Tim on trial

Let's try a couple of hypotheticals. The Met Police come to the BBC, under the terms of common law police disclosure, to inform them that Huw Edwards has been arrested as part of an investigation into the sharing of child sexual abuse photos. This information is provided in strict confidence, in order to allow the BBC to think what risk mitigation measures might be necessary. 

If Huw Edwards had still been at work, the clearly an option might have been to suspend him, with a form of words that doesn't breach 'strict confidence'.

But Edwards had already been suspended, and wasn't at work. Action to terminate his contract could breach the confidence, and the rationale would be less than transparent. But the accumulation of material even in the BBC's own internal investigation might have allowed a decision that he was in breach of contract by bringing the BBC into disrepute. 

Was there a real option to ask Edwards directly if he was guilty, or intended to plead guilty ? 

One weakness in DG Tim's position - in November, "We knew it was serious, we knew no specifics, apart from the category of the potential offences."  In July, "We were very shocked. No-one knew about the specifics of what we heard over the last few days, which have been deeply disturbing."

The additional specifics seem to be the ages of some of those reported to be featured in the child sexual abuse photographs. What did the BBC's Editor in Chief think kiddy porn is all about ?