i think one thing i would say is, these are clearly damaging to the bbc, it is not a good situation. the nato summit is under way in vilnius, with leaders divided on how to handle ukraine's bid, tojoin the alliance. president zelensky has arrived in lithuania. hello, i'm matthew amroliwala. bbc news has spoken to a young person in their early 20s who said they felt threatened by the same bbc presenter currently at the centre of the allegations overpaying another young person for explicit pictures. —— over paying. this young person was first

contacted anonymously by the bbc presenter via a dating app and claims the presenter then sent menacing messages. our special correspondent lucy manning has the story — and she's with me now. to be clear, this is a different young person to the one the sun has reported about. this individual was first contacted by the mail presenter on a dating app and after the two had connected on the app, the two had connected on the app, the conversation moved to private messaging and the young person has told bbc news they were surprised to find out who the presenter was when he revealed his identity and a presenter told the young person not to tell anyone. but the young person has told us that they felt they were put under repeated requests and pressure to meet up. they did in fact never meet up. later, the young person alluded online to the fact that they were having contact with the bbc presenter and they implied that online, they might name him at some point. the presenter reacted by

sending a number of what this young person viewed as threatening messages which we have seen and they were abusive, expletive filled messages. the young person, speaking to bbc news, who has no connection to bbc news, who has no connection to the other person reported in the sun, said they had been scared by the power they felt the presenter held and the felt the threats and the messages had frightened them and they remain scared. these new allegations of these messages of a menacing, bullying behaviour potentially by the presenter raised fresh questions about his conduct which is why we are reporting them. we've reached out directly to the presenter and his lawyer but we haven't heard anything yet in reply to these allegations.— to these allegations. thank you, lu . if to these allegations. thank you, lucy- if there —

to these allegations. thank you, lucy. if there is _ to these allegations. thank you, lucy. if there is any _ to these allegations. thank you, lucy. if there is any more, - to these allegations. thank you, lucy. if there is any more, we i to these allegations. thank you, i lucy. if there is any more, we will bring it to you in the coming minutes. well, earlier the bbc released new details of its investigation into the claims made about the presenter. 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. in the last hour, the sun has issued a new statement, saying...

let's take a closer look at the timeline released by the bbc today. 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. then there was a delay of almost three weeks — 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. the bbc director general tim davie spoke earlier on bbc radio 4's world at one programme. he was questioned by my colleague sarah montague. things did suddenly pick up and kick in from last thursday when the sun reported it, 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.

but serious enough. 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 it was clearly serious allegations. 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 serious allegations. which seems weird that the presenter was only spoken to onjuly the 6th. let's talk about that for a minute because i think that is a really important point. 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 directly 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 notjust 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? one of the things i've said today is 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 flags quick enough on complaints of this nature? and the second is the processes and protocols — there may well be some 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 an awful 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

that the presenter was only spoken to last thursday? no, because what has happened is simple... and what was his response, has he denied it? i'm not going to get into the specific conversations with the presenter. have you spoken to him? personally, no. 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 very 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, of course i would, but i have to make those calls, as director—general, in a balanced manner. but this 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, absolutely, 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. 0r 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 when it comes to those matters, they might be appropriate lines of inquiry for the newsroom, 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 is an awful lot of speculation about — have serious accusations against them. isn't it a bit odd that 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? do you think they may have 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 the 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 also review the overall process and protocols to make sure we're satisfied by them. did any of the executives in the department that the presenter

works in have any inkling or idea about this? you've or idea about this? made it clear you didn't know until you've made it clear you didn't know until last thursday. i can't answerfor everyone in a department. what i can answer for is the top team, the executive committee and myself. however it plays out, it's very damaging for the bbc, isn't it? i think the bbc, as you know, sarah, is often in the midst of quite painful, 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 made the case today, and you mentioned the annual report, 71% of the world doesn't even have a free press, or totally free press,

as we speak, 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 could argue it wouldn't be the sun doing the running on this story, it would be the bbc, if the processes had worked properly. in terms of the processes, 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, make sure they're 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. have you had many complaints

