I’ve been observing with some interest the current ‘BBC nonce’ story about a young man who is alleged to have had received a large sum of money from a BBC employee in exchange for erotic images. I’ve also been watching the feeding frenzy on social media surrounding this story with lots of people suggesting potential names for the BBC employee and potentially getting themselves in trouble with the libel laws at the same time.

There are aspects of this case that raise concern for me. The first is that this case would be a bit of a nothingburger were it not for the fact that it has been alleged that the exchange of erotic images started when the young man at the centre of this story was seventeen when the exchange started. This is because in the UK although anyone over the age of 16 can shag anyone else who is over that age there are restrictions on under eighteens being involved in producing erotica. The legal situation is that there is a two year gap between when someone reaches the age of consent and when they can appear in erotic entertainment products or be involved in that industry. A person under 18 cannot be a stripper, work as a porn actor or actress, pose for unclothed pictures, join Only Fans, work in commercial telephone sex, work as an escort, attend any ‘adult orientated club’ like a swinging club or visit an adult cinema or engage in any other similar activity. I believe that the UK law was changed on 16/18 year olds working in erotica in order to bring the UK into line with the USA which also has an 18+ rule with regards erotica, but also because an 18 year old is presumed to have more mental and emotional maturity than those who are between the age of consent and 18.

In the case of the accused BBC presenter the key factor here is that the young man in question was said to be 17 when the exchange of erotic images started which would technically be an offence and would also bring opprobrium down on the BBC presenter’s head if the presenter knew that the young man was seventeen. But people lie and in some cases they lie about their age to get access to platforms like Only Fans or other places where erotica is published or where sexual services are offered. I know I lied at seventeen in order to get in to a pub and buy beer and the beer incentive was very strong for me and incentives are greater where money is involved. There might be a great incentive to lie about age in particular where there is the potential to earn money, possibly large amounts of money, by appearing in some of the less than well monitored or policed erotic outlets. It’ s quite possible that the BBC presenter in question made the reasonable assumption that the person that they were interacting with was over eighteen.

But there are also aspects of this case that are looking increasingly murky and are undermining the Sun newspaper’s original story and original claims. The first bit of information is that the Sun is basing its story not on anything that the young man himself has said but on what the man’s mother and stepfather have said. It is their claims, not the person at the centre of the story, which is driving this tale. Because it’s the parents who are the key factor in this story a whole load of questions start to arise. How did the parents find out about the alleged £35k that is said to have been paid by the BBC presenter? Is there a paper trail either physical or digital that can show when the payments were made and to whom? Is there some familial conflict or other motivation going on here that created the impulse to go to the Press? Why didn’t the parents push the complaint with the police, instead of contacting the BBC and the Press, if they suspected that their son was working illegally in the erotica industry? If it was my child in this position then I would have made sure that I exhausted all the police routes in this case prior to going to the Press as I would not want to prejudice or stymie any potential trial in fact I would have lawyered up in order to get the police to take matters seriously. Have reporters from The Sun even spoken to the young man in question? What about the claim made by the parents that they went to the police who said that ‘nothing illegal’ had occurred? Whilst I admit that the police have had many failings with regards to sex crime in the past I find it difficult to accept that a police officer, especially one with specialist knowledge, would make such a clearly erroneous statement that the exchange of sexual images by an under eighteen year old was not illegal. The law is quite clear here, you can’t get your tits out or wave your willy around on camera until you are eighteen. I’m very interested in this family’s interaction with the police. Did they just go to a police station front desk and make some incoherent claim to some overworked and possibly under-trained junior officer on duty or did they push this matter further with the police and speak to more senior ranking officers?

As I said there are a whole lot of questions that need to be asked about this case and the provenances of claims made by the young man’s family. It could be the case that the Sun has masses of credible evidence that they can back up their story and corroboration of the claims that have been made but are holding this evidence back in order to show any future libel court that the story was based on solid foundations. At present we really do not know.

The Sun is making a big thing about how the BBC Presenter has been suspended whilst the BBC carry out an internal investigation, but this is standard operating procedure in cases like this. Nurses or Doctors for example who are falsely accused of wrongdoing can be suspended from practise whilst investigations are ongoing but get practise rights back once they are cleared.

The case gets even more murky now as it has been revealed that the young man at the centre of the story has now engaged lawyers and is challenging the narrative set out by his parents. This aspect is very very odd indeed. If the family were all singing from the same page then why engage lawyers in order to make very public denials of his parents story? I know that some are asking where the young man got the money to appoint a lawyer but it’s quite possible that some ‘no win no fee’ lawyer might have taken this case on in the hope of a big fiscal win down the line or the lawyer might be one doing pro bono work.

The longer this story goes on the more it seems to be falling apart whereas if this story had a solid bottom to it then it would be assumed that the story would become more clear as more revelations emerged. However it does not look to be the case here. The longer this case goes on the more questions come up.

This case has been seized upon by many people who dislike what the BBC has become and I can understand why they have done that as I also have a problem with the BBC and its output, but there could be more or even less about this case than meets the eye. It’s only as the story progresses that anything that might resemble the truth could emerge. Those who attack the BBC over this might end up being vindicated but it might equally be the case that not only will those who have made false accusations on line about BBC presenters end up with a massive amount of egg on their faces but might also be facing some very serious legal trouble.

It might well be the case that the Sun has a plethora of evidence to back up their story and that the paper is waiting for the internal BBC inquiry into these matters conclude before releasing any names. There might also be the possibility that other allegations either from the original source or some other additional source may arrive that might strengthen the Sun’s story, the point is we do not know. However the fact that the Sun is being extremely cagey about even alluding to where in the BBC this accused person works suggests to me that the paper itself is worried about privacy law, naming suspects before criminal charges, libel and a whole host of other matters connected to this case. It’s quite possible that the Sun might be sitting on evidence in that case that could give them the scoop of the year but it could also be the case that the Sun might have got themselves into their biggest scandal since their coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, only time and further revelations will tell.