18 May: A family member of the young person at the centre of the allegations first reported by the Sun attends a BBC building to make a complaint about a BBC presenter

19 May: The complainant contacts BBC Audience Services - the details are referred to the BBC’s Corporate Investigations Team

19 May: That team emails the complainant seeking additional information - there is no response, the BBC says

6 June: Having received no response to the email, a phone call is made to the mobile number provided by the complainant - this call does not connect, the BBC says

6 July: The Sun informs the BBC of allegations concerning a presenter

On the same day the presenter is taken off air while the allegations are investigated

9 July: The presenter is suspended

10 July: Representatives from the BBC meet detectives from the Met Police. The force says it is "assessing" information from the BBC, but there is "no investigation at this time"

In a letter to the BBC, the lawyer representing the young person at the centre of the original allegations disputes their mother's account of events

11 July: The BBC says the police have asked the corporation to "pause its investigations into the allegations while they scope future work"

Later that day, fresh allegations are published by both the BBC and the Sun

Read more about the timeline of events here.

BBC Radio 2 host Jeremy Vine has said the presenter at the centre of the row should name themselves.

Here's a recap of what Vine said this morning:

• Speaking on his Channel 5 show about whether the unnamed presenter should identify themselves, Vine said "It's his decision, but he needs to come forward now"
• He believes "survival instinct has kicked in" as he points out at "damage" to the BBC and his friends
• The BBC has "behaved with extraordinary decency" according to Vine, who praised director general Tim Davie for his handling of the situation
• After finishing filming his Channel 5 show, he spoke outside New Broadcasting House about his own experience of being wrongly accused of being the unnamed presenter, saying it was "just terrible"

The BBC’s Analysis editor Ros Atkins examines four key questions relating to allegations made by the Sun newspaper about the unnamed BBC presenter at the centre of the story.

Media lawyer of over 25 years Jonathan Coad, has told the BBC that the privacy argument is fading, and the Sun and the BBC should name the presenter.

"There comes a point where the public interest overtakes the law of privacy," he tells Radio 5 Live’s Breakfast programme.

"There are a lot of people lining up to get their penny worth of making public comment. But a lot of people are making public comment without knowing the true facts.

"Anybody can name anybody on social media and seemingly get away with it. And it’s very difficult for anybody that’s a victim of social media harassment to do anything about it.

"If [the Sun] are right about the case they’ve got, they have got a good defence if this publishes this person’s name. I don’t understand why they haven't."

Paul Glynn
Culture reporter

Labour MP Clive Lewis has said he is already sick of the speculation surrounding the BBC presenter story.

He told Politics Live he thinks it would be better to wait for the outcome of an investigation before jumping to any more conclusions.

"You've got an algorithmic frenzy taking place on social media, which is actually affecting real people's lives," he said on Wednesday. "People who have nothing to do with this, like Jeremy Vine and others."

On the same programme though, Daily Telegraph associate editor Camilla Tominey said the press has had to "weigh up the reasonable expectation of privacy" for those involved against "whether it is in the public interest [to know] and not just interesting to the public".

The Sun newspaper, she concluded, in its reporting, is effectively saying that it is in the public interest. "Not just because of the individual involved," she said, "but also because of there seeming to be a dragging of the feet - let's put it mildly - of the BBC in investigating what are really quite serious claims, criminal or not".

Guardian columnist and author George Monbiot, meanwhile, explained it was an "incredibly difficult land to navigate" for the media right now, for two main reasons.

Firstly that the presenter should be presumed innocent until proven guilty of anything, to avoid them potentially having their "life ruined by being dragged over the coals in public".

Secondly the fact that "the majority of victims of abuse tend not to come forward until other people have come forward".

"And of course, that can't happen until a person is named," he stressed.

"So we've got these two really important crucial principles, which seem to be directly at loggerheads here."

Victoria Bourne
BBC News

After finishing filming on his Channel 5 show, Jeremy Vine cycled across London to the BBC to present his lunchtime show on Radio 2.

He arrived in high-vis and seemed surprised to be greeted by a journalist and camera operator.

