What might cover look like after September?

[Greg20]

Scott Mills will sue the BBC https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/scott-mills-sue-bbc-over-37166417#google_vignette

[wbroom12]

the BBC would have known 100% 

I had a friend who was investigated for similar and Police spoke to his boss and told them exactly what the charges were. Also had search warrant for his lockers etc 

We know Scott wasn't questioned until 2 years after the BBC were told but it's likely they were told not to inform Scott while investigation was active but would have access to his accounts.

 

 

[TheSaviourisHere]

1 hour ago, Greg20 said:

Scott Mills will sue the BBC https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/scott-mills-sue-bbc-over-37166417#google_vignette

It will be messy but hopefully the start of him rebuilding his career 

[Greg20]

There still must be more to this. You’re telling me the BBC would dismiss one of their biggest stars without seeking legal advise and being absolutely certain this wouldn’t come back on them. There has to be more to this. I don’t imagine it will go to court, if anything the BBC will agree to agree to settle. As much as I’d like Scott to be vindicated, I’m doubtful. Either way, his career is over and even if he is proven innocent it’s going to take a lot to come back. 

[TheSaviourisHere]

3 hours ago, Greg20 said:

There still must be more to this. You’re telling me the BBC would dismiss one of their biggest stars without seeking legal advise and being absolutely certain this wouldn’t come back on them. There has to be more to this. I don’t imagine it will go to court, if anything the BBC will agree to agree to settle. As much as I’d like Scott to be vindicated, I’m doubtful. Either way, his career is over and even if he is proven innocent it’s going to take a lot to come back. 

The sad truth 😞 

[onlyME]

I suspect he will get a pay out like Tony Blackburn. There was an easier path for Blackburn to return to the BBC, I don't think this will amount to that. 

[wbroom12]

The easiest way back is via I'm a celeb but needs a good break 1st so maybe next year and could start up a podcast with Chris in the meantime and maybe a tell all interview with a Emily Maitliss type

[Lee E]

I think if it goes to court, and he wins, then the very minimum he could get is the rest of his contract paid, and possibly some compensation for loss of future earnings. Knowing the BBC they would settle out of court with NDAs in place as part of it. 

 

[Greg20]

1 hour ago, Lee E said:

I think if it goes to court, and he wins, then the very minimum he could get is the rest of his contract paid, and possibly some compensation for loss of future earnings. Knowing the BBC they would settle out of court with NDAs in place as part of it. 

 

Yes, absolutely which means we won’t ever actually know went on

[Lee E]

On 5/17/2026 at 4:47 PM, Greg20 said:

Yes, absolutely which means we won’t ever actually know went on

Still lots of media reports on this but no substuntial evidnce on it happening, as I said before he will be bound by NDAs if they settle with him. 

[Jono]

Rylan has been speaking about cancelled friends 

https://metro.co.uk/video/rylan-clark-opens-cancelled-friends-months-scott-mills-scandal-3656521/

[Lee E]

6 minutes ago, Jono said:

Rylan has been speaking about cancelled friends 

https://metro.co.uk/video/rylan-clark-opens-cancelled-friends-months-scott-mills-scandal-3656521/

Yeah he never named Scott specifically but clearly it was about Scott... Rylan said not to believe the press which says to me there is something untold. I suspect if/when the BBC get a law suit on them and they look like they will loose they'll settle with Scott out of court subject to NDAs so it can never be told.

[Ash101]

2 hours ago, Lee E said:

Yeah he never named Scott specifically but clearly it was about Scott... Rylan said not to believe the press which says to me there is something untold. I suspect if/when the BBC get a law suit on them and they look like they will loose they'll settle with Scott out of court subject to NDAs so it can never be told.

I don’t understand why you keep mentioning NDAs because surely this would be Scott’s story to tell?

They wouldn’t be able to NDA him telling the press about events in his own life?

[AndyK77]

1 hour ago, Ash101 said:

I don’t understand why you keep mentioning NDAs because surely this would be Scott’s story to tell?

They wouldn’t be able to NDA him telling the press about events in his own life?

Yes - they could if they reach a financial deal with him.

[R1Fan1]

2 hours ago, Ash101 said:

I don’t understand why you keep mentioning NDAs because surely this would be Scott’s story to tell?

They wouldn’t be able to NDA him telling the press about events in his own life?

If they’re offering him a financial settlement they could make him sign an NDA not to reveal why he was sacked from the BBC, but it’d arguably make it more baffling as it wouldn’t explain why they wanted rid of him in the first place.

[Lee E]

17 hours ago, Ash101 said:

I don’t understand why you keep mentioning NDAs because surely this would be Scott’s story to tell?

They wouldn’t be able to NDA him telling the press about events in his own life?

Exactly what others have said - if Scott threatens court then the BBC decide to settle out of court subject to an NDA to stop it being in the public domain, and Scott decides to settle then he would be legally bound by the NDA and unable to tell his side of it all. Who knows? only my guess as to what could happen. 

[Lee E]

14 hours ago, R1Fan1 said:

If they’re offering him a financial settlement they could make him sign an NDA not to reveal why he was sacked from the BBC, but it’d arguably make it more baffling as it wouldn’t explain why they wanted rid of him in the first place.

