No need. It's obvious and, I suspect, the result of an autocorrect on the device I was using. The meaning was clear enough though and seems to have been confirmed by the news this evening. I hear several BBC presenters are considering suing a variety of people on Twitter for defamation, so perhaps the caution by the BBC is understandable.

And yet,....a lawyer appointed by a young drug-addict 'victim', warns against naming the alleged culprit and rubbishes the story.

By my thinking, someone is anxious to protect their career and has spent money on a lawyer ,...and perhaps the victim needed some wonga,..and everything goes a lot quieter.
The parents stand by the story,...but let's see if some more money changes hands and the story changes yet again.

The truth will come out eventually. You can't just keep paying off victims.

Maybe there was more to the story but doesn't this seem a lot to pay for some pictures?
And how did these payments take place? A 17 year old paying £35,000 into a bank account would be a bit tricky.

It is supposed to have been over a 3 year period.

So £1000 a month. Must've been cash or there would be an audit trail. Still seems a lot to pay for pictures.

The BBC has stated that the original request was stop the presenter from giving their son money

Then suddenly the complaint became that the money was given due to (illegal) lewd photos. Nearly two months after the first request.

The BBC also said that they could not get hold of the parents or the child to check the facts after the first request.

I guess we can all take a view on this.

It is interesting how much bandwagon jumping has gone on, certain members of the Government may not look too clever if the BBC substantiates its comments. I wonder why any Conservative minister might want to discredit and scare our national independent medium.