BBC: Metropolitan police say ‘no investigation at this time’ into suspended presenter – latest updates

• 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.