Any illusions I may have had about greater Press responsibility and self regulation post-Leveson were swiftly dispelled this week.

A former producer of Blue Peter has chosen to publish a book about John Nathan Turner who produced Doctor Who in the 70s and 80s. In the same week as the programme is returning to our screens and the Post Office has issued stamps celebrating the programme’s 50th anniversary he alleges that Turner and his partner (another BBC employee) behaved inappropriately (and possibly illegally) on BBC premises.

The Sun and The Mirror published some of these allegations with pictures – on the front page – of John and myself with the respective headlines ‘Pervs of Doctor Who’ and ‘Doctor Who Sex Scandal’.

Despite the addition in minuscule print, a fraction of the size of the blaring headline in The Mirror, that I was ‘not involved’, the casual observer in a newspaper shop would see only one image of a Doctor Who on which to base their assumption of whom the headline was accusing of being the subject of a scandal.

The Sun’s exclusion of me from the allegations was in paragraph twelve of an article on page six. The front page used the word ‘pervs’ and there were two images above it, mine and that of the producer who was not a publicly recognisable face. What other conclusion would the casual observer arrive at but that I was a ‘perv’?

I have protested and complained to the Press Complaints Commission – an organisation in transition pending any changes as a result of Leveson. I have already been on the receiving end of a shouted ‘Pervert’ from a bunch of youths in the street.

I would dearly like to take these two papers to court to answer publicly for this appalling implied smear but they are very rich and I have four daughters still living at home who to varying degrees partly rely on me financially. They can chuck more money at their lawyers than I dare risk.

Despite the ‘tomorrow’s chip wrapper’ maxim, there will still be people out there years from now who will remember the headline and not the detail unless the truth is blazoned in the same size print as the casual smear.

Why did they use my image? Why not crop me out? The Sun even included a picture inside of me and Jimmy Savile? No prizes for guessing their reason.