TV weatherman Fred Talbot on child sex charges.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25917895

'TV weather presenter Fred Talbot has been charged with the sexual abuse of schoolchildren between 1968 and 1983.

The former teacher is accused of nine offences of indecent assault and one serious sexual assault against a total of five complainants, Greater Manchester Police said.

Four of the alleged victims attended Altrincham Grammar School for Boys and one was at a Newcastle school.

Mr Talbot, 64, is due to appear before Manchester magistrates next month.

Six counts of indecent assault relate to one alleged victim at a school in Newcastle, police said.
'Public interest'

The other offences relate to four alleged victims from Altrincham Grammar School for Boys.

Nazir Afzal, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "We have carefully considered all the evidence gathered by Greater Manchester Police in relation to allegations from five complainants that Fred Talbot sexually assaulted them between the 1960s and 1980s.

"Having completed our review, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest for Mr Talbot to be charged with 10 sexual offences relating to five complainants, three of whom were under 16 years of age at the time."

Mr Talbot, of Bowdon, is best known for his work on the ITV programme This Morning in the late 80s and 90s when it was hosted by Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan.

He was also the weatherman on ITV's Granada Reports but has not appeared on the show since the claims emerged last year.'

Yet again I have to ask - WHY THE DELAY IN REPORTING ?

Is it just now fashionable to have been "abused" ?
Is it purely the compo element ?

There can be NO VALID REASON why someone should delay making a complaint UNLESS the whole purpose was to wait until any possible forensic evidence had disappeared !

Did he actually slip in the water when did the weather ?

In The Know wrote:
Is it just now fashionable to have been "abused" ?

I've wondered that myself, I know quite a few people that have lied about it and their motives didn't appear to be financial.

If you'd really been abused, with the exception in *some* cases of kids being abused by a close family member or friend, you'd report it either straight away or at least within a reasonable time period, i.e not wait 25 years.

But yes people do lie about this, usually for attention, sympathy or revenge imo...

You'll all be delighted to hear that, out there in Cuckooland, the BBC are to blame once again
twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/427861187670188032

Anon wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Is it just now fashionable to have been "abused" ?

I've wondered that myself, I know quite a few people that have lied about it and their motives didn't appear to be financial.

If you'd really been abused, with the exception in *some* cases of kids being abused by a close family member or friend, you'd report it either straight away or at least within a reasonable time period, i.e not wait 25 years.

But yes people do lie about this, usually for attention, sympathy or revenge imo...


So they can be a heroic "survivor" I suppose?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
So they can be a heroic "survivor" I suppose?

That seems about right with the people I know. Also perhaps these days it seems like the only hardship recognised or that your even allowed to be upset about is *SEXUAL* abuse. Perhaps they feel pressured into telling people that instead of what's really bothering them because they feel that it's almost the only problem/trauma that people will recognise/understand...

Yes I met many hardened inmates in prison who had never had any sympathy or kindness from anyone (often because they were murderers, muggers, child rapists or drug dealers) until they "remembered" being sexually abused (usually by a long dead relative) as children. Suddenly the coffee, biscuits and sympathy was wheeled out, in bone china cups.

JK2006 wrote:
Yes I met many hardened inmates in prison who had never had any sympathy or kindness from anyone (often because they were murderers, muggers, child rapists or drug dealers) until they "remembered" being sexually abused (usually by a long dead relative) as children. Suddenly the coffee, biscuits and sympathy was wheeled out, in bone china cups.

Good point, I can well believe it...

This abuse was supposed to be whilst he was a school teacher, but it dates back to 1968 when he was only 18, so he could hardly have been a teacher then. Probably some consensual gay sex between schoolboys, which 46 years later has turned into abuse.

18 age of consent is 16, he is a right hebephile - not.

Dennis Waterman lost his virginity to a teacher he was proud of himself and which male wouldn't be ?

Andy wrote:
This abuse was supposed to be whilst he was a school teacher, but it dates back to 1968 when he was only 18, so he could hardly have been a teacher then. Probably some consensual gay sex between schoolboys, which 46 years later has turned into abuse.

It seems a bit much 46 years on if he was only 18 himself, the boy was only a few years younger and he wasn't literally forced...