When I asked what it was like to be wrongly named in connection with the allegations surrounding an unnamed BBC presenter, he said it was "just terrible".

"I just think this thing has got to stop. I think I have probably said enough to be honest but I never ever want to go through this again. We are all waiting. We are all just waiting for it to play itself out."

I managed to get another quick question before he hurried off into Wogan House to prepare for his show.

When I asked whether he thought the person should be named, he said "they’ve got to make that decision but I do think they need to think about it carefully, yeah".

It is approaching midday here in London, let's give you a quick recap of the latest events from today:

• BBC Radio 2 broadcaster Jeremy Vine says the presenter at the centre of allegations will not be able to "remain anonymous for ever" while continuing to work for the corporation

• A separate claim has been made by The Sun newspaper that the presenter in question - who still has not been named - allegedly broke Covid restrictions to meet a 23-year-old at their home. This claim has not been verified by BBC News.
• Speaking on his Channel 5 show, Vine said it would be better for the presenter to identify himself and give his response to the various stories that are now circulating

More now from BBC Radio 5 Live listeners who have been speaking to Nicky Campbell about allegations made against the unnamed BBC presenter.

Dan in Leicester believes the media’s coverage of the story has been "more about the headlines than the truth".

"There's been no criminal wrongdoing or anything yet here so, in my opinion, absolutely the law is right to allow this person anonymity until the charge has been made," he thinks.

Dan believes the "dehumanisation" of people in the media is wrong, "until we learn that as a society we will never change and that's what makes me so sad", he says.

Natasha in Huddersfield is a criminologist, she thinks the media is missing a "major point".

"We're missing the morality of the situation… we don't know if they were a vulnerable young person or be classified as such," she says.

Natasha believes, "We need to be more clear and transparent about both sides of this story before talking about whether or not we need to know who it is."

MPs from three of the main UK political parties have been speaking to Nicky Campbell's 5 Live Breakfast show.

Conservative MP Dame Andrea Leadsom says it "definitely is" in the public interest who the unnamed presenter is.

"This needs to be resolved," she says, and adds, "people are drawing their own conclusions".

She also says there are questions to be asked of the press and media who have "fuelled up this story".

Labour MP Thangam Debbonaire reminds the panel that there's a police investigation taking place and says "we don't have a right to know who's being investigated by the police".

She says the BBC should look at its complaints investigation system and adds that she "feels for people" inadvertently caught up in the speculation.

Lib Dem MP Richard Foorde says anyone wrongly accused would know "the importance of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty".

He warns of the dangers of miscarriages of justice if investigations aren't given the chance to take place thoroughly.

BBC Radio 5 Live’s Nicky Campbell has heard from licence fee payers this morning, following allegations made against the unnamed BBC presenter. Campbell asked listeners if this should be a public or internal BBC matter.

Nicole in Derbyshire thinks licence fee payers have a right to transparency with this case.

"We pay our licence fee and that then in turn pays this person's wages… I want to know what the money that's been going out of my bank account each month to pay the licence fee has been funding," she says.

Neill in Edinburgh says he "sincerely thinks this isn’t the public’s business".

"I think we're turning into a bit of a nanny state and when you consider some of the other problems we've got in the country… is this really front-line news," he says.

Neill believes "until such time as laws have been broken there shouldn't be any public interest".

The "mob" mentality of the media is concerning for one former MP who resigned after admitting he watched pornography twice on his phone in Parliament.

Neil Parish was the MP for Tiverton and Honiton from 2010 to May 2022 and last year told the BBC he was left "frightened" by paparazzi and also received death threats.

"I do feel sometimes once the media has something - and of course they do like Philip Schofield - once they have you in their sights they will destroy you."

Parish tells BBC Radio 5 Live's Nicky Campbell his actions were self-inflicted, but accepts right now the situation surrounding the BBC is a "very, very difficult" one.

Image source, .

We've also been hearing from people on Nicky Campbell's 5 Live Breakfast show. In contast to Jeremy Vine's comments, media lawyer Paul Gilbert says: "There is no reason why the identity of this person should be revealed."

