That’s all from this liveblog for this evening. Thanks for following along.
In the latest development, the young person at the centre of a scandal over a suspended BBC presenter has issued a statement in which they claimed the key allegations are “rubbish”. Read the full story here.
For a summary of the day’s events, see here.
Goodnight.
Updated
My colleague Jim Waterson, our media editor, has this round-up of the latest developments:
The young person at the centre of a scandal over a suspended BBC presenter has issued a statement in which he claimed the main allegations are “rubbish”.
A prominent male BBC presenter was suspended at the weekend after the young person’s mother went to the Sun newspaper with claims the presenter spent £35,000 over three years buying explicit images from her child, who is now 20. She alleged the presenter first began talking to her child when they were 17.
The young person’s lawyer has now issued a statement denying their mother’s claims: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
The lawyer told BBC News they provided a similar statement to the Sun on Friday via WhatsApp telling the tabloid there was “no truth to it”. The tabloid went ahead and published its story, which threw the BBC into a new crisis.
A spokesperson for the Sun said: “We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child. Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate.”
If the young person sent any explicit pictures when they were 17 then this could count as images of child sexual abuse, a serious criminal offence. But if the explicit photos were exchanged only after the young person turned 18 then it is possible that no law was broken. The age at which individuals can share explicit photographs is higher than the age at which they can legally have sex.
On Monday, detectives from the Metropolitan police specialist crime command had a virtual meeting with BBC representatives to discuss the allegations.
The Met does not consider the threshold for a criminal investigation has yet been reached. In a statement it made it clear the force would carry out further work, but falling short of a formal criminal investigation that would give officers powers of arrest and search.
Read more of Jim Waterson’s report here: Claims about BBC presenter are rubbish, says young person at centre of scandal
Updated
Former ITN chief executive Stewart Purvis has suggested on Sky News that there could be anxious moments in the newsroom and legal departments at the Sun. He suggested that it could turn out to be a telling moment for how tabloid newspapers handle this kind of story, as well as how the BBC have investigated the allegations.
Updated
Here is a reminder of the main statements that have been released over the course of this afternoon
The BBC claimed it had received a letter from a lawyer representing the young person involved in the story. It read:
For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.
The BBC also reported: “The young person sent a denial to the Sun on Friday evening saying there was ‘no truth to it’. However, the ‘inappropriate article’ was still published, the lawyer said.”
The Sun responded to this claim, stating:
We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child.
Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC.
We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate.
Earlier the Metropolitan police said:
Detectives from the Met’s specialist crime command met with representatives from the BBC on the morning of Monday 10 July. The meeting took place virtually.
They are assessing the information discussed at the meeting and further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed.
There is no investigation at this time.
Updated
The BBC report is carrying additional detail about the letter from a lawyer acting for the young person involved in the case. It writes that:
The young person sent a denial to the Sun on Friday evening saying there was “no truth to it”. However, the “inappropriate article” was still published, the lawyer said.
There is also a comment from the Sun, which appears to have been offered a right to reply by the BBC about the new information. The BBC quotes the Sun spokesperson saying:
We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child. Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate.
Updated
BBC reports that letter from young person's lawyer says claims are 'rubbish'
The BBC has reported that the claims against an unnamed male presenter who has been suspended have been described as “rubbish” by a lawyer acting for the young person said to be involved in the case.
It quotes the letter saying:
For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality, and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.
Summary of the day …
The Metropolitan police have said there is no investigation “at this time” into allegations a male BBC presenter spent £35,000 on explicit photographs from a young person. A statement from the police followed a virtual meeting with the BBC, with the Met claiming: “Detectives from the Met’s specialist crime command met with representatives from the BBC on the morning of Monday 10 July. The meeting took place virtually. They are assessing the information discussed at the meeting and further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed. There is no investigation at this time.
Media outlets are yet to name the presenter, despite widespread speculation about their identity on social media and messaging apps. There is not believed to be any court order or injunction banning publication of the individual’s name. Instead, the legal risk of linking a prominent person to serious allegations has stopped mainstream news outlets from putting the name in the public domain.
The BBC director general, Tim Davie, has said a set of allegations was made in May, followed by further claims “of a different nature” last Thursday. The presenter remained on air until last week, when journalists at the Sun approached the BBC for comment. BBC News reported on Monday that it understood that Davie had not himself been told of the allegations until last Thursday.
