ChaoticMusings

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Huw Edwards

Date: Mar 31 3:26 AM, 2026

Syl wrote:
I have read he was sacked because he has been linked to serious sex offences against a teenage boy over 10 years ago.

Is it because he didn’t “declare” the investigation do you think? - I’m not even sure if it’s mandatory or not - as I believe he would have been a BBC employee at the time ( he joined the BBC in 1998 according to to the Daily Mail and the ”allegations of serious sexual offences“ with a young lad claim to have taken place between 1997 and 2000).

Red Okktober · Musing at the Chaos

Syl wrote:
I have read he was sacked because he has been linked to serious sex offences against a teenage boy over 10 years ago.

His career is finished now (and private life tarnished) regardless of what he did or didn't do. By having the words 'serious sexual offences' and 'underage' associated with him. He looks like a sickly smarmy wholesome type who would appeal to a family audience due to being so clean cut. That image has been destroyed overnight.

I'm wondering how it has come out at this time, as it was nearly 30 years ago when it was alleged to have happened. I can only think that the other person fancies a pay day.

The details are unclear, what is meant by 'serious sexual offences'? Trafficking, rape, extreme S&M stuff? How old was the boy (Mills would have been mid 20s). Obviously 16 is a cut off point, but if the boy was on the verge or turning 16, it paints a different picture to if he was say 13 or 14

Mills was interviewed by the police 10 years ago, 20 ish years after the allegations were supposed to have happened, but he wasn't charged due to lack of evidence.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Red Okktober wrote:
Syl wrote:
I have read he was sacked because he has been linked to serious sex offences against a teenage boy over 10 years ago.
His career is finished now (and private life tarnished) regardless of what he did or didn't do. By having the words 'serious sexual offences' and 'underage' associated with him. He looks like a sickly smarmy wholesome type who would appeal to a family audience due to being so clean cut. That image has been destroyed overnight.
I'm wondering how it has come out at this time, as it was nearly 30 years ago when it was alleged to have happened. I can only think that the other person fancies a pay day.
The details are unclear, what is meant by 'serious sexual offences'? Trafficking, rape, extreme S&M stuff? How old was the boy (Mills would have been mid 20s). Obviously 16 is a cut off point, but if the boy was on the verge or turning 16, it paints a different picture to if he was say 13 or 14
Mills was interviewed by the police 10 years ago, 20 ish years after the allegations were supposed to have happened, but he wasn't charged due to lack of evidence.

Historical sexual offences can cover a multitude of 'sins'. What was considered behaviour that might warrant a slap across the face when I was young, can be brought up decades later and land someone in court, whether the 'accused' was guilty or not.

Obviously if it's rape or the equivalent, there shouldn't be a timeline in seeking justice, but for every genuine case, I wonder how many men (it's always men) have to face accusations over something they haven't done...Cliff Richards springs to mind.

Red Okktober · Musing at the Chaos

Syl wrote:

Historical sexual offences can cover a multitude of 'sins'. What was considered behaviour that might warrant a slap across the face when I was young, can be brought up decades later and land someone in court, whether the 'accused' was guilty or not.
Obviously if it's rape or the equivalent, there shouldn't be a timeline in seeking justice, but for every genuine case, I wonder how many men (it's always men) have to face accusations over something they haven't done...Cliff Richards springs to mind.

This is why I always look at whether something was unacceptable at the time it was alleged, and not just these days, because we all know you can't say boo to a goose now without offending someone. Obviously something like rape is unacceptable in any timeline, but many lesser things historically will seem a lot worse by modern standards.

It's a classic 'no smoke without fire' judgement by the BBC. Without knowing further details, I'm on the fence, but given the BBC's history of employing sexual predators, I can see why they want rid of him for damage limitation purposes.

