The BBC certainly seem to be dragging their heels and reports that they had not suspended the individual immediately upon starting their investigation once they were made aware of the more serious allegations seems strange at best. Normal protocol with any serious allegation is to suspend that employee to allow the investigation to continue without fear of interference. Suspension is normally taken unless there is not perceived to be a threat to either the individual concerned or others or to the investigation.

Of course, any suspension will lead to speculation about that employee and this is where it can get tricky as it is entirely possible that serious accusations can be made against people who later turn out to be innocent and the ripple effect of these allegations can ruin lives. Hence the need for defamation cases (which the BBC is obviously also mindful of). Having said that, in my own experience as a union rep I can say that exceptionally few investigations go ahead without evidence to support it beyond hearsay but the tenet of UK law of being "innocent until proven guilty" is surely an important one. We will find out soon enough.