Alex Chalk urged the broadcaster to “get on with” its part in any investigation. The justice secretary said the public would “expect allegations of that nature to be dealt with very robustly and promptly”.
Nicky Campbell has made a crime report to the police after being falsely accused of being the presenter involved. Campbell said he had had a “distressing weekend” after being falsely named. Other leading BBC presenters have also felt forced to distance themselves from the story.
The claims were first reported by the Sun, which said the presenter paid the young person a total of £35,000 for sexually explicit images over the course of three years – money that was used to fund their crack cocaine habit. On Monday, the paper reported that the presenter had called the young person after the first press reports appeared. It said the presenter asked: “What have you done?” And it was claimed he asked them to call their mother to get her to “stop the investigation”.
Updated
Craig Oliver, the former director of communications for David Cameron, has appeared on Sky News describing the political side of the row as “a bit of a distraction”, but had some questions about the way the BBC has handled the complaint.
He told viewers that he thought the name might not emerge quickly, saying: “I think it is possible it could go on for some time. The BBC doesn’t want to put itself into a position of breaching a duty of care to one of it employees.”
He said: “The sheer speed at which social media operates is clashing with the speed the BBC can operate at.”
Suggesting that the corporation – not just the presenter – was under intense scrutiny, he said: “These questions will only come out in the inevitable inquiry that follows. This isn’t a question of bad faith, but whether the BBC’s systems are fit for purpose in a social media world.”
Citing the row over Gary Lineker’s tweets, he said “It is not the first time the BBC has come up against this. Is the old organisation of the BBC capable of coming up against the modern world?”
Updated
Here is a reminder from my colleague Jim Waterson on why the name of the BBC presenter has so far not been published by any UK-based media outlet:
There are two main legal issues for news outlets to weigh up on the story: First, there is the defamation risk of libelling the presenter by reporting false allegations. Any media organisation needs to be confident that it knows the identity of the presenter and also that it has the material to back up the allegations that are being made.
Secondly – and perhaps more importantly in this case – is the growing shift towards privacy in the English and Welsh legal system.
In the past, British newspapers were known globally for their wilful disregard for privacy, happily exposing extramarital affairs and gleefully diving into the private lives of celebrities and members of the public if they felt it would sell more copies. This often went too far, such as in the case of the former Bristol schoolteacher Christopher Jeffries, who was wrongly arrested in relation to the murder of his tenant and vilified in the tabloid press before being released without charge.
After a series of rulings over the past decade, judges have made clear they increasingly prioritise the rights of an individual over the media’s right to report intrusive details.
One significant change was Cliff Richard’s 2018 legal victory over the BBC. The broadcaster hired a helicopter to provide live coverage of police raiding his home. Richard was never charged with any offences and a judge ruled that the BBC had unfairly invaded his privacy by naming him as an individual who was under investigation by the police.
Updated
Met police: 'no investigation at this time' into presenter after BBC meeting
Detectives are assessing information discussed in a virtual meeting with the BBC over allegations a presenter paid a teenager for sexual images but there is no investigation “at this time”, the Metropolitan police have said in a statement.
PA Media reports a Met statement said: “Detectives from the Met’s specialist crime command met with representatives from the BBC on the morning of Monday 10 July. The meeting took place virtually.
“They are assessing the information discussed at the meeting and further enquiries are taking place to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence being committed.
“There is no investigation at this time.”
Updated
What we know – and don't know – so far …
Media outlets have not named the male BBC presenter who allegedly spent £35,000 on explicit photographs from a young person, despite widespread speculation about their identity on social media and messaging apps. The BBC says it is carrying out an internal investigation and has contacted the Metropolitan police.
The justice secretary, Alex Chalk, urged the broadcaster to “get on with” its part in any investigation. Chalk said the public would “expect allegations of that nature to be dealt with very robustly and promptly”, telling Sky News that “it may be that, in the fullness of time, there will need to be an investigation about how this allegation was handled”.
There is not believed to be any court order or injunction banning publication of the individual’s name. Instead, the legal risk of linking a prominent person to serious allegations has stopped mainstream news outlets from putting the name in the public domain.
The BBC director general, Tim Davie, has said a set of allegations was made in May, followed by further claims “of a different nature” last Thursday. The presenter remained on air until last week, when journalists at the Sun approached the BBC for comment. BBC News reported on Monday that it understood that Davie had not himself been told of the allegations until last Thursday.
