Scott Mills historic sex case was dropped – shouldn't that have been the end of it?

I don't know what to make of the Scott Mills furore. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? From what I can make out, the (now former) BBC Radio 2 DJ was investigated by police for “historical” sex allegations involving a teenage boy aged under 16, but the case was dropped for lack of evidence. Shouldn’t that be that? If there isn’t enough evidence to charge him, let alone test the allegations before a judge and jury, why has Mills been sacked a decade after the police closed the file?

They’re at it like ferrets in a sack at the Beeb. Mills’ Radio 2 colleague, Jeremy Vine, had this to say on Tuesday, 24 hours after the story broke. “It’s unfair. There’s been no crime,” he said on his own lunchtime radio show. “Huw Edwards couldn’t be sacked because he was in a fragile mental state, and everything I’ve read about Scott’s history today goes back to his own anxiety and depression. But there doesn’t seem to be the same break cut for him.”

Well, yes, but Edwards was eventually charged and convicted of an offence, wasn’t he? He was given a six-month suspended jail sentence for possessing indecent images of children.

Scott Mills, as I say, has never even been charged with anything. Under the laws of the land he’s an innocent person and entitled to be treated as such.

Early reports leaking from New Broadcasting House suggest that Mills failed to tell his bosses that he’d been questioned by police. But midweek, the BBC confirmed that they knew at the time.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Confusingly, it’s also been reported that “fresh” information was recently brought to the bosses’ ears. But what about? The original accusation? Or something else?

Murkier and murkier.

TV’s Piers Morgan said this week: “The case was closed – now the guy apparently gets fired over the same thing. The BBC needs to explain.”

They certainly do.

Might it have something to do with 5’s airing last week of docu-drama Power: The Downfall Of Huw Edwards? It seems an odd coincidence to me, and many at the BBC apparently think the same. Art imitating life imitating art? We live in strange times.

Our King can more than handle Donald Trump

Richard writes in the Express about Donald Trump’s increasing tendency to shoot from the lip towards us here in the UK. But the Royal Family is strictly off limits – and that’s one reason why I firmly believe it would be folly for the King to cancel the state visit to the US. Yes, it’s possible that the President will spout some embarrassing, not-to-say insulting nonsense about the UK in Charles’s presence.

But our King is a seasoned diplomat. He’ll handle it; he won’t turn a hair. We can trust him with Trump. And we should. Britain’s special relationship with America is vital to our long-term security. It will survive Trump’s crazy presidency and must be nourished and protected. Charles is the ideal figurehead to do that.

The principal reason for this visit is America’s 250th anniversary of Independence.

That transcends Trump. So go, Charles – and take our hopes and blessings with you.

What an inheritance for Beatrice and Eugenie

Imagine what it must be like to have Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for a father. Maybe back in the day, before all the horrible stuff emerged about him, it would have been OK. He was your dad, after all.

You could overlook the behavioural issues – overweening arrogance and rudeness to others, the conceit, the dimness. You’d be programmed to concentrate on the positives, eliminate the negatives.

But now... poor Beatrice and Eugenie. This week it was reported they’ll miss the Royal Family traditional Easter Sunday church service at Windsor. Their dad’s disgrace simply casts too long and dark a shadow for them to be there. I feel truly sorry for them. What an inheritance.