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

We're referring to seemingly consensual text message correspondence. How is it breaching boundaries when both parties are partaking and seem to have no issue with the nature of the messages. There is nothing illegal with it. In fact they are legally entitled to meet and have sex if they wanted. You might deem it creepy but they each have their own sexual preferences which they are (legally) entitled to pursue.

Ah but you are making an assumption that the pics were sent when the person was 17. There was contact with the person when 17 and there were explicit pics and there were money transfers.

That was the assumption trap The Sun set.

But did they actually state pics at 17... that might be the fine line they didnt cross.

Absolutely no idea same goes for that rag the daily mail

When combined with comments that the presenter could face a lengthy jail sentence I think the implication was clear.

Yes thats what I was trying to convey- implied / suggested but not explicitly stated.

Im referring to the totality of the messages. Not just to the 17yo.

Bizarre that you dont engage with the entirely relevant points re inappropriate conduct to junior colleagues

But even wrt to that specific party - the 17 year old who received the messages seemed to consider that they transgressed boundaries. They did seem to have an issue with the nature of the messages.

So your remark is false and also demonstrates that you dont seem to grasp something doesnt have to be illegal to be inappropriate, unwelcome, or make the other party uncomfortable wrt boundaries.

You’re accusing his wife of sticking by him for his money? How sick is that considering she’s a mother to their children and he’s currently receiving mental health care and nothing so far has been proven against him- you’re sick.

No, we were referring to the screenshot of messages posted by Strazda which you know well. Messages with other BBC staff haven't been posted so it's not possible to comment on them. How exactly did the 17 year old indicate a boundary was crossed? You are reading way too much into innocuous messages.

See you next Tuesday.

You stated that the 17 year old 'seem to have an issue with the nature of the messages' - how so?

5 years later they consider it creepy but not at the time. It was their choice to engage with an older person and there is nothing illegal in it. Some young people are that way inclined. If the messages of junior BBC staff are similarly innocuous then this is being blown completely out of proportion.

Something is creepy and unwanted from one person but the same behaviour is welcome from another person - entirely based on who you are attracted to.

His message to a staff member could have been something as straightforward as - I like your tie, where did you get it? - or it could be something far more sexualised. We can only go on what we have seen and so far it is innocuous.

If something is not acceptable in society it is usually made illegal - such as revenge porn, hitting children, discrimination based on gender or race etc. You are assuming your moral compass reflects that of society as a whole but it doesn't - with the result that you're shouting out about things that are entirely legal, perhaps not acceptable to you and many others but acceptable to society as a whole

it was it was well documented that this person had mental health challenges so saying this was a get out of jail answer, it’s just not true.

I did think that this could be someone close to the edge and everybody should just back off and let due process happen.

The Sun have an agenda which is to get the BBC.