Scott Mills sacked

Insufficient evidence is not proof of innocence

Of course it isn't, I think we all know that.

It appears this is just stemming from this young man, nobody else involved.

I was quite surprised to see Jeremy Vine condemning the sacking.

I think the Beeb is so concerned with past behaviours by themselves when regard to other cases so they've acted speedily.

It will be interesting to know if they were aware when this came to light initially.

I would assume they did know but decided to keep it to themselves. Not a good look

Maybe sufficient evidence has now come to light as can happen in such cases, perhaps witnesses who for whatever reason stayed silent back then have recently come forward.

The CPS concluded there was Insufficient evidence to charge. In sexual offence cases, the CPS charge where they believe there’s say 85% chance of conviction,
Historically, as we saw with so called grooming gangs victims, teenagers were often seen as willing participants.
This was challenged by Nazir Afzal and K Starmer with the result the investigation and prosecution of some involved in organised child sexual abuse improved.

Insufficient evidence is not proof of innocence

31 March 2026, 07:44 BST BBC News
Updated 40 minutes ago
The Metropolitan Police has told BBC News that the teenage boy at the centre of the Scott Mills sexual offences investigation was under 16.

Mills was questioned in 2018 over the historical allegations of serious sexual offences, but the investigation - which began in 2016 - was closed in 2019 after the CPS deemed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.

The allegations, first published in the Mirror, external, are reported to have happened between 1997 and 2000, police said.

On Monday, it was announced Mills had been sacked by the BBC over allegations related to his personal conduct. The BBC has not given any further details over the allegations and it is not clear what, if any, role the police investigation played in his sacking.

The BBC would have taken legal advice, especially after all the palaver with Edwards etc. Can't believe they would cock up this time?
Did he declare this, event so was this a breach of contract? We might never know, but his career is over.

I am disappointed that this is still headline news today at 1pm. There are surely more important things going on in the world.

Doodledog

*There is either some new and damning evidence about the previous case, or he was sacked over something else.*

Yes, it will be one or the other.

I'm not sure it will be.

If the victim decided to go to the BBC to discuss this then I'm not surprised they removed him.

This case never made it to court. CPS deemed insufficient evidence.

There is either some new and damning evidence about the previous case, or he was sacked over something else.

Yes, it will be one or the other.

It is possible that the sacking may be unrelated to the previous police investigation, and at this stage the media, and Gransnetters are putting two and two together and making five. I haven’t changed my opinion on this since yesterday, employees are not summarily dismissed unless there is irrefutable evidence of gross misconduct. There is either some new and damning evidence about the previous case, or he was sacked over something else.

I am certain I read something yesterday that this sacking was because of ongoing problems but there seems to be nothing in the media today.

Surely Strictly fans remember his dance dressed as a lobster.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xc5iVxP2R0

The accusations are indeed historic. This took place 30 years ago. Mills was 23 at the time.

Either I am reading this wrong, or other people are. This is what it says on BBC News website.

‘On Monday, it was announced Mills had been sacked by the BBC over allegations related to his personal conduct. The BBC has not given any further details over the allegations and it is not clear what, if any, role the police investigation played in his sacking.’

It is possible that the sacking may be unrelated to the previous police investigation, and at this stage the media, and Gransnetters are putting two and two together and making five. I haven’t changed my opinion on this since yesterday, employees are not summarily dismissed unless there is irrefutable evidence of gross misconduct. There is either some new and damning evidence about the previous case, or he was sacked over something else.

LauraNorderr

Mills was arrested and questioned in 2018. The case was closed in 2019 due to insufficient evidence.
No proof so the BBC would have been unwise to sack him but why oh why after a red flag was flown did they promote him again and again on radio one and two.
They don’t seem to learn lessons.

I think because in 2018 people were less in tune with how abuse works, and far more inclined to hide it, or side with celebrities and brush it under the carpet for the sake of ratings. The Me Too movement was starting to change opinion then, but there was insufficient evidence there were no grounds on which to sanction him. Even now, there are still people who jump to the conclusion that anyone accusing a famous person of anything must be in it for the money, or have some other nefarious motive. I don't listen to Radio 1 or 2, so had to google to see who he is, but I'm not surprised that he was promoted if he is popular.

