i think one thing i would say is, these are clearly damaging to the bbc, it's not a good situation. the nato summit is under way with leaders divided on how to handle ukraine's bid tojoin the alliance. president zelensky has arrived here at the nato summit and he wants to know when ukraine will be allowed to join. hello, i'm matthew amroliwala. welcome to verified live, three hours of breaking stories and checking out the truth behind them. we start with major developments in the allegations that a bbc presenter paid thousands of pounds

to a teenager for explicit photos. the bbc has released new details of its investigation into the claims. it says just two attempts were made over several weeks to contact the family concerned. the bbc�*s director general tim davie confirmed that the unnamed presenter was not spoken to about the issue until seven weeks after the initial complaint when new information had emerged. he also conceded, that the allegations had been "clearly damaging". the bbc has been asked to pause its investigation by police while they make further inquiries. on may 18th, the complainant went to a bbc building to make the initial allegation. the following day, the complaint was assessed by the bbc�*s corporate investigations team. that team decided that the complaint did not include an allegation of criminality, but nonetheless merited further investigation. also on may 19th, the bbc says it emailed the complainant but

received no response. untiljune 6th when the bbc says it made a phone call to the complainant which didn't connect. no further attempts to contact the complainant were made for a month. that takes us tojuly 6th, when the sun informed the bbc of the allegations it was intending to publish. also on that day, the director general tim davie says he was made aware of the matter for the first time. and that's also when the first conversation was had with the presenter at the centre of the allegations. the following day, the sun published its story. the bbc says it made contact with the complainant on that day and also spoke to the police. the next day, the bbc says it received materials from the complainant. and onjuly 9th, it confirmed the presenter had been suspended. bbc director general tim davie spoke earlier on bbc radio 4's world at one programme. he was questioned by sarah montague.

things did suddenly pick up from when the sun reported it last thursday but when you look at the timeline, the question is partly because the bbc said the sun's report contained new allegations — what was the initial complaint? in terms of the situation we've got on our hands, i want to say one thing upfront, which is you are balancing serious allegations, duty of care, privacy issues and legitimate public interests, and how do you navigate that fairly, calmly and do due diligence? i've given a bit of context to a few people in terms of the numbers of issues we get coming into our corporate investigations unit. over six months, that will be about 250 and you take those and they are the serious complaints that are coming through of

all different types. what happens is we have an outstanding corporate investigations team, they're very experienced, they assess the complaint. i'm not going to go into the absolute specifics because of privacy concerns... i understand that, but the question of how it differed because clearly it was judged to be not illegal when it was assessed back in may. how did it differ from the sun's report? i want to be careful in terms of what i can give you about the specifics of the complaint. the facts are there that the corporate investigations team looked at the log that is a summary of the call. we've got clear records of an interaction that lasted through the call and the summary of that call of 29 minutes, that summary then goes to the corporate investigations team, passed by audience services and they assessed it. in that summary, in the information

that the bbc became aware of at that stage, was it clear that, as the family have suggested, that there were contacts made and they dated back three years? from when the child was 20? i cannot get into specifics. what i would say is that it was clearly serious allegations and they were serious because the corporate investigations team decided to push forward and investigate the case. it's very important that the team saw them as a serious allegations. which seems weird that the presenter was only spoken to onjuly the 6th. let's talk about that because i think that's a really important point, which is if you've got an allegation coming into a corporate investigations team, i think you need to balance

the concerns of duty of care, privacy, all those things i've talked about, i don't think you take that complaint direct to a presenter. if you just work that through, if anything that comes through or anything that hasn't been verified just gets brought in front of someone, i would say it's important at that point to validate that, to have not just the audience services team but the specialists talk to that individual, understand their concerns and go through that process. but there were only two attempts made to contact the family, one by e—mail, one by phone. does that seem fine to you? i think that's a fair question and as director—general i want to look at a couple of things. the first thing is, immediately, do we raise the red flag quickly enough on complaints of this nature? and second is protocol — there will be learnings from this case.

