So an allegation was made against him based on a diary entry.
Allegations were also made against others at the same time, based on the same diary entry.
"In 1971 allegations were made by the mother of a 15-year-old girl whose diary apparently contained suggestions that she had been seduced by celebrities including me."
Then the allegation against him was withdrawn by the girl and her mother informed the BBC of this, but the other allegations against the other people were apparently not withdrawn.
Just the one against him.
"I am told that the mother told the BBC, a few weeks after her initial complaint, that her daughter had withdrawn the allegation against me."
He says that he has never seen the diary entry, the BBC has never seen the diary entry, and the recent Dame Janet Review has never seen the diary entry.
"I have never seen the diary and neither has anyone at the BBC or the Dame Janet Review."
The coroner didn't find anything to suggest he was guilty at the time.
The police didn't find any evidence at the time either.
"Nor did a Coroner’s inquest into her death or a subsequent police inquiry."
He has since spoken about this to the Dame Janet enquiry and she found no evidence against him now.
"Dame Janet’s report makes no suggestion that I was guilty 45 years ago of any misconduct whatsoever with this girl."
The BBC have incomplete, vague, and missing records which suggest he was interviewed by two people, but aren't clear about why he was interviewed.
He says it was not about this girl or the allegations she made and later withdrew.
"I have repeatedly told Dame Janet and the BBC I was never interviewed by either man in this context and the BBC records are either very vague or have, conveniently, disappeared."
Dame Janet’s review found no attempt was made by the BBC to interview either Claire or Mrs McAlpine.
It does confirm the DJ was interviewed twice by BBC executives and by an independent barrister.
Dame Janet also said it was “hard to fathom” why the BBC had lost or destroyed call logs from the time.
The BBC say this allegation was the reason why he was interviewed. Surely if they had accurate records, it would be clear why he was interviewed and they would be able to prove it was in relation to this allegation.
And now they have sacked him for disagreeing with their version of events.
"The BBC have made clear that they are not terminating my relationship with them because of any misconduct."
"They are destroying my career and reputation because my version of events does not tally with theirs."
I really don't think it's fair or right to start accusing him of things or calling him names based on this.
More than one allegation was made at the time, only the one against him was withdrawn. There's no other real documentation to back up anything the BBC appear to be claiming, their record keeping is incomplete, and sacking him for disagreeing with their version of events seems unfair in the circumstances.
A very big enquiry has found nothing to suggest he was involved with this girl and her own mother withdrew the allegations against him. I am not surprised that in these circumstances he has made a public statement and intends to take this to court to clear his name.