The Sun’s story about the BBC presenter was in the public interest – and that is beyond dispute now
Why Sun was right to publish
THE Sun’s story about the BBC presenter was always squarely in the public interest. That is beyond dispute now as explosive new claims are reported by the BBC itself.
Here was a powerful household name, handsomely salaried via the licence fee, allegedly paying £35,000 to a vulnerable young person with a history of drug use who was sending him sexual pictures.
That alleged abuse of power is central to this scandal. It is important not to lose sight of it — and the parents’ very real fears for the damage done to their child — amid all the furore about whether the law was broken.
Also crucial to the public interest is the BBC’s woefully perfunctory handling of the family’s detailed original complaint, as set out in the corporation’s own timeline yesterday.
These were “very serious” allegations, as Director General Tim Davie admits.
They included claims that the family had seen bank statements detailing payments to their child, and had screenshots and messages showing contact with the presenter.
Why, then, did nothing come of them bar a single follow-up email and a mobile call which went “unconnected”?
This was not a serious attempt to investigate or resolve the issue. It was for that reason the frightened parents contacted The Sun, and why we ran the story.
They sought no payment. This was just a distressed mum and stepdad concerned solely with their child’s welfare as a result of an inappropriate relationship with a BBC star.
They wanted to be taken seriously by the BBC and for the payments to their child to stop.
But the BBC cannot just navel-gaze over its complaints procedure any more. It’s also about the presenter himself.
Why was he not spoken to for seven weeks? Why had Mr Davie still not spoken to him personally yesterday? Did that change after new claims by a second young person to BBC News?
We are bemused by critics of The Sun who seemed to consider it a slam-dunk that the young person in our original story dismissed it, via pricey London lawyers they mysteriously hired.
But any attacks on the parents, or implication from within the BBC that they were somehow at fault for the corporation’s failure, are truly outrageous.
They did their best. They wanted action and supplied considerable detail. But weeks passed, and they learned of a new £1,000 sent to their child.
Today we reveal further evidence.
How the star broke strict lockdown rules to spend time indoors with a stranger from a dating app.
How he sent messages including loveheart emojis and “x” to a school pupil who followed him on Instagram.
It falls to the BBC to take this, and every other case now emerging, seriously at last.