Pressure mounts on BBC to name presenter accused of sharing explicit images

• Ukraine will receive a substantial new aid package, according to US officials at the Nato summit. 
• Milan Kundera, the Czech-born anti-Soviet writer, has died at 94.
• Scientists said that Crawford Lake in Canada represents the new Anthropocene epoch.

Pressure is mounting on the BBC presenter accused of having paid a teenager for sexually explicit photographs after fresh allegations emerged this week.  

The Sun newspaper first reported last Friday a mother’s claims that the male presenter paid her child £35,000 for explicit photographs over three years, beginning when the child was 17. And yet – far from a clearer picture emerging since – it is only getting messier.

So what? An individual’s right to privacy and the legitimate public interest are being pitted against each other, with considerations of the BBC’s duty of care – including to other male presenters who have had to publicly deny involvement – thrown in.

More allegations have also put pressure on the BBC – including from other high-profile names who work there – to name the presenter, who was taken off air last week and formally suspended on Sunday. 

The BBC said it had been asked to pause its internal investigation while the police decide whether to pursue a criminal case (for sharing or possessing indecent pictures of a minor).  

The story so far:

• The BBC says an initial complaint about alleged inappropriate behaviour was made by a family member on May 18 and that it made two attempts to contact the complainant. Neither senior management nor the presenter were told about the allegations until last Thursday. Tim Davie, the director-general, said there were “lessons to be learned” about how complaints were “red-flagged” at the broadcaster. 

• The Sun is yet to publish the evidence it says it has seen, and other journalists are relying entirely on its report. The mother and step-father say they stand by their claims, although the step-father said police told him that whatever had happened “wasn’t illegal”.

• The young person’s lawyer said in a statement that “nothing inappropriate or unlawful” took place. The person told The Sun on Friday that the statement the mother made to the newspaper was “totally wrong and there was no truth to it”. 

• Three more people have now come forward with allegations, including one who claimed to have received threatening messages when they hinted they might reveal the presenter’s identity.

Why hasn’t the presenter been named? There are two key legal cases that have made it harder for British media outlets to publish information about individuals subject to criminal investigations:

• Cliff hanger. The BBC filmed a police raid on singer Sir Cliff Richard’s home in Berkshire in 2014. But the singer was never arrested or charged and the case was dropped two years later. In July 2018, the star won a High Court case and hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages against the broadcaster over its coverage. 

• ZXC vs Bloomberg. A case last year against Bloomberg News related to a 2016 article in which an American executive – ZXC – was named while they were facing a criminal inquiry by a British regulator. 

In both instances, the courts sided with the individual rather than the publication. As a result, people who are under investigation by a law enforcement agency – before they have been formally charged with a crime and sent to the courts – are also protected. Lawyers say this has blurred the lines, making it harder for journalists to know when they can publicly name someone. 

In addition to privacy, there are libel considerations, which theoretically extend to the thousands of people speculating about the identity of the presenter on social media. Some of those wrongly named have already threatened legal action. 

Publish and be damned. In one of the most famous Fleet Street headlines in history, the Daily Mail published the names and faces of suspects in the Stephen Lawrence case, under the headline “Murderers”. The paper added: “The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us.” 

The newspaper’s lawyer at the time, Eddie Young, later said it was a “calculated, very well thought out risk”. He slept well that night and no lawsuits emerged.

Truth-seeking. That was a high watermark in a newspaper’s confidence in its story. This story is different. Questions are being asked of The Sun’s journalistic standards as well as how the BBC is managing the fallout. There’s little doubt that at least one person’s reputation will be ruined by this story, but how it ends is not yet clear.