the case was kept open so that does not mean we had finished. we have a process where we keep going back, we leave a bit of time and then we go back so the case was kept open... you left a lot of time when you consider that was the 18th or 19th of may until last thursday. you can see from the timeline, they were contacted, there was no response. we can debate how many times that should have happened, but the allegations were taken seriously. do you think it's odd the presenter was only spoken to last thursday? no... and what was his response, has he denied it? i'm not going to get into the specific conversations with the presenter. i haven't spoken to him. he's been spoken to by a senior manager. has he offered to resign? i think we have to respect the privacy of the employee.

we're in a strange situation — he has not been named, but everyone in this building knows who it is and there are an awful lot of people who you also have a duty of care to, male presenters on air, who are having to go on air to say that it's not them. it's not a sustainable situation. it's a difficult and complex situation and we're trying to calmly and judiciously navigate our way through quite difficult circumstances, whereas i said you've got to balance duty of care issues, privacy issues. i think i would restate that it is absolutely not the right thing to be doing, to speculate, some of the malicious stuff online. understood. i would condemn that, but i have to make those calls, as director—general, in a balanced manner. but the situation isn't sustainable, is it? we need to let the police do their work in terms of seeking evidence and further activity. have there been any other

allegations or complaints made against the same presenter? because this is the subject of an active police discussion in terms of them looking forward, i cannot comment on that. we're now in a situation where the child's mother and stepfather are saying... actually, let's look at the front page of the sun, "dad, bbc are liars," and they say, where did the child who has employed a lawyer, where did they get the money to pay for that? do you know categorically that the presenter did not pay for those legal fees? because that's the suggestion being made. that's not information that i'm party to. i think that's not something for the bbc, bluntly. or whether the presenter has been in contact with the person?

indeed. that's not for the bbc? i think there's a duty of care for everyone involved, but for the bbc corporately, we need to make sure we are taking the evidence we've got and presenting that to the police and taking that forward. here you are, the director—general of the bbc, whose reputation is so important, and a high—profile figure who is unnamed but there's an awful lot of speculation about have serious accusations against them, is it a bit odd you haven't spoken to them? i think it's critical they are spoken to by a very senior manager. that is appropriate. and i think myself as director—general, i'm playing the right role in overseeing the process across it. that, i think, is the right thing.

we're in a situation where the sun has on its front page, "dad, the bbc are liars" and a story about an unnamed presenter, what do you think about the way they have reported it, have they published prematurely? these are questions for them. i've laid out the facts from the bbc�*s point of view and this timeline is absolutely what happened with regards to interaction with the bbc. and we're very clear in terms of the bbc�*s decision—making what the choices were at each stage of the process. as you talked about earlier, it was a difficult situation in which we were not getting response to attempts to get more information. when the information came to me on the 6th ofjuly, i think we acted very speedily. so when you look at the timetable, you're quite satisfied with it? no, i think that's the wrong characterisation. i understand the timetable and it followed the process. what i've said is you always have lessons that you learn from these

situations and we're doing two things. firstly, i think there is a valid question that i'm asking, which is how are complaints like this red—flagged through the organisation? i want that immediately looked at. and the overall processing protocols to make sure we're satisfied by them. did any of the executives in the department the presenter works and have any inkling or idea about this? i can't answerfor have any inkling or idea about this? i can't answer for everyone have any inkling or idea about this? i can't answerfor everyone in have any inkling or idea about this? i can't answer for everyone in a department. what i can answerfor i can't answer for everyone in a department. what i can answer for is the top team, the executive committee and myself. however it -la s out, committee and myself. however it plays out. it's _ committee and myself. however it plays out. it's very _ committee and myself. however it plays out, it's very damaging - committee and myself. however it plays out, it's very damaging for i plays out, it's very damaging for the bbc, isn't it? the plays out, it's very damaging for the bbc, isn't it?— plays out, it's very damaging for the bbc, isn't it?— plays out, it's very damaging for the bbc, isn't it? the bbc, as you know, is the bbc, isn't it? the bbc, as you know. is often _ the bbc, isn't it? the bbc, as you know, is often in _ the bbc, isn't it? the bbc, as you know, is often in the _ the bbc, isn't it? the bbc, as you know, is often in the midst - the bbc, isn't it? the bbc, as you know, is often in the midst of - the bbc, isn't it? the bbc, as you. know, is often in the midst of quite painful and difficult affairs and storms. one thing i would say is