Nicky Campbell has made a crime report to the police after being falsely accused of being the presenter involved. Campbell said he had had a “distressing weekend” after being falsely named. Other leading BBC presenters have also felt forced to distance themselves from the story.
The claims were first reported by the Sun, which said the presenter paid the young person a total of £35,000 for sexually explicit images over the course of three years – money that was used to fund their crack cocaine habit. On Monday, the paper reported that the presenter had called the young person after the first press reports appeared. It said the presenter asked: “What have you done?” And it was claimed he asked them to call their mother to get her to “stop the investigation”.
Almost all the known details about the case have come from reports in the Sun newspaper. The tabloid’s reporting is based on anonymous quotes from the mother of the young person involved, making it difficult for other news outlets to independently establish the facts.
Persephone Bridgman Baker, a partner at Carter-Ruck, has spoken on Sky News about the legal situation, reminding viewers why the name of the presenter has been kept from the public eye so far. She said:
There is a legal right to privacy. That right extends to protect the anonymity of a suspect. That is settled law. And that goes back to the Cliff Richard case. It may be, of course, that it is only a matter of time before their suspension makes it obvious who it is.
She also cautioned people on the legal risk of naming people on social media in association with the case, saying:
It is of course just speculation, but if someone makes false allegations online, whether as a major publisher or a ‘citizen journalist’, there may be difficult and costly ramifications down the line.
Updated
Downing Street also warned social media sites to ensure their platforms were “properly policed”, following baseless accusations against various BBC personalities after the reports. The prime minister’s official spokesperson said:
Both the users of social media sites and the sites themselves have responsibility.
People “should understand their responsibilities, and putting baseless accusations online can carry consequences”. The spokesperson added:
We have been very clear with the sites themselves about their responsibilities on making sure these things are properly policed.
No 10 expresses confidence in BBC director general
The prime minister Rishi Sunak has full confidence in the BBC’s director general Tim Davie following the allegations made against a male presenter, Downing Street says.
The culture secretary Lucy Frazer will keep a “close watch” on the handling of the claims, No 10 adds. The prime minister’s official spokesman said:
Obviously, these allegations are concerning. The secretary of state (Lucy Frazer) spoke to the director general yesterday and was assured that the BBC is investigating this matter swiftly.
The Met themselves have said they have received initial contact as well. The culture secretary will keep a close watch on how this develops and ensure she is regularly updated as appropriate.
Asked if the prime minister had full confidence in Davie, the spokesman said: “Yes.”
Nicky Campbell says weekend was 'distressing' after being 'falsely named'
Nicky Campbell has spoken about his “distressing weekend” after he was “falsely named” as the BBC presenter accused of paying a teenager for sexually explicit pictures.
He was among several who have felt compelled to clear their names in recent days after the BBC confirmed a presenter had been suspended, but declined to say who. Introducing his BBC Radio 5 Live show on Monday, Campbell said:
Obviously, thoughts with the alleged victim and family. So a bit of perspective here, worse things happen at sea as they say, but it was a distressing weekend, I can’t deny it, for me and others falsely named.
Today, I am having further conversations with the police in terms of malicious communication and with lawyers in terms of defamation.
It comes after he suggested he had contacted police about being falsely mentioned online in connection with the story. He tweeted a screenshot which featured the Metropolitan police logo and the words: “Thank you for contacting the Metropolitan police service to report your crime.” He wrote:
I think it’s important to take a stand. There’s just too many of these people on social media. Thanks for your support friends.
On his BBC radio show, a caller rang to say she was “so angry and cross” that Campbell and others had to come forward and clear their names. Campbell responded:
I’m all good, Jeremy (Vine) and also others involved as well, Rylan (Clark) and also Gary (Lineker), yeah it’s uncomfortable but as I said earlier worse things happen at sea. We’re big boys.
Lineker, Clark and Vine have all said they are not the presenter in question. The presenter John Kay has also made clear his absence is due to a pre-planned holiday.
Updated
Chalk also said he would have expected the BBC to have suspended the unnamed presenter as soon as allegations that they paid the teenager for sexually explicit images were made. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:
Once allegations of this seriousness and concern are raised and the BBC are aware of them, yes, I would expect them to move to suspension. But I don’t know the precise facts and I think it is quite important that we don’t speculate out of fairness to all parties.