from other male presenters? i can't speak to complaints that come in immediately in this affair. but have you felt under pressure from other male presenters? i think 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 in the way you're talking about 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, thank you very much. thank you. stay with us, in the next few minutes i'll be talking to liz howell. that interview coming up in a moment or two. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at some of the other stories making headlines here in the uk. a jury has concluded that

a man stabbed to death lilia valutyte was fatally stabbed in a street in boston in july last year as she played with a hula hoop, just yards from her mother. deividas skebas was found unfit to plead due to his mental health. in a trial of the facts, the jury determined he had killed lilia. mortgage costs have hit their highest level for 15 years, after the rate on a two—year fixed deal surpassed the peak in the aftermath of the mini—budget. the average rate, on such a deal is now 6.66%, a level not seen since august 2008. meanwhile, wages in the uk, excluding bonuses, grew by 7.3% in the three months to may, compared with last year, equalling the highest growth rate on record. the figures have raised concerns among some analysts, that inflation will stay high for longer.

you're live with bbc news. let's return to our top story on allegations that a bbc presenter paid thousands of pounds to a teenager for explicit photos. i'm joined now by lis howell, a former managing editor at sky news and director of broadcasting at city, university of london. welcome to the programme. in the last 20 minutes, new allegations concerning the same presenter, in terms of a reaction for a corporation already on crisis, your view? ., �* ., ., , ., view? you've got to be careful about these new allegations _ view? you've got to be careful about these new allegations because - view? you've got to be careful about these new allegations because we i these new allegations because we are... ayoung are... a young person has said they were contacted, there is nothing wrong about going on a dating app and contacting people. the allegation then goes onto say that the presenter was and threatening and bullying. that in itself is

unpleasant but not necessarily dire so i think this allegation really does way into this, there is no doubt about it, but we gotta be careful about how much weighs into it and it's all really very new and we need to make sure it is substantiated and find out about the context before making judgments about this. it's not great, it's not something that's going to make the situation any easierfor something that's going to make the situation any easier for anybody, but i don't think it's quite as weighty a part of the story as it might seem at first when you actually think about it. going on a dating app is not a bad thing. in terms of what we heard from tim davie, what was your assessment of that? i davie, what was your assessment of that? 4' ,., , davie, what was your assessment of that? ~ , , that? i think tim davie is very calm and measured, _ that? i think tim davie is very calm and measured, he _ that? i think tim davie is very calm and measured, he is— that? i think tim davie is very calm and measured, he is in _ that? i think tim davie is very calm and measured, he is in a _ that? i think tim davie is very calm and measured, he is in a very - and measured, he is in a very difficult position but he's been a difficult position but he's been a difficult position but he's been a difficult position several times in his short tenure and he does handle them well and comes over very reputable a when he talks. he's very sensible about the complaints procedure. it's very difficult. i

imagine many complaints are made about presenters every day at the bbc corporate affairs office because people fantasise, people get about presenters and the rest of it, then they are going to complain and all that and it's going to be followed up, but there must be complaints as many levels and we don't know quite what this initial complaint was like. what we do know is that it appears the bbc didn't respond very much orfollow this appears the bbc didn't respond very much or follow this up very assiduously.— much or follow this up very assiduously. much or follow this up very assiduousl . ., assiduously. tim davie made the oint that assiduously. tim davie made the point that they — assiduously. tim davie made the point that they made _ assiduously. tim davie made the point that they made the -- - assiduously. tim davie made the point that they made the -- they point that they made the —— they listened to the 29 minute call and made the assessment it was a serious allegation so when you see one e—mail and one unanswered phone call, if you are running any big organisation, is that sufficient? it doesn't seem to be but there's always this feeling that perhaps it will go away and perhaps that's what prevailed in this case, perhaps the people involved found it quite astonishing and just hope this one would disappear over the horizon and it came back to bite them. i suspect

