IMPORTANT NOTE: You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
So The Sun will probably show (or even publish - with face blurred) photos of a slightly naked TV person as PROOOOOF! But it's NOT proof. We are all allowed to take, make or distribute photos of ourselves or others to consenting adults, as long as they are not pornographic. I even - every now and then - post pics of me in swimming trunks on this site, rather as The Sun and others used to publish photos of young ladies with bare breasts. Lawyers will tell The Sun editors whether they have a case or may get sued (they often get it wrong - as with me and the Pet Shop Boys decades ago). If The Sun DOES publish more - or already has done - they must and will face the consequences, as sister paper NOTW did over Millie Dowler.
The Sun should put up or shut up. So far they seem to have failed to publish any evidence for the claims: that a BBC presenter was in touch with the young person, or that explicit photos were shared, or that the law was broken or that money changed hands. It's all hearsay. If the BBC has as little evidence, what are they supposed to investigate?
As for the photo doing the rounds, where has it come from and why has it appeared only now? It could be a mock-up.
I watched this video recently about an Australian airline stewardess who had had a male celebrity on one of her flights and then spent several years communicating with what she thought was him, including via video chats. It turned out to be a female "catfish" using AI and online photos to dupe and stalk her.