BBC presenter scandal: why are mother and her child’s claims about alleged pay for photos different?

With the BBC presenter scandal now in its fifth day, the identity of all those involved in the allegations remain unknown.

A BBC presenter and ‘household name’ was claimed in allegations made to The Sun newspaper, to have paid more than £35,000 for sexually explicit photos of a person, with the images first being sent when the person was 17 years old.

The mother claimed that her child, who is now 20, was paid for these images over a period of three years.

The BBC announced on Sunday that they had suspended the presenter, but did not name him, and speculation on social media rushed to fill the void.

Here, we examine the differences in the allegations made by against the BBC presenter, and the response of the person alleged to have sent him the photos, and the two perspectives are so at odds.

What did the mother say?

The mother of a person who was allegedly paid by a BBC presenter for explicit images told The Sun that she had seen bank account statements showing payments of more than £35,000 made over a period of three years.

The payments allegedly started when the child was 17 years old - if the images were explicit that would make soliciting and sending them a crime. The mother, who has not been named, claimed that one transaction was made totalling £5,000 in exchange for explicit photos.

The mother also stated that the money was then used to fund her child’s crack cocaine addiction which ‘destroyed’ their life.

The Sun reported that the mother said her child had shown her screenshots from a video of the presenter in his boxers at his home. She also claimed that she had heard the presenter call her child and tell them not to call him.

The family of the young person in question complained to the BBC on 19 May. When, a month after lodging their complaint they saw that the presenter was still appearing on the BBC in their normal role, the family decided to speak to The Sun. The mother claimed that the BBC had not spoken to the presenter when the family first made the complaint against him.

The child’s stepfather, who has also not been named, supported his wife and said that they complained to the BBC and later The Sun because they wanted the presenter to stop sending money to their ‘vulnerable’ child.

When the child rebuffed the above allegations through a lawyer, their mother and stepfather questioned how they had been able to afford a lawyer.

What has the person who allegedly sent the photos said?

A lawyer representing the person who allegedly sent the photos to the presenter said that the mother’s allegations made to The Sun were untrue.

The lawyer said that "nothing inappropriate or unlawful” happened between their client and the presenter.

In a letter to the BBC, which was reported on by the BBC on 10 July, the lawyer wrote that their client had sent The Sun a denial of their mother’s allegations, although this did not stop the publication of the article.

Why are the claims about the unnamed BBC presenter different?

Doubt has been cast over the veracity of The Sun’s bombshell allegations following the child’s statement that they were inaccurate. There seems to be very little overlap between the allegations made by the mother and the statement issued on behalf of the young person alleged to have sent the photos.

However, the young person has not denied being in contact with the presenter, only that nothing inappropriate or illegal happened.

Additionally, the BBC has taken action by suspending a presenter who is believed to be a ‘household name’, and accepts that an initial allegation was made in May, and that new allegations ‘of a different nature’ were made on 6 July.

These new allegations prompted the broadcaster to suspend the presenter, and on Monday the BBC spoke to the Met Police about the issue.

There is a lot to unpack here, and as the presenter has not been named by the BBC, and can’t be named by NationalWorld due to considerations of defamation and privacy, much will remain unknown about the allegations that have been made.

The mother discussed her child’s drug use, and as the two are contradicting each other about most aspects of these allegations in the press, it’s safe to assume that they don’t see eye to eye. Whether that is a result of the child’s alleged drug use it is unknown.

When The Sun first reported the story, the publication stated that the mother had come to them and made it clear that she did want to be paid for her story. As the family had also sought to resolve their complaint with the BBC more than a month before speaking to The Sun, their claim that they just wanted the alleged contact between the presenter and their child to stop seems reasonable.

Because the child has not been identified there is no way to definitively know how they had the means to afford a lawyer. There are several possible explanations - as a 20 year old they could well have the means to pay for legal representation. Additionally, they may have been approached by a lawyer offering their services pro bono. And, as has already been speculated, the child may have paid for a lawyer using money allegedly paid to them by the presenter.

It is also possible that both parties believe what they are saying - that the mother was horrified by what she claims to have seen and was concerned for her child’s welfare, whilst the child may genuinely believe that the behaviour of the presenter was above board. Considering the age of the child at the time that the photos were allegedly first sent, it’s possible that, even if the alleged images were explicit, the then-teenager did not understand the legal implications of sharing them with someone.

If the suspended presenter is named, it will be far easier to read into the allegations made, and we will likely then also hear the presenter’s side of events. Until then, the situation remains very murky indeed.