BBC news anchor Huw Edwards was named by his wife on Wednesday night as the presenter facing allegations over payments for sexually explicit images.
Vicky Flind said her husband is receiving in-patient hospital care after “suffering from serious mental health issues”.
Here the PA news agency looks at what we know and what is expected to happen now.
– How did The Sun report the initial claims?
The Sun newspaper published the first claim last Friday that a then-unnamed BBC presenter paid a young person more than £35,000 for sexually explicit images.
The newspaper wrote in the initial article that it had received the complaints from the mother and stepfather of the young person and that the “messages are alleged to have started in 2020, when the child was 17”.
– What has the young person at the centre of the allegations said?
Following the reports, the young person at the centre of the controversy later said via lawyers, in a letter to the BBC, that nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened with the presenter in question.
The legal representative also said the young person told The Sun on Friday evening before the newspaper published the story that there was “no truth to it”, the BBC reported.
Their mother later told The Sun she stands by the claims and a spokesperson for the newspaper said it is “now for the BBC to properly investigate”.
– What are the additional allegations that have come out?
Separately, BBC News reported on Tuesday that a second person in their early 20s has alleged that they were sent threatening messages by the then-unnamed man.
On The Sun’s front page on Wednesday, the newspaper reported further allegations that a 23-year-old person has claimed the Welsh presenter broke lockdown rules to meet them during the pandemic in February 2021.
The paper also reported an additional claim from another person saying the presenter “started a chat with a teen follower from his Instagram account — using love hearts and kisses in his messages”.
According to The Sun, the individual was 17 when the presenter contacted them “out of the blue”.
On Wednesday, BBC Newsnight reported further new claims from one current and one former BBC worker, who said they had received “inappropriate messages” from Edwards, “some late at night and signed off with kisses”.
Both said there was “a reluctance among junior staff to complain to managers about the conduct of high-profile colleagues in case it adversely affected their careers,” the programme said.
– What did the police find?
Following an assessment into the original claims raised by The Sun last week, the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police said on Wednesday that no criminal offence has been committed by the presenter and neither force would currently be taking any further action in relation to the allegations.
The Met Police added that no specific details or information about further allegations reported in the media have been provided to them.
– What will the BBC be investigating?
Following the statement from Flind, BBC director-general Tim Davie said in a note to staff it is “important” that the work on the internal investigation continues, adding: “I want to be clear that in doing so we will follow due process.”
He added: “This remains a very complex set of circumstances. As we have done throughout, our aim must be to navigate through this with care and consideration, in line with the BBC values.”
Mr Davie also stressed that the corporation’s “immediate concern is our duty of care to all involved”.
The BBC will be investigating the various claims that have been raised with the broadcaster in relation to Edwards’ conduct.
The corporation had previously been asked to pause its investigation until the police force had conducted their assessments.
The broadcaster announced on Sunday that it had suspended Edwards but sources have made it clear to PA that Edwards has not resigned from the BBC.
– Why was Edwards not initially named as the BBC presenter facing allegations?
Media law experts have explained there was a big change to the way the media approached reporting after Sir Cliff Richard won a privacy case against the BBC over its coverage of a 2014 South Yorkshire Police raid on his home in Sunningdale, Berkshire, after he was falsely accused of historical sex offences.
Over the years, several cases including that of Sir Cliff have meant it has become much more difficult for the media to name people before they are charged with a criminal offence for fear of defamation and breaching privacy laws.
Similarly, BBC culture and media editor Katie Razzall has previously said the story is a “series of claims and counter claims” which have yet to be verified, which deterred publishers from initially identifying the BBC presenter.
– What is public interest and media regulation?
The BBC is a public service broadcaster which receives funding from the public through the TV licence fee and so its actions must be held to account.
Edwards is also the BBC’s highest-paid newsreader, with a pay bracket of £435,000–£439,999, putting him fourth on the top 10 list, the corporation’s annual report revealed on Tuesday.
The Sun is regulated by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) which covers most newspapers and magazines.
Within Ipso’s code of practice, there is a privacy clause which says “everyone is entitled to respect for their private and family life, home, physical and mental health, and correspondence including digital communications”.
However, the press regulator says the public interest can be an “exception” to privacy.
Public interest for the press regulator includes detecting or exposing serious impropriety, raising or contributing to a matter of public debate and disclosing a person or organisation’s failure or likely failure to comply with any obligation to which they are subject.
The BBC is regulated by broadcast watchdog Ofcom, which states in its code that programmes should avoid “unwarranted infringement of privacy” and “avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations”.
The broadcasting code also has a public interest clause but it says if it is cited “then the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy”.
