AMANDA PLATELL: Even if Jermaine Jenas did overstep the line, there is something about his sacking that doesn't feel right

  • Reading time:6 min(s) read
Movie channels                     Music channels                     Sport channels

Match Of The Day pundit and The One Show presenter Jermaine Jenas was sacked by the BBC via Zoom within weeks of two female colleagues complaining he had sent them ‘inappropriate’ sex texts. He said he believed he had been made a scapegoat, the fall guy, for the Beeb’s disastrous handling of the Huw Edwards and Strictly scandals.

True, we don’t know everything about what he did, but I have a sneaking feeling he may have a point.

After all, it was back in May last year that the BBC first received a complaint from a young person’s family that Edwards had given thousands of pounds to a teenager in return for explicit photos.

Yet they kept the presenter on his £480,000 salary for almost a year until he resigned in April, even when they knew the previous November that he had been charged by police for downloading images of the most serious category of child sex abuse. (Last month he pleaded guilty in court.)

As for the Strictly scandal, the investigation into charges against celebrity dancer Giovanni Pernice made by actress Amanda Abbington – who claims his training methods were so brutal she ended up suffering from PTSD – has been going on for months now, despite the Beeb promising a conclusion weeks ago.

Jermaine Jenas with his wife, former model Ellie Penfold

Jermaine Jenas with his wife, former model Ellie Penfold

Why were the BBC so slow to act against Edwards? Why has the Strictly investigation still not produced its findings, exonerating or condemning their star pro Pernice?

And why did the BBC sack Jenas in such short order, while he was actually on air on TalkSport, with a 20-word statement from the director of sport Alex Kay-Jelski saying: ‘Hello all, I wanted to let you know that Jermaine Jenas is no longer working for the BBC. Thanks. Alex.’

Did the Beeb do so to make amends? Was Jenas a sacrificial lamb following the dismal failures over Edwards and Strictly – used as an example to restore its reputation for integrity and due process?

We can’t be sure because we don’t know exactly what happened. But it all has a horrible stink to it.

Let’s look at Jenas’s supposed wrongdoing. The BBC acted after reports from two unidentified women that he had allegedly behaved ‘inappropriately’ by texting them.

Jenas has provided information about only one of the women who made complaints against him of unwanted texting. To date we know nothing of a second woman’s complaints – and if they prove to be more heinous than being the recipient of an unwanted text message I will duly hold up my hands and apologise.

What he claims where the first complainant is concerned is that he met her at a boozy work event where she made clear she was interested in him and that she gave him her mobile number.

Huw Edwards, who was kept on his £480,000 salary for almost a year until he resigned in April, even when the BBC knew the previous November that he had been charged by police for downloading images of the most serious category of child sex abuse

Huw Edwards, who was kept on his £480,000 salary for almost a year until he resigned in April, even when the BBC knew the previous November that he had been charged by police for downloading images of the most serious category of child sex abuse

He says they then ‘frantically’ sexted each other ‘for 24 hours’. He claims it ended amicably, although she clearly didn’t think so or she wouldn’t have later reported him to her bosses presenting all of his messages

My problem here is that it takes two to text for 24 hours. But we are still in the dark as to what texts she may have sent him.

He claims that the person he was texting said she ‘had an attraction to me’ and that it was ‘an adult conversation between two consenting adults’.

Read More

STEPHEN GLOVER: Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris, Huw Edwards – the BBC’s untouchable stars

article image

Even if he did overstep the line – as the BBC insists – there seem to be double standards here. Why was he sacked in such haste when Huw Edwards, whose crimes are so vile they don’t even merit comparison, was allowed to stay on?

But what if we take Jenas at his word?

Yes, he was a fool for sexting a woman when he’d been married to former model Ellie, the mother of their three young children, for 13 years. Understandably, she’s kicked him out of the matrimonial bed and he’s struggling to save his relationship.

Yet the ‘colleague’ who indulged in that texting with Jenas must have known the score, and that she was invading another woman’s marriage.

She’d have known he had kids. They worked together. So why didn’t she just refuse to take his texts and not respond to him? Why did she let it go on for 24 hours?

I would go so far as to argue any woman allowing a married man to continue ‘frantically sexting’ for so long could be considered as wrong as he is.

Did she allow it because he was famous, a star with a £190,000 salary and undisclosed income from The One Show?

The point is she didn’t have to do it, and she certainly didn’t have to give him her number in the first place.

Giovanni Pernice with his former Strictly dance partner Amanda Abbington

Giovanni Pernice with his former Strictly dance partner Amanda Abbington

What worries me most in the Jenas affair, though, is that it once again portrays men as villains and women as the hapless victims.

As I know from my time as a single woman and ‘meeting’ men on dating apps, the moment he sends you anything which crosses your boundaries you have a simple choice. Just block him and delete his number and it’s all over.

We women are not impotent in these exchanges. I’ve been in the workplace for more than 40 years and, like so many others, have had to deal with unwanted attention from males, bosses and colleagues. It’s perfectly possible just to say ‘No’.

Of course that simple fact hasn’t stopped members of the BBC sisterhood from saying they are ‘furious’ at Jenas’s bid to defend himself with his talk about ‘consenting adults’.

One of them said: ‘If someone like that messages you, it’s awkward to say no to them or to ask them to stop… there is a certain element of fear that comes to not replying to them.’

What victim-pleading, snowflake nonsense.

As career women, we all have a choice over whether we engage. And if we do respond to a ‘sex texter’, there is always a danger of ‘sexting’ regret. I hope that is not what is driving Jenas’s demonisation in this case.

Whatever, we are now seeing a man’s career cancelled, his marriage in shreds as he’s hung out to dry, while the anonymous alleged victims are portrayed as some kind of modern-day saints.

It simply doesn’t feel right.