the complaint feels like it has failed, and ifan the complaint feels like it has failed, and if an apology isn't forthcoming, they will go to the next level which in this case was the son. they didn't go to the police, they went to the sun. it does make you wonder, why didn't they go back to the bbc, why did they go back to the bbc, why did they go back to the bbc, why did they go to the police? they must have had a thought about it being illegal, it's a complicated legal question... illegal, it's a complicated legal question- - -_ question... the paper says the stepfather _ question... the paper says the stepfather did _ question... the paper says the stepfather did go _ question... the paper says the stepfather did go to _ question... the paper says the stepfather did go to the - question... the paper says the stepfather did go to the police | question... the paper says the . stepfather did go to the police but in terms of the complaints procedure, tim davie being clear there may well be lessons to learn once they are further down the track here but the difficulty with that is we were hearing from one contributor earlier on the programme who made the point that postjimmy savile,

the point that postjimmy savile, the complaints procedure was always central to the conclusions and learning process then, and that's a decade or so earlier. it seems that lessons might not have been completely learned. i lessons might not have been completely learned.- lessons might not have been completely learned. i see your point and obviously _ completely learned. i see your point and obviously you _ completely learned. i see your point and obviously you will— completely learned. i see your point and obviously you will have - completely learned. i see your point and obviously you will have to - completely learned. i see your point and obviously you will have to learn | and obviously you will have to learn lessons about the complaints procedure. i'mjust lessons about the complaints procedure. i'm just trying to understand it from the point of view of somebody in the corporate affairs office and how that came about in trying to understand it from their point of view because everybody from mike is going to be hurt by this in some way. about the stepfather going to the police. i didn't follow that they went to the police, i understood that they went to the police and the police said there was no case to answer. that would have added to their feeling of not being heard and their desire to go perhaps not to the bbc but to the sun and avoid going back to the bbc so obviously these people didn't feel listened to, is indisputable. final thou~ht, listened to, is indisputable. final thought. in _ listened to, is indisputable. final thought, in terms _ listened to, is indisputable. final thought, in terms of— listened to, is indisputable. final thought, in terms of the -

listened to, is indisputable. final thought, in terms of the damage to the bbc, your assessment of that and the bbc, your assessment of that and the position that tim davie was asked about not naming this individual, is it sustainable? it’s individual, is it sustainable? it's ve individual, is it sustainable? it�*s very difficult because the bbc has to be fair to the employee and there is a law about reasonable privacy which is presumably the law which the sun is also going bye—bye not naming this person. —— the son is also going by, by not naming this person. 0ur also going by, by not naming this person. our privacy and defamation laws are a mess, they are too difficult to understand. there is evidence that wealthy people are able to buy their way through this with injunctions and so on and then ordinary people pile onto social media and say irrational, judgmental things and social media has a lot to answer for things and social media has a lot to answerfor in this things and social media has a lot to answer for in this case. my personal view is that if the presenter involved were to come clean, if that's the right expression, and talk himself, it would address this

horrible situation and there are people who are under a cloud because whoever they think it is, that's not a nice way to operate. presenters have gone on holiday and said, i better make clear i am on holiday and not suspended. it's not good for them and is not good for the person at the centre of the case because it will be a shadow over them, even if they are never named. lis will be a shadow over them, even if they are never named.— they are never named. lis howell, thank ou they are never named. lis howell, thank you for— they are never named. lis howell, thank you for your _ they are never named. lis howell, thank you for your time. _ they are never named. lis howell, thank you for your time. we - they are never named. lis howell, thank you for your time. we will i thank you for your time. we will have more on that story and more from the nato summit here in the programme in the next little while. don't go away. 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 today, we will continue with some sunshine, but also some heavy showers, because this low pressure is

almost overhead. 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. across central and eastern parts of england. but wherever you are, there is a fairly blustery breeze blowing, and those showers will be potentially heavy and thundery. temperatures are a notch down on yesterday, and we've lost the humidity. still 22 or 23 in the south. it should be fresh 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, we have lost that humidity across england and wales. the wind changes on thursday. it is much more westerly tomorrow for many of us, north—westerly for scotland and northern ireland. it is here we will see the showers packing into the north and west again, heavy and thundery. possibly a few more breaks in the cloud, a bit more sunshine compared with today. 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 oi’ two showers. and it will feel a touch fresher again tomorrow, even further south, where 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 a ridge of 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. it's so—so wagon it out.

claims... this is bbc news. let's turn to lithuania, let's turn to lithuania, where nato leaders are attending where nato leaders are attending a bbc presenter accused of paying for explicit photos put faces new