Sacked DJ Scott Mills has released his first statement since losing his job earlier this week amid a flurry of revelations about his past.
At first glance, it reads like a carefully worded document written by a PR team and approved by lawyers. Maybe it is, but there’s still plenty to unpack. Here are my quick thoughts on a statement where what remains unsaid is almost as interesting as what is.
“The recent announcement that I am no longer contracted to the BBC has led to the publication of rumour and speculation.”
In this opening paragraph, I was drawn to the phrase “no longer contracted.” First of all, it’s a softener—he was fired, let go, or given his marching orders. Then there is the use of “contracted” rather than “employed.” This implies that Mills had a freelance or service contract with the BBC rather than being a staff member. I wonder if this distinction is relevant; perhaps his contract made it easier to terminate his services, or perhaps he is angling for a payout based on specific clauses. Maybe he’s merely being legally precise.
Notably, he makes no attempt to address whether the “rumour and speculation” is true or false. He allows it to pass without challenge.
“In response to this the Metropolitan Police has made a statement, which I confirm relates to me.”
This is a straightforward confirmation and includes two personal pronouns: “I” and “me.”
“An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully cooperated and responded to in 2018.”
Dates seem important to Mills. He started by describing his axing as “recent,” and now he establishes the timeline of the police investigation. I wonder about the two-year gap between the allegation being made and his “full cooperation.” While there is plenty of downplaying in this statement, the length of time between the allegation and the response is laid bare.
“As the police have stated, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which determined that the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges.”
The phrase “As the police have stated” borrows authority. It isn’t enough for Mills to share the outcome; he wants to ensure we know this conclusion comes from the authorities, not just from him.
I often say a lack of evidence means exactly that—it is not proof that something didn’t happen. It’s notable that Mills doesn’t deny the allegations. While a lack of denial the same thing as confirmation of guilt, it is an omission worth noting.
“Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed 7 years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter.”
This section feels like a non-sequitur—two separate points Mills wants to conflate. First: it was a long time ago (a point he is keen to convey). Second: I don’t want to say anything else.
Mills refers to “the investigation,” which, in context, is the police investigation. He is at pains to mention it was closed seven years ago, yet something must have happened much more recently to trigger his sacking now. Even if there wasn’t a new offense, the specific event that led to his dismissal remains unspoken.
I also noticed he qualifies his silence by saying he won’t make any further “public” comment.
“I wish to thank from the bottom of my heart all those who have reached out to me with kindness, my former colleagues, and my beloved listeners, who I greatly miss.”
As is common with such statements, we see an element of “social proof” in the conclusion. This has the effect of saying, “You might think the world is against me, but many people still support me.”
Finally, he refers to his “former” colleagues—a clear acknowledgement that he realizes he has no current ones.
A curious statement. It carries the usual hallmarks: downplaying, thanking supporters, and attempting to create distance from the events. For me, the standouts remain the lack of a denial and the heavy focus on a past police investigation over the actual reason he lost his job.