Whether he deserves to lose his job and reuputation is open to question though.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Red Okktober wrote:
Syl wrote:

Historical sexual offences can cover a multitude of 'sins'. What was considered behaviour that might warrant a slap across the face when I was young, can be brought up decades later and land someone in court, whether the 'accused' was guilty or not.
Obviously if it's rape or the equivalent, there shouldn't be a timeline in seeking justice, but for every genuine case, I wonder how many men (it's always men) have to face accusations over something they haven't done...Cliff Richards springs to mind.
This is why I always look at whether something was unacceptable at the time it was alleged, and not just these days, because we all know you can't say boo to a goose now without offending someone. Obviously something like rape is unacceptable in any timeline, but many lesser things historically will seem a lot worse by modern standards.
It's a classic 'no smoke without fire' judgement by the BBC. Without knowing further details, I'm on the fence, but given the BBC's history of employing sexual predators, I can see why they want rid of him for damage limitation purposes.
Whether he deserves to lose his job and reuputation is open to question though.

People love to judge dont they?

I can't think of many who have regained popularity after a sex scandal, unless of course they are proved to be innocent. Even then I think it must take a huge toll on that person.

The 'Me too' movement seemed to bring a lot of women who had been groped or sworn at 40/50 years ago out of the closet, crying about how it had ruined their lives.

I feel sorry for men nowadays, they must feel like they are walking a tightrope all the time. A silly example, yesterday I had to go back to the optician to get my glasses tightened. The young male assistant asked me as he refitted them... 'Is it OK if I touch your hair?'.

Date: Mar 31 5:13 PM, 2026

Red Okktober wrote:
Syl wrote:
I have read he was sacked because he has been linked to serious sex offences against a teenage boy over 10 years ago.
His career is finished now (and private life tarnished) regardless of what he did or didn't do. By having the words 'serious sexual offences' and 'underage' associated with him. He looks like a sickly smarmy wholesome type who would appeal to a family audience due to being so clean cut. That image has been destroyed overnight.
I'm wondering how it has come out at this time, as it was nearly 30 years ago when it was alleged to have happened. I can only think that the other person fancies a pay day.
The details are unclear, what is meant by 'serious sexual offences'? Trafficking, rape, extreme S&M stuff? How old was the boy (Mills would have been mid 20s). Obviously 16 is a cut off point, but if the boy was on the verge or turning 16, it paints a different picture to if he was say 13 or 14
Mills was interviewed by the police 10 years ago, 20 ish years after the allegations were supposed to have happened, but he wasn't charged due to lack of evidence.

The lad was under 16 according to the Met (BBC source).

More evidence has come to light and possibly the case-reopened / a new investigation? Apparently, the director general at the time was unaware of the allegations, nothing about Davie knowing during his stint.

Date: Apr 1 6:26 PM, 2026

Anonymous wrote:
Red Okktober wrote:
Syl wrote:
I have read he was sacked because he has been linked to serious sex offences against a teenage boy over 10 years ago.
His career is finished now (and private life tarnished) regardless of what he did or didn't do. By having the words 'serious sexual offences' and 'underage' associated with him. He looks like a sickly smarmy wholesome type who would appeal to a family audience due to being so clean cut. That image has been destroyed overnight.
I'm wondering how it has come out at this time, as it was nearly 30 years ago when it was alleged to have happened. I can only think that the other person fancies a pay day.
The details are unclear, what is meant by 'serious sexual offences'? Trafficking, rape, extreme S&M stuff? How old was the boy (Mills would have been mid 20s). Obviously 16 is a cut off point, but if the boy was on the verge or turning 16, it paints a different picture to if he was say 13 or 14
Mills was interviewed by the police 10 years ago, 20 ish years after the allegations were supposed to have happened, but he wasn't charged due to lack of evidence.

The lad was under 16 according to the Met (BBC source).
More evidence has come to light and possibly the case-reopened / a new investigation? Apparently, the director general at the time was unaware of the allegations, nothing about Davie knowing during his stint.

UPDATE: (BBC source)

"The BBC was made aware of a police investigation into DJ Scott Mills in 2017, the corporation has confirmed.

But the Radio 2 presenter was sacked after "new information" about his conduct came to light in recent weeks, the BBC said.

"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 spokesperson added: "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."

The statement concluded that the BBC has made "a significant commitment to improve its culture, processes and standards". "

Tony Hall was head honcho (2013-2020) and they're claiming he didn't know or at least wasn't told about serious allegations / an investigation going on with an employee in 2017? Davie wasn't aware at all?

"standards"? Ignore/head in the sand until the media get involved, those standards?.