Giving his take on the allegations surrounding an unnamed BBC presenter, he describes them as "an issue for an employer" and none of our business "as the situation currently stands".

Gilbert says court decisions on privacy in recent years often show concern about "the adverse impact of the reporting of these stories on the person" as well as anyone else who "might be affected".

He adds that's why "we don't know the name of the presenter - and quite rightly so".

Will Vine's comments encourage other presenters to speak up?published at 10:49 British Summer Time 12 July 2023

10:49 BST 12 July 2023

Dominic Casciani
Legal correspondent

Jeremy Vine's reasoning for saying the presenter should come forward illustrates why this affair has become an imbroglio - an extremely confused, complicated and damaging situation with no obvious exit door.

On the one hand he's worried about the presenter's state of mind - and he publicly praised the way the BBC and its director general Tim Davie have shown "extraordinary decency".

But the clincher in Vine's view is the fact that he thinks last night's allegations of abusive messages and a breach of the 2021 lockdown could be sackable conduct.

He argues, it would therefore be best for the presenter to come forward with his side of the story - not least because anonymity may encourage liars and fantasists to wade in.

Jeremy Vine's intervention may have another effect. Will it encourage more presenters to speak up - and that could make it easier for the public to work out who the individual is?

If that were to happen, we are back to the legal problems that have haunted this story for five days: the right to privacy, and the risk of defamation - particularly if it is indeed the case that some of the allegations are not true.

Broadcaster Jeremy Vine says he has received support after posting a tweet last night where he urged the presenter to identify himself.

As we've reporting, BBC radio host Jeremy Vine thinks the presenter at the centre of the row should name themselves. Here's a recap of what Vine said in his Channel 5 TV show this morning:

• "It's his decision, but he needs to come forward now"
• "His survival instinct has kicked in... but my god, look at the damage to the BBC. Look at the damage to his friends"
• "I think the BBC has behaved with extraordinary decency... Tim Davie, the director general, has done everything right"
• But, following the latest allegations: "I think he [Davie] could sack him"
• "He [the presenter] will have to answer this. All this stuff is aggregating with no response. He must have a defence"
• "The idea that he could just remain anonymous forever, and then walk back into the building with his ID pass? Oh no, that's not going to happen"
• "He [the presenter] is described as angry... I believe that he believes there's a fightback to be had here"

Here's one more line from Vine's TV show.

He says: "I haven't spoken to him [the presenter] but I gather from somebody who has, that he is described as angry and keen to play long.

"Now to me, that means that he wants to be anonymous for as long as possible."

Later, Vine adds: "I believe that he believes there's a fightback to be had here."

Here's more from Jeremy Vine, who said last night - and again this morning - that the BBC presenter should name themselves.

"The idea that he could just remain anonymous forever, and then walk back into the building with his ID pass? Oh no, that's not going to happen."

Vine says the BBC has behaved with "extraordinary decency" and says the director general Tim Davie has done "everything right".

But he says that - following the latest allegations about abusive messages, and breaking lockdown rules - the director general "could sack him [the presenter]".

But, he adds, "bizarrely, as I understand it, even if the presenter is sacked, the BBC may not be allowed to name them".

The presenter "has to show some degree of concern for those people - and I'm one of them - who've been falsely accused", Vine repeats.

On his Channel 5 TV show, Jeremy Vine says the presenter's name not being public could risk other BBC presenters' safety.

He says he went to see a Bruce Springsteen concert at the weekend, and his wife asked if he would be safe.

"She gave me a baseball cap, and said 'you better wear this'," Vine says.

Asked again if the presenter should name himself, Vine replies: "I think it's better for him if he does."

As we've been reporting, BBC radio host Jeremy Vine thinks the BBC presenter at the centre of the row should name himself.

He has now repeated that call on his Channel 5 TV show.

"It's his decision, but he needs to come forward now," says Vine.

Vine says the presenter's "survival instinct has kicked in" - but, he adds, "look at the damage to the BBC, look at the damage to his friends".