BBC Scandal - Huw Edwards formally suspended over payment of explicit images of teenager Read OP*

That's not correct - 'the Metropolitan police have asked the BBC to pause its inquiries into a suspended male presenter while specialist officers decide if there is any justification for a criminal investigation.' - not because of new allegations.

Are you referring to the new allegations where someone threatened to expose him and the presenter issued his own threats in response?

I'm going to ignore you after this since you're deliberately avoiding the point.

You don't seem to get that someone can do something absolutely horrible and despicable and yet still be within the law. Legal does not equal moral. That's the point.

And if a presenter does something that's particularly immoral, particularly horrible, that involves taking advantage of someone who's addicted, then yes, the public have a right to know. Even if it's not illegal.

The reasons why the public have a right to know are twofold.

Firstly the presenter could be in a position of trust. If we are to trust the person, they should be trustworthy.

Secondly, they are employed by the BBC which is a state institution.

And that's ignoring the other accusations that were made. Sure, they could be made up. They could be doing it for money. But It could also be the start of another Saville/Weinstein/harris type saga.

Which is why I said it needs to be investigated. And if, and only if, it's determined that it's something the public should know about, should we be told. But by ignoring this we could be ignoring a serial predator. So it's something the BBC/Police should take incredibly seriously.

But as I said, it could be as innocent as paying someone on an only fans. So I'm withholding judgement until the investigations are complete and we know more.

This is an entirely bad faith argument.

(1) You posted this: "While specialist officers decide if there is any justification for a criminal investigation."

(2) And this: "There's no reason to consider it illegal based on the information available."

(3) And this: "3 cases of behaviour that is legal save for a COVID breach."

You posted (1) and yet have not withdrawn (2) and (3).

Your posts cannot be reconciled.

Okay, I can't help you then. They are entirely consistent and imply the special investigators will establish there's no criminal wrongdoing for the same reasons I have.

I doubt the presenter gave money to the son specifically for drugs either.

BBC made a number of attempts to contact the complainant but were unable to make contact and, presumably, the complainant didn't follow-up.

It seems there is a fourth person:

'The presenter is now facing a range of new accusations from three other young people he is alleged to have met on dating sites, including a claim from one person that the BBC man broke Covid lockdown rules to meet up with them, and others that he sent threatening or “creepy” messages.'

Again, where's the illegality?

Was it done through Only Fans?

The presenter's career is over, whether they will out themselves with a "mental health" statement public apology of asking for nude pictures to 4 males

In regard to criminal proceedings it will depend on what the police investigation will find, if any of them minors etc.,

As many other presenters are being labeled and branded, I think they should out themselves, tell their story

He's a presenter who has been taken off the air. He is - de facto - identified.

Theres talk of money changing hands though and Mr BBC maybe thinking they were 'entitled' to something because of it and being heavy handed about it. It seems a bit more than just the ups and downs of online hookups.

Its all a bit seedy and grubby. As I posted earlier on thread how did someone famous think they could be this indiscreet and not run into chancers who sense money either in blackmail or selling the story.

In the old days a Rumpole of the Bailey would steer Mr X through the blackmail case and he would be 'retired' for health reasons on a cushy pension and told to cop on and be more discreet.

I agree, but juvenile at the time won't even entertain Police, he has a drug habit now, parents probably jealous of the cash he received as previously read they don't have much of a relationship and to go to the Sun of all places🤔 As for everyone else coming forward do you not have to be over 18 to go on dating apps or like Facebook when teenagers put in fake DOB's to get access years ago.?

Huw Edwards named by the BBC and he has resigned.