these are clearly damaging to the bbc. it's not a good situation. but i think there are things as director—general i care deeply about. one is the ability for our newsroom to report independently without fear or favour and i newsroom to report independently without fear orfavour and i made the case today, and you mentioned the case today, and you mentioned the annual report, 71% of the world doesn't even have a free press, a totally free press, so i think the bbc, going by the story absolutely independently, maintains strong levels of trust and also then organisationally we are doing the right thing and we are seen to do the right thing and, under my leadership, we will absolutely be as transparent as we can. you leadership, we will absolutely be as transparent as we can.— transparent as we can. you could arc ue transparent as we can. you could ara ue it transparent as we can. you could argue it would — transparent as we can. you could argue it would be _ transparent as we can. you could argue it would be the _ transparent as we can. you could argue it would be the son - transparent as we can. you could argue it would be the son doing i transparent as we can. you could i argue it would be the son doing the running on this story, it would be the bbc if the processes had worked properly. —— it would be the sun. that's purely hypothetical in terms of where the news story goes. i think we need to be cautious about that observation which is the

process was run and we now need to take stock and review the process. what i want to do at this current point is calmly get through the investigation that the police need to do to make sure they are supported and get through making the right decisions and balance between duty of care, privacy and a very serious allegation. we need to calmly get on with that business and make the right call. henge calmly get on with that business and make the right call.— make the right call. have you had many complaints _ make the right call. have you had many complaints from _ make the right call. have you had many complaints from other - make the right call. have you had j many complaints from other male presenters? i many complaints from other male presenters?— presenters? i can't speak to complaints _ presenters? i can't speak to complaints that _ presenters? i can't speak to complaints that come - presenters? i can't speak to complaints that come in - presenters? i can't speak to - complaints that come in immediately. but have you felt under pressure from other male presenters? i but have you felt under pressure from other male presenters? i think there is no doubt _ from other male presenters? i think there is no doubt as _ from other male presenters? i think there is no doubt as has _ from other male presenters? i think there is no doubt as has been - there is no doubt as has been expressed publicly, this is a situation in which duty of care concerns for those individuals who might be affected is a concern for the bbc. i think we have excellent practices to support people and i know it's not easy, but i'm trying and i think we are making the right calls within those pressures. tim

davie, calls within those pressures. tim davie. thank _ calls within those pressures. tim davie, thank you _ calls within those pressures. tim davie, thank you very much. calls within those pressures. tim l davie, thank you very much. thank ou. with me is lizo mzimba, our culture correspondent. you have new information that is just coming in. you have new information that is just coming in— you have new information that is just coming in. yes, we have a later statement from _ just coming in. yes, we have a later statement from the _ just coming in. yes, we have a later statement from the sun _ just coming in. yes, we have a later statement from the sun newspaper| statement from the sun newspaper now, just to reiterate, the 19th of may was when a lot of this started. that was the day that the complainant, which is the family of the young individual, contacted the bbc with the initial complaint. according to the sun over the weekend, the stepfather had gone to the police previously to complain but the police had said there was nothing they could do because there wasn't any illegality as far as they could see in that complaint. this is the latest sun statement putting more on that and reacting slightly to what the bbc have been saying today. "before the 19th of may, the stepdad went to the police. he wanted to stop payments to the child