These days, however, there have been so many cases of men in positions of power abusing it, and the licence fee is controversial and under debate, so things are different. Also, there is a new DG, so maybe a new broom?

To me, this is a sign that the BBC have learnt lessons. Ignoring this would show that they hadn't. Maybe more heads will roll under the new regime.

LauraNorderr

Mills was arrested and questioned in 2018. The case was closed in 2019 due to insufficient evidence.
No proof so the BBC would have been unwise to sack him but why oh why after a red flag was flown did they promote him again and again on radio one and two.
They don’t seem to learn lessons.

Good questions, LauraNorderr!

Mills was arrested and questioned in 2018. The case was closed in 2019 due to insufficient evidence.
No proof so the BBC would have been unwise to sack him but why oh why after a red flag was flown did they promote him again and again on radio one and two.
They don’t seem to learn lessons.

Sarnia

It makes me wonder if the timing of this may be linked in some way to the recent drama about Huw Edwards.
Perhaps the young boy involved in the Scott Mills incident has watched it and decided not to let it lie.

I am thinking exactly the same!

GrannyGravy13

eazybee

Scott mMlls was questioned in 2018 over sexual offence allegations involving a teenage boy. The case was dropped in 2018 as there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
[BBC website this morning.]

It was just reported on ITV news that the incident occurred between 1997-2000.

If no charges were brought, after investigation by police why fire him?

More evidence? More allegations?

Who knows, but there will be a reason, or the BBC could get sued for wrongful dismissal and possibly for defamation.

The TV dramatisations of crime that many on here dislike will often show that it can take years of painstaking investigation before evidence emerges that is strong enough to take a case to court and make it stick. Sometimes it is a huge breakthrough such as the discovery of DNA, and at others it may be a chance finding, but it happens. More probably, someone else might come forward to substantiate a statement or make a similar allegation.

I’m glad I’m not the only one who’d never heard of him.

It makes me wonder if the timing of this may be linked in some way to the recent drama about Huw Edwards.
Perhaps the young boy involved in the Scott Mills incident has watched it and decided not to let it lie.

I have no idea why Scott Mills has been fired now. If it is in relation to this investigation I know some institutions do conduct internal investigations of their own after a possible police case has been closed.. but a delay of seven years seems rather unfair.

Doodledog

Whenever allegations of 'historical' abuse are made there are comments about the timeframe made by people who weren't involved and can't possibly know the reasons why the victims didn't report it at the time.

Why does it matter? The victims had their reasons, and they are nothing to do with anyone else. I'm genuinely interested to know, as it seems a strange thing to complain about. It could be that there was not enough evidence, or that the victim didn't report it for reasons of their own, but those things don't diminish the offence in any way. When circumstances change there is no reason I can see why victims shouldn't get justice, however belated it may be.

I agree Doodledog.
Not sure why people always question historic sex allegations. I recall as a much younger get woman being groped by a senior member of staff several times, eventually I left, I didn’t report it or even tell anyone until many years later because I felt I wouldn’t be believed, it would be my word against a respected senior member of staff. I also didn’t want to talk about it because I felt ashamed and embarrassed.
The man in question retired a decade after the incident and is now long dead, but with the changing times and confidence gained as I got older I imagine I would have come forward much later.

eazybee

Scott mMlls was questioned in 2018 over sexual offence allegations involving a teenage boy. The case was dropped in 2018 as there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
[BBC website this morning.]

It was just reported on ITV news that the incident occurred between 1997-2000.

If no charges were brought, after investigation by police why fire him?

Scott mMlls was questioned in 2018 over sexual offence allegations involving a teenage boy. The case was dropped in 2018 as there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
[BBC website this morning.]

I'm just grateful our country has no statute of limitations for rape or serious sexual offenses.
(We obviously don't know which in this case).

I'm glad charges can be brought against someone, regardless of how much time has elapsed. It isn't as though it was even last century.

10 years when you are 53 isn’t historic?

I wonder if the BBC are just having a overhaul. Paying someone just shy of 400k and they haven’t kept their nose clean but as some of you have pointed out, people must have known at the time and moving forwards