The three bombshell questions BBC must answer after Scott Mills' axe

The sudden sacking of Scott Mills by the BBC has raised numerous questions as further details are unravelled. I wasn't working when the news broke, and when it flashed up as a breaking alert on my phone, I thought it was a joke at first. The former radio star was known for his irreverent style, so it wouldn't be surprising if he had feigned being sacked after an outrageous moment, which made the headlines.

It soon transpired it was no quip and I wasn't the only one surprised by it, with several of his BBC radio colleagues, including Jeremy Vine and Dermot O'Leary, expressing their astonishment at the news. After over a quarter of a century working for the broadcaster, he seemed like a safe pair of hands and was clearly trusted, having been handed the flagship breakfast show in January 2025 when Zoe Ball departed. This seems to indicate the BBC had no inkling of the allegations, which have now led to his dismissal.

I think it is extremely unlikely they would have wasted the licence fee on rebranding the show and promoting him if they knew what was ahead and planned to sack him after just over 12 months in the job. Mills was dismissed in a "tense" meeting with BBC executives - five days after a complaint connected to a 2016 sex offences investigation. He was reportedly let go by the BBC on Monday, March 30,after being removed from the air following a complaint linked to a historic police investigation.

The police inquiry concerned allegations of "serious sexual offences" against a teenage boy. Mills was interviewed by officers under caution, but the case was abandoned due to insufficient evidence. This begs the first question: why didn't they know about the 2016 investigation? Or if they did, why was nothing done?

Of course, he wouldn't have had to make them aware of it since he wasn't charged with anything. However, at that stage, he had been working for them since 1998, so it is hard to believe he wouldn't have confided in someone, even to express his relief when he learned he wouldn't be charged.

If they were aware of this 10 years ago and did nothing, then it seems very odd to suddenly drag it all up now. It has been speculated they don't want another Huw Edwards situation, but early indications are that the alleged offences are very different - and unlike Edwards, not even proven.

Another question is why outgoing Director General Tim Davie sacked him on his last day in the role. This seems an incredibly strange thing to leave as your legacy. Instead of PR managing his image in his final hours, Davie is now associated with yet another BBC scandal.

Was it a case whereby he didn't want his successor to get flak for things that should have been sorted on his watch? Or had he only just learned of the allegations and decided to take a "guilty till proven innocent" tack?

Finally, the BBC really needs to be honest about how many more rotten apples there are in the corporation. As a showbiz reporter, I am truly jaded writing about the men who have abused their positions within the BBC while the powers that be turned a blind eye. It is astonishing that they keep risking their reputation and integrity to protect people guilty of behaviour they would usually lambast in a two-part documentary.

It is important to note Mills has been found guilty of nothing, and it is the allegations which have led to his downfall. But on the back of so many other scandals surrounding BBC stars, these questions and more need answering if the corporation ever wants to regain the public trust.