which was fuelling a drug habit and he reported the inappropriate relationship. the police said they could not help. he then went on to contact the bbc... and requested the presenter to be spoken to. at this stage, with no action from the bbc, he later contacted the sun. he did not want payment for the story. we reiterate our statement this is about a family with a vulnerable child, it seems to us that the family is being attacked by the bbc for not fully understanding their complaint system. we have now seen tim davie's words at the press conference and that the allegations are incredibly serious. it remains to be understood by the allegations were not escalated and the presenter was not spoken to at the time. this has always been about a story about concerned parents trying to stop payments to their vulnerable child which was funding a life risking

drug habit." that's a statement that has just come in from the sun, reacting to what some of what tim davie has been saying this morning and giving more detail on what they had already said when the stepfather was told the police could not help with their complaint at that particular time.— with their complaint at that particular time. and tim davie touched upon _ particular time. and tim davie touched upon a _ particular time. and tim davie touched upon a little - particular time. and tim davie touched upon a little of- particular time. and tim davie touched upon a little of what l particular time. and tim davie i touched upon a little of what you have just referenced, but gave new details in terms of the timeline but some pretty obvious gaps.- details in terms of the timeline but some pretty obvious gaps. there are, and in a sense. _ some pretty obvious gaps. there are, and in a sense, those _ some pretty obvious gaps. there are, and in a sense, those gaps _ some pretty obvious gaps. there are, and in a sense, those gaps are - and in a sense, those gaps are crucial ones. to make a judgment on how the bbc handled this complaint appropriately or not depends so much on the detail of what happened back in may of what they were told in those initial complaints, the initial allegations, how much detail they were given. we do know according to the timeline that the bbc says the allegations were considered sufficiently serious for them to be passed to the bbc�*s corporate investigations team but

they didn't seem to reach a level where they were really urgently dealt with. after that, they say they tried to contact the complainant by e—mail and also by phone call but the call didn't connect. it seems it is in an area where the bbc did treat it seriously, they decided it had to be handled by the serious and of how the bbc investigate these kind of things but it wasn't at a stage or they didn't regard it rightly or wrongly at the stage where it should be really red flagged, to use tim davie's words, up the ladder, hire to management and dealt with with more urgency and trying to get hold of the complainant to verify who they were on the facts of the allegation they were making against the unnamed bbc presenter. tim davie acknowledged — the unnamed bbc presenter. tim davie acknowledged the _ the unnamed bbc presenter. tim davie acknowledged the damage _ the unnamed bbc presenter. tim davie acknowledged the damage this - the unnamed bbc presenter. tim davie acknowledged the damage this is - acknowledged the damage this is doing to the bbc but there is now a pause in the bbc investigation requested by the police to allow them to scope their future work. what does that tell us, if anything, even about the timeline we are

dealing with here? it even about the timeline we are dealing with here?— even about the timeline we are dealing with here? it tells us the timeline is _ dealing with here? it tells us the timeline is potentially _ dealing with here? it tells us the timeline is potentially very - dealing with here? it tells us the timeline is potentially very long l timeline is potentially very long and that we don't know how long the metropolitan police will take to do their scoping exercise and it could be the last stage of how the metropolitan police look at this, it could bejust metropolitan police look at this, it could be just the first stage, this isn't a metropolitan police investigation, they have underlined that, they are saying it's a scoping exercise, they have spoken to the bbc and presumably the bbc have passed on whatever evidence has been given to the bbc themselves, but we don't know if the metropolitan police intend to or have spoken to the family of the young individual in question. have they attempted to speak to the presenter? have they attempted to speak to the individual themselves? they don't know if —— we don't know if they will be doing that or how long it will take, it depends on what they have so far and whether they think it is worth pursuing further but it means that the bbc�*s internal investigation has

