The one last year did not involve a teenager. The person concerned is an adult. It was the mother who complained about her “child”, thus enabling the Sun to present it as though Edwards was involved with someone under age.

The police have investigated and found no criminal activity. At worst what exists is careless behaviour that is inappropriate for someone in his position.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The way the requirements are presently structured it does appear possible to legally avoid paying for a TV licence.

The real question then is not whether you can do this, but whether is it wise that it can?

For people like me who believe the BBC to be one of our greatest assets which should be paid for by everyone, whether they use it or not, the answer is an unequivocal no.

Ensuring that its funding is kept separate from taxation and the subsequent control that would give to the government of the day, is an imperative.

On top of that how do we know that individuals who are claiming not to watch live TV or the iPlayer are keeping their word? I am sure some are totally honourable whilst others are just avoiding paying because they can. Maybe in time all TVs will be supersmart and send an alert whenever an unlicensed location connects to a live broadcast or the iPlayer.

With the numbers not paying growing this is going to have to change. Bullets need to be bitten and hard choices made.

As turning the BBC into just another commercial broadcaster, with all the pressures that brings, would be to destroy something incredibly valuable I think a new model must be found. One that everyone pays and none can avoid.

My own preference is a broadband levy, collected by ISPs. Others have suggested a Council Tax levy which gives a degree of progressiveness to the charge.

It would not be popular with those for whom the BBC is nothing more than a broadcaster who they believe is biased against them but that’s inevitable.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

How do you know what the money was for? Has either of the two parties involved confirmed anything? Or has the Sun made innuendos based on allegations made by the mother? Is that sum verified or just pulled out of a report?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Sure. Maybe he's incredibly philanthropic. Just picks random names and sends them £1000 a month. Could happen.

You need to be better informed and read the timeline on the BBC website at least.

It certainly wasn’t random. My understanding is that he had met the guy at some kind of treatment clinic, but that’s from memory so may not be accurate. It’s perfectly possible he befriended him and decided to help him in some way. I don’t know, but nor does anyone else.

What causes me more doubt than others seem to have is the loyal response of his wife. Wives tend not to support predatory deviants.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.