In this age of social media, the 24/7 news cycle and, particularly in the UK, a rabid press, trying to not "out" someone who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty is extremely difficult if not impossible. Any entity who tries is immediately pilloried and anyone who is identified before being proven guilty and is eventually found innocent never gets their reputation back or sometimes even their job.

He has been named on some British web sites.  Several on-air personalities have declared themselves as not being involved, and their continued presence on the air confirms that.  One was in Italy taping a show for the Beeb, and another two are doing their regular programs.  By process of elimination, the truth will out.

Unfortunately, the British Tabloids and Social Media don't give a toss for someone's reputation, only the salacious details, true or not. They also know recompense only comes at the end of a successful trial. By that time one who is innocent is already ruined.

I'll keep this somewhat generic for obvious reasons, but a close relative of mine was selected to be on a jury.  I have limited details because they can't discuss the trial, however the case was about a male charged with sexual assault.  My close relative went into the trial with a fairly clear thought that "he must be guilty".  During the trial, not a shred of evidence was presented that would in any way indicate the person charged was guilty.  In fact, there was a suspicion the whole thing was made up by the "victim". The jury found the accused "not guilty". My close relative was relieved and satisfied that they prevented an innocent man's life being totally ruined.  We must all be careful to prejudge.
 

The story, if anything, has become even more shocking, with the revelation of who is being accused. His name is Huw (Hugh) Edwards, and he's no one less than the British version of Walter Cronkite or Lloyd Robertson. He's the anchor of the BBC's 10 PM major newscast, and has fronted all the huge events in Britain for the last 20 years, including the recent death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth. 

Edwards has now checked himself into a hospital, citing mental health issues. 

His family has asked for privacy, but maintains his innocence and it's important to note the police say they have no evidence of criminality in the case.

Needless to say, the revelations have exploded in British media and it's the lead on every newscast and every newspaper, including the BBC, which you can watch live at this link. 

CBC's The National, CTV National News, and Global National ran this story today (short VOs voiced by the anchors). I'm just wondering why this story made it onto their rundowns tonight. It's not like Huw Edwards is a household name here, and he was rarely on BBC World News. 

Resurrecting this old story from a year ago because the guy at the centre of it, Huw Edwards (the Walter Cronkite of British TV news), has pled guilty to possessing child pornography, amid allegations he did a lot more than that.

This is, as I'm sure most can understand, a huge (Huw-ge?) story in the U.K. where the guy who was one of the highest paid anchors in BBC history and both announced and fronted the coverage of the death of Queen Elizabeth, has been convicted of a heinous crime. 

He has yet to be sentenced, but there's already speculation that the public humiliation and his fall from grace may be enough to keep him out of jail. Either way, his immensely successful career is over forever. 

Huw Edwards: How the U.K.'s Top News Anchor Went From BBC Superstardom to Facing Prison

Why on earth are people on this board reacting with shock or dismay about sexual corruption in the BBC?  The headline would be, No presenters found in BBC sex scandle.
I can't begin to enumerate them here, but just Google BBC sex scandals and you'll have at least 20 minutes of reading right there.
It's so bad that when the terrific BBC news panel show "News of the World" was cancelled about a year ago after 14 years on the air the host Dara O'Brien quipped that it was typical of the BBC to not be able to carry on a relationship with anything over the age of 14.


.
 

Yes, that's correct.
and again, a really great show.