been halted at the request of the metropolitan police and the reason for that is that if this does go to a police investigation and potentially further down the line towards prosecution, and i emphasise these are big if the mac, they want these are big if the mac, they want the evidence to be as untainted as possible —— these are big ifs. you want it to be as fresh as possible and not tainted by contact with the bbc or other people if it can be avoided. it makes the chances of a fair prosecution, if it gets to that stage, a fair prosecution going ahead so the bbc has obviously said it will comply with that and then it will conduct its own investigation once that has all been finished, when the metropolitan police, for whatever reason, say our work on this has finished. what the bbc have said is that in a wider sense, they

will look at their general complaint procedures and see if there are things that need to be changed or tweaked so that complaints that do pass a certain level of seriousness, should they be red flagged up the system faster? they say they will be looking at that on a general level but with the specifics of this complaint, they are putting everything on pause. liza complaint, they are putting everything on pause. lizo mzimba, thank ou everything on pause. lizo mzimba, thank you for— everything on pause. lizo mzimba, thank you for the _ everything on pause. lizo mzimba, thank you for the latest. _ everything on pause. lizo mzimba, thank you for the latest. we - everything on pause. lizo mzimba, thank you for the latest. we will i thank you for the latest. we will return to that story in the next little while. let's turn to the other major news. let's turn to lithuania, where nato leaders are attending a summit in the capital, vilnius, with the war in ukraine dominating discussions. president zelensky has sharply criticised nato for refusing to set out a timetable for when ukraine can join the alliance. leaders are divided over how to handle ukraine's bid for nato membership. nato members are obliged to defend any other member state that comes under attack and are wary of escalating russia's invasion

into an all—out global war if ukraine were to join. my my correspondence lewis vaughan jones is in vilnius for us. how much progression as they're likely to be on this notion of a timetable? it’s on this notion of a timetable? it's a reall on this notion of a timetable? ut�*s a really difficult issue and strong words from president zelensky on that timetable. in the last hour he has arrived here at the nato summit. ukraine is not a member of nato but wants tojoin, all ukraine is not a member of nato but wants to join, all nato ukraine is not a member of nato but wants tojoin, all nato members ukraine is not a member of nato but wants to join, all nato members want ukraine tojoin, but it's not wants to join, all nato members want ukraine to join, but it's not as simple. the timetable, zelensky wants assurances and he said it is absurd there is no timetable for ukrainejoining nato. the reason for some hesitancy but there are some concerns about offering a blank timetable like that or guarantees of joining, for example, when the war with russia stops because that could

provide, for example, a bit of an incentive for vladimir putin to prolong the war. 50 there are difficult issues around this. jens stoltenberg, the chief of nato, spoke about them earlier. i stoltenberg, the chief of nato, spoke about them earlier. i suspect allies will send _ spoke about them earlier. i suspect allies will send a _ spoke about them earlier. i suspect allies will send a clear _ spoke about them earlier. i suspect allies will send a clear and - allies will send a clear and positive _ allies will send a clear and positive message on the path forward towards _ positive message on the path forward towards membership for ukraine. i have proposed a package of three elements— have proposed a package of three elements with more practical support with the _ elements with more practical support with the multi—tier programme to ensure _ with the multi—tier programme to ensure fult— with the multi—tier programme to ensure full moving ukraine closer to nato _ let's talk about the change in position from turkey towards sweden's joining position from turkey towards sweden'sjoining of position from turkey towards sweden's joining of nato. position from turkey towards sweden'sjoining of nato. your reaction to that. it sweden's joining of nato. your reaction to that.— sweden's joining of nato. your reaction to that. it was certainly the start of _ reaction to that. it was certainly the start of the _ reaction to that. it was certainly the start of the summit - reaction to that. it was certainly the start of the summit that - reaction to that. it was certainly| the start of the summit that jens the start of the summit thatjens stoltenberg would have dreamt about,

