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

Match Of The Day pundit and The One Show presenter Jermaine Jenas was fired from the BBC via Zoom within weeks after two female colleagues complained he had sent them “inappropriate” sex messages. He said he believed he had been made a scapegoat for the BBC’s disastrous handling of the Huw Edwards and Strictly scandals.

Granted, we don’t know everything about what he did, but I have a feeling he might be right.

After all, it was back in May last year that the BBC first received a complaint from the family of a youngster, with Edwards claiming he had given thousands of pounds to a teenager in exchange for explicit photos.

Yet they kept the presenter on his £480,000 salary for almost a year, until he resigned in April. This despite knowing in November that he had been charged by police with downloading images of the most serious form of child sexual abuse. (He pleaded guilty in court last month.)

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

Why was the BBC so slow to act against Edwards? Why has the Strictly investigation still failed to produce findings that either exonerate or convict their star pro Pernice?

And why did the BBC fire Jenas so quickly, when he was actually on the air on TalkSport, with a 20-word statement from director of sport Alex Kay-Jelski saying: ‘Hi everyone, I just wanted to let you know that Jermaine Jenas is no longer working for the BBC. Thank you, Alex.’

Did the Beeb do this to make amends? Was Jenas a sacrificial lamb after the dismal failures with Edwards and Strictly – used as an example to restore his reputation for integrity and due process?

We can’t be sure because we don’t know exactly what happened, but it all smells awful.

Let’s look at Jenas’ alleged misconduct. The BBC took action after two unidentified women reported that he had behaved “inappropriately” by texting them.

Jenas has provided information about only one of the women who filed complaints against him about unwanted texts. To date, we know nothing about the complaints of a second woman – and if they turn out to be worse than receiving an unwanted text, I will hold my hands up and apologize.

What he alleges with regard to the first accuser is that he met her at an alcoholic company event, where she made it clear that she was interested in him and gave him her cell phone number.

He says they then sexted each other “feverishly” for “24 hours.” He claims it ended amicably, although she clearly didn’t think so, otherwise she wouldn’t have reported him to her bosses later and presented all his messages

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

He claims the person he was texting said she was “attracted to me” and that it was “an adult conversation between two consenting adults.”

Even if he overstepped the mark – as the BBC insists – there seem to be double standards here. Why was he sacked so hastily while Huw Edwards, whose crimes are so despicable they don’t even merit comparison, was allowed to stay?

But what if we take Jenas at his word?

Yes, he was a fool to sext a woman when he had been married to former model Ellie, the mother of their three young children, for 13 years. Understandably, she has thrown him out of the marital bed and he is struggling to save the relationship.

Still, the ‘colleague’ who was texting with Jenas must have known what was going on and that she was intruding on another woman’s marriage.

She had 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 even go so far as to say that any woman who allows a married man to sext her for so long can be considered just as bad as he is.

Did she give permission because he was famous, a star with a salary of £190,000 and an unknown income from The One Show?

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

What worries me most about the Jenas affair is that men are once again being portrayed as villains and women as unfortunate victims.

As I know from my time as a single woman and “meeting” men on dating apps, the moment he sends you something that oversteps your boundaries, you have a simple choice. Block him and delete his number and it’s over.

We women are not impotent in these exchanges. I have been in the workplace for over 40 years and, like many others, have had to deal with unwanted attention from men, bosses and colleagues. It is entirely possible to simply say ‘No’.

That simple fact, of course, hasn’t stopped members of the BBC community from saying they are “furious” at Jenas’ attempt to defend himself with his comments about “consenting adults”.

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

What victim-praying, snowflake-like nonsense.

As career women, we all have a choice about whether to engage in something. And if we respond to a “sex texter,” there is always the risk of “sexting” regret. I hope that is not the reason for Jenas’ demonization in this case.

Anyway, we now see a man’s career destroyed, his marriage falling apart, and him being abandoned, while the anonymous alleged victims are portrayed as some sort of modern-day saints.

It just doesn’t feel right.