And it would stop the actual story coming out. IF, and IF with a massive caveat that this is my best assumption.

Let's say (and this is best guess work with what we know now) about Friday 20th March they came across this "new information" and investigated it, by Sunday 22nd someone had leaked it to that man from the Mirror who was on youtube smugly boasting about it, he contacted them saying they knew the age of the complainant at the time, and they were going to break it, then the BBC said let us have a few days to look into it, looked at the history from when he was at R1, and by the Tuesday decided to cut him loose (we know he went into crisis talks with his agent and management Tuesday 24th after thebreakfast show from the reports) and Wednesday after the breakfast show told him not to come back and ended his contracts by Friday, then told the mirror they had let him go and they could break the story, and since then have spoken to people like Aled and Ben Cooper, (Aled for sure as he is still a BBC employee and would have been deputy Controller at R1 at the time and deeply involved in assigning DJs to shows and was probably Scott's immediate line manager, Ben could have been called back although not employed now, could have been called back for an investigatory interview by the BBC at his own will), and discovered that the age was disclosed, and everything was documented correctly, and the processed and standards at that time were followed all along and at the time they were happy for Scott to carry on, they could have real egg on their face if that came out in court, in which case it would be damage limitation and in their interest to keep Scott quiet by settling out of court for; the rest of his contract, loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, and see him ok for a good few years, all subject to NDAs, preventing him from telling the story. 

I think, they panicked, cut Scott loose as the mirror were on their backs to break the story, and have gone "oh shit" afterwards, but wanted it all done for the new DG coming in, and didn't want another scandal like Edwards on their hands, and, sadly, Scott was the collatoral damage in this case. 

15 hours ago, AndyK77 said:

Yes - they could if they reach a financial deal with him.

Yes this is what I was getting at - out of court settlement as damage limitation for them, and to keep the "truth" out of the public domain and to save egg on their face for cutting loose before establishing what happened back in 2016 

[Bluestraw]

1 hour ago, Lee E said:

And it would stop the actual story coming out. IF, and IF with a massive caveat that this is my best assumption.

Let's say (and this is best guess work with what we know now) about Friday 20th March they came across this "new information" and investigated it, by Sunday 22nd someone had leaked it to that man from the Mirror who was on youtube smugly boasting about it, he contacted them saying they knew the age of the complainant at the time, and they were going to break it, then the BBC said let us have a few days to look into it, looked at the history from when he was at R1, and by the Tuesday decided to cut him loose (we know he went into crisis talks with his agent and management Tuesday 24th after thebreakfast show from the reports) and Wednesday after the breakfast show told him not to come back and ended his contracts by Friday, then told the mirror they had let him go and they could break the story, and since then have spoken to people like Aled and Ben Cooper, (Aled for sure as he is still a BBC employee and would have been deputy Controller at R1 at the time and deeply involved in assigning DJs to shows and was probably Scott's immediate line manager, Ben could have been called back although not employed now, could have been called back for an investigatory interview by the BBC at his own will), and discovered that the age was disclosed, and everything was documented correctly, and the processed and standards at that time were followed all along and at the time they were happy for Scott to carry on, they could have real egg on their face if that came out in court, in which case it would be damage limitation and in their interest to keep Scott quiet by settling out of court for; the rest of his contract, loss of earnings, loss of future earnings, and see him ok for a good few years, all subject to NDAs, preventing him from telling the story. 

I think, they panicked, cut Scott loose as the mirror were on their backs to break the story, and have gone "oh shit" afterwards, but wanted it all done for the new DG coming in, and didn't want another scandal like Edwards on their hands, and, sadly, Scott was the collatoral damage in this case. 

Yes this is what I was getting at - out of court settlement as damage limitation for them, and to keep the "truth" out of the public domain and to save egg on their face for cutting loose before establishing what happened back in 2016 

Not saying that isn't plausible, but arguably Scott could push for a settlement that's a bit lower so that he CAN tell his story, and can therefore show other potential employers he's employable by them. Depends what he wants out of it I guess, in terms of his future.

[Lee E]

4 minutes ago, Bluestraw said:

Not saying that isn't plausible, but arguably Scott could push for a settlement that's a bit lower so that he CAN tell his story, and can therefore show other potential employers he's employable by them. Depends what he wants out of it I guess, in terms of his future.

I think with an out of court settlement the BBC would be the ones driving what the NDA said

[AndyK77]

6 hours ago, Lee E said:

I think with an out of court settlement the BBC would be the ones driving what the NDA said

There's also a strong argument that even if the BBC acted wrongly, Scott may not want every detail of his situation dragged out over long court proceedings so may be happy to settle out of court to get rid of it.

We will see - we are only guessing here.

[Bluestraw]

12 hours ago, Lee E said:

I think with an out of court settlement the BBC would be the ones driving what the NDA said

I think we just don't know! Arguably it's more in BBC interests to do this out of court as it may not look good for them. In that case there's no reason why they would be driving any more than Scott. But as I said, it's all just speculation as we just don't know! Or as Andy said perhaps it'll be Scott who wants it kept under wraps. Maybe we'll find out one day...