of thousands of pounds to a teenager, in return for sexually explicit photographs. the corporation, which was told by the young person s family about the allegations back in may, says new information came to light on thursday, and it s now investigating all the claims. the bbc is now in touch with the family. and in the last few minutes, the sun newspaper has printed claims, the presenter, contacted the family, in recent days. our media editor, katie razzall reports. for the best part of 48 hours. the bbc has been splashed across many of the front pages. today was an attempt to prove it hadn t been slow to act in the face of a serious complaint, an effort to take control of the narrative. this afternoon, the bbc announced it has suspended the still unnamed presenter at the heart of the allegations and also contacted the police. the bbc first became aware of a complaint in may, it said in a statement. new allegations were put to us on thursday of a different nature. and in add
thursday that they received new information that was revealed to them that was different to the original allegations and they also said bbc are now in contact with the family of this young person. many will be wondering why the presenter hasn t been named what are the legal issues here? a good question and simply people in social media sync is this person not being named and there is specific legal reasons, defamation and protecting someone from lies that may be told about them and if someone sues for defamation, they could win potentially a lot of money. and also, the right of man as to privacy. however, that does not stop journalists from investigating and exposing scandals and corruptions. but for the moment is why this presenter is still unnamed and another legal point is the age
after a weekend of allegations. we ll look at what the controversy could mean for the bbc, and why the presenter hasn t been named. but first, let s go to scotland yard, and get the latest on possible police involvement, from our special correspondent, lucy manning. just fill us in on what more you know. , , . ., know. this is where i could get serious, because know. this is where i could get serious, because the know. this is where i could get l serious, because the allegations made against the presenter are not just that he behaved inappropriately back raises questions about whether a criminal act has been committed. the allegations are that the presenter paid for explicit photos and that the contact with the teenager was when it was alleged he was between 17 and 20. the age of consent is 16 but when it comes to explicit photos, someone is considered a child until they reach the age of 18 so if those photos were taken when the person was 17, there is a legal issue, and if
but that no formal referral or allegation has been made. it will, it says, require additional information before determining what further action should follow. the bbc has said it expects to be able to provide a further update on this story in the coming days. but as a publicly funded corporation, it depends on trust. trust that is. trust that is earned. the bbc has faced a series of crises in recent months. for some, its reputation is already tarnished. we can only fullyjudge how damaging this latest crisis will be when the full facts of the story are known. live now to news correspondent charlotte gallagher who s who s in the newsroom. what are the latest developments on this story? many will be wondering why the presenter hasn t been named a few key developments today. the