‘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.
Key events
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
