A former Harrods chief executive has said he was witness to “abhorrent” behaviour from the shop’s late owner Mohamed Al Fayed.
But James McArthur, who was chief executive for what he described as a “most unpleasant 10 months” in 2008, told the BBC he was “not aware” of any sexual abuse.
Five women alleged they were raped by Mr Al Fayed, who died last year at the age of 94, with a number of others alleging sexual misconduct.
“While Fayed’s behaviour was often abhorrent in many ways, and professional relationships with him were largely dysfunctional, I was not aware of any sexual abuse by him – if I had been, I would have taken action,” he said in a written statement.
He said he was not aware of a Metropolitan Police investigation into Mr Al Fayed over the alleged assault of a 15-year-old girl.
“I am absolutely horrified by the details of the allegations bravely brought to light,” he said.
“My heart goes out to Fayed’s victims, and I do hope very much that they will get the justice and closure that they are seeking.”
Harrods has said “there is an ongoing internal review” that includes “looking at whether any current staff were involved in any of the allegations either directly or indirectly.”
This came after a former employee told BBC News that a manager, who still works at the store, failed to investigate after she complained about Mr Al Fayed’s inappropriate behaviour.
Harrods said that its internal review into possible staff involvement is supported by external counsel.
It added: “Harrods Board has established a non-executive committee of the Board to further consider the issues arising from the allegations.
“Harrods is also in direct communication with the Metropolitan Police to ensure we are offering our assistance with any of their relevant inquiries.”
Sources within Harrods have said the business has accepted vicarious liability for the conduct of Mr Al Fayed for the purpose of settling claims of alleged victims brought to its attention since 2023, reaching settlements with the vast majority.
Harrods added on Monday that its “settlement process was designed in consultation with independent external counsel and experts in personal injury litigation.
“All claims settled to date and moving forwards will be based on the guidance of these external individuals to ensure swift and impartial outcomes for the victims.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article