![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://uknews.evprotec.com/why-isnt-bbc-presenter-being-named-by-the-media/&media=https://uknews.evprotec.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/130333149_8f4ac3788ddb816cea866ab77f8dfc89fb667570.jpg&description=Image source, Reuters Two questions are burning today in relation to the allegations concerning a BBC star: do they amount to a crime and why isn't he being named by journalists? Firstly, the question of a crime. The allegations are fairly straightforward. The presenter is said to have paid a young person an awful lot of money for sexualised pictures. The payments are said to have begun when the teenager was 17 - which is over the age of sexual consent. But that's not the relevant law when it comes to allegedly indecent images. The Protection of Children Act 1978 says that it is a crime to take, make, share and possess indecent images of people under 18. The maximum sentence is 10 years. A person under the age of 18 cannot give their consent to the images being taken. If the mother's account to the Sun is true, you don't need to be a lawyer to see the potential for a prosecution. These laws have been tightened over the years to protect young people aged 16 and 17 from sexual exploitation. There's a debate among sexual offences experts whether the law should criminalise some teenagers who are in a relationship - but that debate is entirely different to the allegation of a famous adult using their power over someone far younger. This is a complicated newsroom equation that criss-crosses between editorial ethics and the law. Here's the problem: As of Sunday, the BBC star story is more questions than answers. The Sun's coverage is somewhat coy about specifics. It is not clear whether it has seen proof of the payments or the alleged photograph of the star in underwear. And this is where the law bites. The courts have long recognised that it is in the public interest for journalists to unmask "the fraudulent and the scandalous", to quote one famous case, but if there is a lack of reportable evidence, the legal problems begin to build. The first is the law of defamation which protects an individual's reputation from the massive harm caused by lies. It protects everyone fro){kind=link}
Two questions are burning today in relation to the allegations concerning a BBC star: do they amount to a crime and why isn’t he being named by journalists?
Let’s take each in turn.
Firstly, the question of a crime. The allegations are fairly straightforward.
The presenter is said to have paid a young person an awful lot of money for sexualised pictures. The payments are said to have begun when the teenager was 17 – which is over the age of sexual consent.
But that’s not the relevant law when it comes to allegedly indecent images.