The BBC will meet with Scotland Yard detectives over allegations made against an unnamed male presenter on its staff nearly two months after it was first made aware of them, but just days after they became public knowledge.
Update 1700: No investigation at this time, say police
London Police said they’d had a virtual meeting with BBC staff today and would assess the information they had received during it. The force said they would carry out further enquiries to ascertain whether they believe a criminal offence took place, but that no formal investigation is taking place at this time.
The original story continues below
Officers of the Metropolitan Police will have a meeting with the UK state broadcaster the BBC Monday, three days after The Sun newspaper printed allegations that a “BBC star” had paid £35,000 to a drug-addicted teenager for “sexual images”. While the meeting has come swiftly after the story broke on Friday, it has now been revealed the BBC first became aware of the allegations in May, suggesting the corporation was less direct in alerting the law while the story was not in the public eye.
This delay in alerting the police has led some to accuse the broadcaster of trying to cover up the allegations. The teenager involved in the claims is said to have been 17 at the time of the alleged cash-for-pictures exchange, and while that is above the legal age for sexual activity in the United Kingdom, it is below the age for making photographic records of sexual acts. As such, buying sexual images of a 17-year-old is a serious criminal offence in Britain.
The name of the star, who has been suspended from television pending investigation, has not been public. Amid wild speculation online several figures including a spokesman for the Prime Minister, have spoken out warning of the potential legal consequences of wild, unsubstantiated claims.
Other figures have cast doubt on the veracity of the claims, with former top BBC man Sir Craig Oliver asserting that The Sun hadn’t named the man they were accusing after three days because, in his view, they had probably been advised: “the burden of proof, in a lot of ways, has not been met”.
The BBC, for its part, has cited privacy law to say it will not be naming the accused presenter, with the director-general saying: “By law, individuals are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is making this situation more complex”.
This reticence may be informed in part by past mistakes by the BBC, including the widespread live television coverage it gave of a police raid on the home of pop star Cliff Richard over allegations of child sexual abuse in 2014. Richard was never arrested or charged and was later revealed to have been falsely accused, and argued the BBC’s urgent reporting of his arrest, including a camera helicopter flying over his house was extremely harmful.
The BBC eventually paid Richard £2 million over the case.
Yet, critics say this standard isn’t universally applied, with British social media influencer Andrew Tate reacting sardonically to the news the BBC was moving to protect its own star after “attacking me for a year and a half, constantly and endlessly”. Tate had been held without charge in a Romanian prison for 173 days before being eventually charged with alleged rape and human trafficking last month.
The court case over the claims has yet to begin and Tate remains under house arrest, over seven months after being first arrested in December.
The BBC case has gained a considerable amount of interest over the weekend leading the Prime Minister’s office to warn against the dangers of internet users trying to guess who the accused might be, and telling social media companies that they must “properly” police their content to prevent “baseless accusations”.
“Both the users of social media sites and the sites themselves have responsibility,”, the spokesman is reported to have said. “We have been very clear with the sites themselves about their responsibilities on making sure these things are properly policed.”
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.