Agree.
I think in terms of a BBC presenter having a relationship / contact with a 17 year old who says there is no problem - there still remains an issue for the BBC.
As someone says upthread hindsight is a thing and someone may feel they weren't exploited abused when in that relationship or immediately afterwards because well, it's deeply difficult and upsetting to admit that to yourself.
With time you may well see the relationship as not being having had your proper consent. How many threads are there on MN from women who say things like 'oh I gave him mixed messages' or 'i said no but he persisted and eventually I let him' etc etc which do actually met the definition of rape.
I am not remotely suggesting there has been a rape here. There is no evidence of that. The point here is about not necessarily understanding the principles of being under undue influence and pressure to do X, y and z and being conditioned to believe that it was 'your fault' in some way.
So the problem for the BBC then becomes about risk. The risk that in ten years time this person won't come and sue them for Mr Presenter abusing them. The parents say there is an issue. The young person says there isn't. Even if nothing follows through, can the BBC take the risk? They may well establish that Mr Presenter has acted inappropriately and outside their guidelines. Can they risk keeping them if they can demonstrate but not criminality - at this point? There isn't a binary situation here. Someone may over time realise the control someone else had over them that they didn't realise previously.
People in positions of power and responsibility need to understand that they have to behave to higher standards whilst in those roles in part because of that. Standards that may be higher than are expected of the general public.
However I would say that a person in a position of authority who is 60 messaging young people in their teens or twenties would be problematic in many contexts for the general public. It's not something that is exclusive to high profile presenters. It is an expectation for many 'normal' walks of life. It would be even more problematic if that included asking for photos or being abusive. For example teachers or scout leaders couldn't do this. To see someone at the BBC acting in a way below the standards they are expected to uphold is not cool. It raises red flag that people have been taught to identify for good reason to protect. This isn't some sort of 'morality police' on a witch-hunt. It's standard protocol and why organisations have established these rules in the first place. It's effectively 'recognised industry standard safeguarding'. Not a la la measure dreamt up by individuals to burn people at the stake.
It's very much about power dynamics. Age is one aspect of that, occupation is another, position of trust another. Where you have multiples of these the power dynamics accumulating the weight of responsibility grows and in turn the level of expectations of transparent honest and 'good' behaviour rises.
This guy isn't an idiot. He knows all this stuff. And chose to ignore it. He will have been given training to protect himself and to be mindful of the potential impact on others. And he's still sent messages. THAT'S part of the problem. The fact he thought it was ok to do that or he thought he could get away with it. He KNOWS this would leave him exposed.
Above all else, sending the expletive laden abusive messages is his downfall at this point. Cos power.