Pressed on whether he was saying a suspension should have been made at the point the allegations were known about, Chalk said:
Yes, other things being equal, yes, I would have expected that.
While Braverman was keen to push for a faster resolution, she said nothing should be allowed to unduly affect the investigation. She told ITV’s Good Morning Britain:
These are obviously very serious allegations. I think it is right that we allow the process to play out in the proper way. The BBC has announced that they are carrying out an internal investigation to establish the facts.
We need to allow that to happen. I wouldn’t want to go behind that or pre-empt any finding.
Braverman said the BBC was carrying out a fact-finding investigation and it was “important to let that play out before we jump to any conclusion”.
We also know that the police have been in touch with the BBC – there is going to be a meeting today on what next steps should occur.
And again, I think if the police are going to carry out an investigation, this is something that should be allowed to happen. These are very serious allegations, we need to treat them with due caution and seriousness.
Updated
'What happened and when?', asks minister, who tells BBC to get 'house in order'
The BBC needs to get its “house in order” or else there could be “collateral victims”, Chalk said. He told BBC Breakfast:
I’m pleased to hear that such serious and concerning allegations are being discussed with the police today. That is fine, but I think – in the fullness of time – there will need to be a careful review about the chronology of this. What happened, when?
I’m not going to cast aspersions because I don’t have all that information. But time is of the essence because it is not fair on victims, it is not fair on people who could be implicated and it is not fair on the BBC, which does an important job. I’m not here, as it were, to bash the BBC.
But I do think that they need to get their house in order and they need to proceed promptly, otherwise you will have plenty of collateral victims of what is a deeply serious and concerning allegation.
Asked what he meant about the BBC “needing to get its house in order”, Chalk added:
What it means very simply is this: when serious and concerning allegations are made, they need to be investigated promptly and commensurate with the seriousness of them. If the reports are to be believed, even if they are half as serious as are alleged, then you would expect the BBC to respond promptly.
Updated
Chalk also said a “full investigation” is required before deciding whether there’s a public interest in naming the BBC presenter. He told Sky News:
This is quite a difficult, nuanced legal issue. I’m not going to criticise them at this stage because it will depend on all sorts of things.
So, for example, if an allegation were made against you and it was of an extremely serious nature, then I don’t think it would necessarily be appropriate to name you immediately until there had been a full investigation.
And that is why, if I may say so, it is really important that time is of the essence because there is a public interest in this, I accept that.
But, equally, there is a public interest in ensuring that people aren’t defamed as well. So it is a matter of fact and degree. Not every single immediate allegation would need to lead to that person being unmasked, so to speak. But the process does need to continue so there is sufficient detail in that investigation to potentially justify that important step.
Once the allegation is publicly made and that individual is unmasked, the consequences can be very serious, to say nothing of the potential legal knock-on implications.
Updated
An investigation into how the BBC handled the allegations might be needed in the future, Chalk has said. He told Sky News:
These are very serious and concerning allegations. You ask me as a parent – I would be extremely concerned about that. I don’t know precisely what was said and at what time, but certainly you would expect allegations of that nature to be dealt with very robustly and promptly.
He said it was “absolutely right” that BBC representatives were due to meet with police on Monday.
And it may be that, in the fullness of time, there will need to be an investigation about how this allegation was handled. That is quite possible. But, right now, I think it is important in the interest of that complainant that this is dealt with as quickly and fairly and robustly as possible.
BBC urged to 'get on with' investigation
Prompt action is “absolutely vital” in cases of serious allegations, such as those made against the unnamed BBC presenter, the home secretary Suella Braverman has said.
Asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain if she knew why the process had taken “so long” after a complaint was first raised in May, she said:
We don’t know the facts yet, a lot of it is speculative. In a case of serious allegations such as these, prompt action is, of course, absolutely vital for safeguarding purposes, for justice purposes, but also for propriety purposes.
That came as the justice secretary Alex Chalk said he wanted the BBC to “get on with it” when asked about the progress of the internal investigation.
Braverman was careful to say investigations should be allowed to take their course before people “jump to any conclusion”.
These are obviously very serious allegations. I think it is right that we allow the process to play out in the proper way. The BBC has announced that they are carrying out an internal investigation to establish the facts.
We need to allow that to happen. I wouldn’t want to go behind that or pre-empt any finding.
Updated
