BBC Presenter And A Single Source

For a second day, our free and fearless press has returned to giving the hapless BBC another ritual kicking over allegations that a male presenter, who the Corporation has now suspended, paid a 17-year-old as much as £35,000 over three years for what is described as a series of sexually explicit images. The Beeb has now referred the claims to the Metropolitan Police.

But amid all the baying headlines, no-one is asking the obvious question: if the Murdoch Sun has the supposed “star”, a “household name” and “top presenter”, over the proverbial barrel, why aren’t they naming him? Why are all the articles about this story so heavily caveatted? An excellent example has been provided only this morning by the Murdoch mafiosi.

“THE BBC star accused of paying a teenager for sex images made two panicked calls to them after we revealed the bombshell claims … The presenter, who was suspended today, allegedly rang last week asking: ‘What have you done?’” tells the Sun. Also, “It is claimed he also asked the youngster to ring their mum to get her to ‘stop the investigation’”. Claimed.

There is one person from whom we are not hearing, and that is the now 20-year-old alleged to have been paid all that dosh for explicit photos. I’ll go further: we are only hearing from one person, their Mum. Everything else is coming from the BBC, the Government, other MPs, pundits, and those idiots on social media who have wrongly named someone not involved.

Yes, we have a single source. And what should journalists worth the name do with a single source? Hell, even when the late and not at all lamented Screws was hacking phones, many of the voicemails illicitly accessed were down to the paper already having a source for a story - but they wouldn’t just go with a single source. Hacking was a way of standing up stories.

The Beeb’s own account of what has been happening is rather obviously trying to tell us that we do not yet have the full story, and that what we do not have may be highly significant. “The BBC said it first became aware of a complaint in May and then of ‘new allegations’ on Thursday”, they tell.

Then comes “But the family alleged ‘no-one from the BBC rang them for a proper interview after the initial complaint’”. “Proper interview”? Eh? Here’s the Beeb’s statement: “The BBC first became aware of a complaint in May … New allegations were put to us on Thursday of a different nature and in addition to our own enquiries we have also been in touch with external authorities, in line with our protocols”. Meaning what, exactly?

There is more. “BBC media editor Katie Razzall said the corporation's first statement appeared to suggest its initial investigation may have been hampered by a lack of response from the family. In the statement, released on Friday, the BBC said it did ‘actively’ attempt to speak to ‘those who have contacted’ them ‘to seek further detail and understanding of the situation’”.

Do go on. “‘If we get no reply to our attempts or receive no further contact that can limit our ability to progress things but it does not mean our enquiries stop,’ added the BBC”. Also, consider this wording: “The [Sun] said [the 20-year-old’s Mum] also claimed that an image of the presenter in his underwear had been taken as part of a video call with her child”. Single source again.

Moreover, the Sun is still not naming the presenter, although the paper assures us that “On Saturday night the family handed a dossier of evidence to the broadcaster’s lead investigator, ex-cop Jeff Brown”. And there is a why-oh-why editorial, which still does not answer “New allegations were put to us on Thursday of a different nature”. Trust the Sun? Er, no thanks.

On top of all that, the last newspaper to come over all righteous over sexually explicit images and 17-year-olds is the Sun. It was, after all, the Sun that told its readers “SAM, 16, QUITS A-LEVELS FOR OOH-LEVELS … Head sees red over his topless pupil … SIZZLING schoolgirl Samantha Fox has quit her A-Level studies”. Look, readers … PHWOOOAR!! Pass the sick bag.

We are not being given the full story by the Murdoch mafiosi. All we are being served up by the least trustworthy newspaper in the UK (in a field where there is serious competition for that particular dishonour) is a series of claims backed up with nudge and wink. That’s not good enough. The Sun is so short of standing the story up that it dare not name its target.

The Sun’s goons may be right. But they may not. I’ll just leave that one there.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by becoming a Patron on Patreon at

https://www.patreon.com/Timfenton