The BBC has confirmed it was aware that Scott Mills, one of its highest-profile radio presenters, was the subject of a police investigation in 2017.
In a statement on Wednesday, the BBC said it knew that Mills was being investigated over allegations of serious sexual offences against a teenage boy.
The case closed in 2019 after prosecutors said there was insufficient evidence to pursue the matter in court. Mills is yet to comment after being fired by the BBC in recent days.
The BBC’s admission raises serious questions about why the corporation kept Mills on-air in 2017, when he was a prominent fixture on Radio 1. Ben Cooper was in charge of the radio station at the time, while Tony Hall was BBC director general.
11
theRicicleApr 1, 2026
-8
So people can be sacked if they are accused of an historic crime even if after investigation no action was taken at the time by police? Is that what you’re saying? Because I’d hate my employer to find out I shoplifted some blank cassette tapes in 1985 but was never caught
-8
kenkenobi78Apr 1, 2026
+6
That's a wild take. Comparing sexual allegations to petty theft. It's not that I don't see what you're trying to say I just don't know why on earth you would actually say it.
6
bigharrycoxApr 1, 2026
+7
My brother are you totally unfamiliar with the use of overstatement or are you just trying to be outraged?
7
LyingFactsApr 1, 2026
+15
I still don’t understand how or why we haven’t had an explanation as to the specific reason/s he was sacked.
To me, insufficient evidence, morally, doesn’t mean he is not done a crime, of course, however, criminally and legally, it does. Case closed in 2019. So why 7 years later has he been sacked?
15
LJBad12345Apr 1, 2026
+1
Yeah it’s wild he’s just been sacked and not suspended pending investigation
Clearly someone isn’t saying something, probably due to legal reasons. But it just seems mad and doesn’t really help anyone
1
Own_Answer_5092Apr 1, 2026
+1
Because there isn’t enough evidence to convict him of a crime does mean there isn’t evidence of general grotty behaviour. It reminds me of the trial of the rugby player Paddy Jackson in Northern Ireland, they couldn’t prove he was guilty of r*** but the disgusting text messages were enough to ensure he lost his job.
1
LyingFactsApr 1, 2026
+1
100% get that. However, has BBC let him go due to other allegations? If not, how can you sack someone in 2026? Why did they not suspend him when under investigation from 2017 - 2019? And then why not fire him from 2019 - 2026? How, or why did it take 7 years since charges dropped?
1
Own_Answer_5092Apr 1, 2026
+1
It’ll all come out in the wash, as they say, but I suspect there will be no satisfactory explanation the BBC will be able to provide to adequately explain it.
1
zbamboApr 1, 2026
+6
>"*insufficient evidence to pursue the matter in court*"
Strange that this was a sacking and not a suspension pending an internal investigation. Because as far as we know, there has been no conviction, let alone a formal accusation (following new allegations that BBC recently received).
11 Comments