over the weekend.

The Mirror broke news of the presenter's sacking on Monday, shortly before BBC staff were informed via email. Right up until that moment, Mills' team, who had been working the Breakfast Show as usual, had no clue what was about to happen.

Mayah predicts that the mood over at Broadcasting House will be "uneasy". She says, "What will concern them is reputational proximity. People will be asking themselves if this reflects on just the station or if it reflects on them, too. That ripple effect is very real in broadcasting, where brands are so closely tied to personalities."

In the new statement issued to the Mirror today, the BBC said: "Scott Mills had a long career across the BBC, he was hugely popular, and we know the news this week has come as a shock and surprise to many. We also recognise there's been much speculation in the media and online since Monday. We hope people understand that there is a limit to what we can say because we have to be mindful of the rights of those involved.

"What we can confirm is that in recent weeks, we obtained new information relating to Scott, and we spoke directly with him. As a result, the BBC acted decisively in line with our culture and values and terminated his contracts on Friday, 27 March. The BBC has made a significant commitment to improve its culture, processes and standards. Last year, following an independent culture review, we set out the behavioural expectations for everyone who works with or for the BBC and we were clear action would be taken if these were not met.

"Separately, we can confirm the BBC was made aware in 2017 of the existence of an ongoing police investigation, which was subsequently closed in 2019 with no arrest or charge being made. We are doing more work to understand the detail of what was known by the BBC at this time."

One of the top earners at the corporation, Mills enjoyed an annual salary within the region of £355,000 and £359,999. And as a name synonymous with BBC broadcasting, the corporation now faces a dilemma in ensuring continued trust among staff members, and British public. Maya warns: "There are a few layers to this, and the BBC will be very aware that this is not just about one presenter, it is about trust in the institution as a whole."

Looking ahead to reputational recovery, PR pro Mayah believes the "BBC needs to be seen to lead, not react" going forward, emphasising: "That will mean being transparent about the process, not just outcomes."

She continued: "Audiences are not expecting perfection, but they do expect accountability. When it comes to a replacement for Radio 2, the decision will be less about star power and more about stability. They will want someone credible, safe, and broadly liked. This is a moment where reliability will win over risk-taking."

The Mirror has reached out to the BBC for further comment.



This is what was discussed on LBC this morning

[Crimson Dynamo]

and "was under 16" that does not necessarily mean 15 does it....