BBC presenter ought to solely be named after ‘full’ investigation, says justice secretary

A Cabinet minister has urged the BBC presenter who has been suspended for allegedly paying for sexually specific photos of a young person ought to solely be named as soon as a “full” investigation has taken place.

Justice Secretary Alex Chalk agreed there was a “public interest” within the broadcaster being named however mentioned it will not be applicable to take action “immediately” or till a “full investigation” had taken place.

The BBC has been rocked by allegations that certainly one of its presenters – reportedly a “household name” – paid a 17-year-old hundreds of kilos for sexually specific photos.

The presenter – who has since been suspended – reportedly paid £35,000 for the pictures, which the mom has claimed was spent on funding the now 20-year-old’s drug behavior.

The Sun reported that the presenter allegedly first requested photos from the teen in 2020 once they have been aged 17 and has made a collection of funds through the years.

BBC presenter claims latest: BBC to meet police today over scandal

In a press release on Sunday, the BBC mentioned the presenter had been suspended after it had acquired new allegations of a distinct nature along with their very own enquiries.

It has additionally now been in contact with exterior authorities, the company mentioned.

Mr Chalk described the allegations as “very serious and very concerning”.

Asked whether or not there was a public curiosity for the broadcaster to be named, Mr Chalk informed Sky News’ Kay Burley: “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 instance, if an allegation have been made towards you and it was of a particularly critical nature, then I do not assume it will essentially be applicable to call you instantly till 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’s a public curiosity in making certain that folks aren’t defamed as effectively.”

He added: “So it’s a matter of truth and diploma. Not each single rapid allegation would want to result in that particular person being unmasked, so to talk.

“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 particular person is unmasked, the implications might be very critical, to say nothing of the potential authorized knock-on implications.”

‘Astonishing’

According to stories, the household first made a criticism to the BBC in May, asking the broadcaster to make the person “stop sending the cash”.

The BBC confirmed in a press release that it had “first turned conscious of a criticism in May” and that it “takes any allegations critically” and has “strong inner processes in place to proactively cope with such allegations”.

However, regardless of the criticism being raised in May, the presenter was nonetheless on air a month later, main the household to develop annoyed.

On Monday, contemporary claims emerged within the Sun that the BBC star called the young person to ask “what have you done?”.

He then allegedly requested the particular person to talk to their mom and urge her to cease the investigation, the paper added.

Read extra:
Why hasn’t the BBC presenter at the centre of the allegations been named publicly?
BBC presenter accused of paying teen for sexually explicit photos ‘tried to stop investigation after story broke’

Mr Chalk mentioned solutions the BBC allowed the presenter to remain on air regardless of the allegations have been “astonishing”.

“If that’s proper, then it’s astonishing and you’d have anticipated strong motion to have been taken rather more rapidly.

“I don’t know precisely what was said, and that is why there needs to be a full discussion of this in the fullness of time.”

On the inner BBC investigation, Mr Chalk mentioned: “I want them to get on with it.”

Why is the police concerned?

The BBC is about to satisfy the Metropolitan Police at this time concerning the allegations.

The Sun reported that the primary funds for sexually specific images have been allegedly made when {the teenager} was 17.

While the authorized age of consent within the UK is 16, it’s a crime to make or possess indecent photos of anybody below 18.

The Met mentioned final evening it “received initial contact” however “no formal referral or allegation has been made”.

“We will require additional information before determining what further action should follow,” the spokesperson mentioned.