he called it a historic moment. turkey dropped its opposition to swedenjoining the turkey dropped its opposition to sweden joining the alliance. today, at the beginning of the meeting with other current members of nato, there was a welcome round of applause for sweden, not technically a member yet but shows the progress that has been made. a very, very good moment for jens stoltenberg but it doesn't really compare with the giant challenge of now getting ukraine's membership of nato established. still plenty of work to do here at the summit. we are expecting to hear more words from jens stoltenberg in a few minutes and then there is the usual fancy state dinner for the heads of state here. this is the world's media, it gives you an idea of the scale of the importance of the decisions that are made at a summit like this. all of these

journalists reporting right around the world. the proceedings going on there, that's how we keep an eye on it, they are happening in a building next door. we are expecting plenty more developments in the hours ahead so we will keep bringing them to you. in so we will keep bringing them to ou. , ., ~ , so we will keep bringing them to ou. you. in terms of key decisions on weaponry. _ you. in terms of key decisions on weaponry. are — you. in terms of key decisions on weaponry. are we _ you. in terms of key decisions on weaponry, are we likely - you. in terms of key decisions on weaponry, are we likely to - you. in terms of key decisions on weaponry, are we likely to hear. you. in terms of key decisions on - weaponry, are we likely to hear more thatis weaponry, are we likely to hear more that is a significant?— that is a significant? really interesting, _ that is a significant? really interesting, there - that is a significant? really interesting, there is - that is a significant? really interesting, there is a - that is a significant? really - interesting, there is a commitment to increase defence spending, increase the supply and production of weapons, ammunition, equipment within each individual country. what they want is some kind of detail on a broader commitment. you might have heard the number of 2%, this is a number that each country has an aspiration to dedicate 2% of their gdp towards defence spending, about a third of nato countries hit it. there will be words about that increasing that number of countries

that do commit to it.— that do commit to it. lewis, thank ou ve that do commit to it. lewis, thank you very much- — that do commit to it. lewis, thank you very much. jens _ that do commit to it. lewis, thank you very much. jens stoltenberg l that do commit to it. lewis, thank| you very much. jens stoltenberg is due to speak in the next few moments. we will bring you that live. hello there. we are stuck in a bit of a rut at the moment with the weather. it is generally rather unsettled because of the showers and the proximity of low pressure. so, through the rest of the day, we will continue some sunshine, but also some heavy showers, because there is low pressure almost ahead. weather fronts may be moving out of the way from the south and the north, but believe you me, there is a lot of energy in thejuly sunshine. we have that moisture around, and we are seeing some big showers brewing up. still longer spells of rain for the north of scotland, so a different complexion to yesterday. fewer showers for northern ireland, but probably more making their way east. but wherever you are, there is a fairly blustery breeze blowing, and those showers

will be potentially heavy and punditry. —— thundery. temperatures are a notch down on yesterday, and we've lost the humidity. it should be a fresh appeal for those at wimbledon today, but i think there is certainly still the risk of the shower today. as we go for the evening and overnight, the showers tend to ease up across wales, there is heavy rain pushing its way over northern ireland into the far west of england, and those showers continuing into scotland. we will notice it is more comfortable for sleeping, as we have lost that humidity across england and wales. it is much more westerly tomorrow for many of us, north—westerly for scotland and northern ireland. we will see the showers packing into the north and west again, heavy and thundery. and again, just areas of showers moving through. there is enough breeze to push the showers through tomorrow, so it won't be raining all day, but i think most will get one or two showers. and it will feel a touch fresher

again tomorrow, even further south, when we lose the south—westerly wind. thursday, it's another day of sunny spells and showers. if anything, probably fewer showers across england wales, as we see high pressure putting in, but some slow—moving showers, with the lighter winds further north, so they could last a bit longer, when the showers do come along. there is that ridge of high pressure, it is a very brief affair, because come friday, the next area of low pressure and weather fronts, and tightly packed isobars, so windy weather again comes marching in off the atlantic, and it stays rather unsettled for mid—july. goodbye.