Interesting.

They've released the video of Talbot being questioned by the police.
Watch it here
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fred-talbo...ty-former-tv-5156919

lets wait and see what the inrepid PeeeeeDohFinder has to make of it.

Yes JK it will be interesting to see who jumped on the train without a ticket.

And a shower of new accusations flying in from Scotland. Now there's a surprise.

Do the police normally publish this kind of thing?
twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/566210659399270400

fred talbot interview

A damning police interview. Why would you say no comment to innocuous questions.

Lawyers tell clients ALWAYS to say No Comment, even if the question is "would you like a drink?".
Police twist words.
I think this trial highlights several things - how the media ONLY likes the negative story (he was found NOT GUILTY of 8 of the 10 charges). How juries decide on whether they believe the witness instead of whether the witness believes his or her own evidence (which may still not be true). Unless they truly believe nobody lies or convinces themselves they are speaking the truth ("have you been abducted by aliens?"), there MUST be reasonable doubt without further evidence. You cannot be certain someone is correct in their recollections.

The only thing I know what the guy is guilty off is wearing obscene clothes.

He more or less documented his own crimes in his diary. He said no comment to the question of whether it was his writing in the diary and then said "My writing is terrible", giving the game away.

The bits I saw were the (now) thought crimes rather than actual crimes but what do I know, or understand about the law today.

the claims from the so-called 'rock'n'roller' carried no weight but sort of show that show business now is infected by loonies.
Sad.

I reckon down the track many show biz personalities will be accused. It's part of this bizarre new puritanism and show biz folk will be regarded as not normal.

social workers, teachers, old Tories..all fair game

So I wonder whether the Judge will take into account that 80% of the accusers were lying - or "mistaken" - when sentencing him on the 20% guilty?

Do we think Talbot was innocent? No, none of us heard the evidence. The jury did - for 80% of the claims. My worry, having experienced first hand British "justice", is that Judges tend NOT to explain to jurors that just because they believe an accuser believes his or her story, it does NOT follow that they are accurate and, without other, outside evidence, that should mean "reasonable doubt". Likewise, someone saying "that looks like my writing" is NOT the same as someone saying "I did it". Reasonable doubt.

Likewise celebrity witnesses. Stars with brains avoid the courts (and even media comment) like the plague, unless forced into it (and misquoted).They are well aware that high profile discussion of sex abuse is liable to make groupies come out of the woodwork and make allegations about rock and pop people from 30 years ago. Lots of money in it.

Mark Willy-Twat posted on twitter that another celebrity found guilty, Talbot was a teacher at the time so not a celeb, he was a weather man after so another MWT stupid quote.

20% Guilty and 80% not, sentencing easy, stick a pin in sentencing guidelines on this one.

There is a huge difference between being gay and being a perverted pig with unhealthy interests in schoolboys.

Please ....stop confusing the two on here. You people are doing it every damn day. And it only makes you look like paedo apologists.

I can't see anybody here doing any such thing. It's all in your head.

Den wrote:
There is a huge difference between being gay and being a perverted pig with unhealthy interests in schoolboys.

Please ....stop confusing the two on here. You people are doing it every damn day. And it only makes you look like paedo apologists.

I don't know what being gay has to do with it at all? When was that mentioned?

Den wrote:
There is a huge difference between being gay and being a perverted pig with unhealthy interests in schoolboys.

Please ....stop confusing the two on here. You people are doing it every damn day. And it only makes you look like paedo apologists.

Eh?

I don't see people on here supporting Harriet Harperson, for instance, the very epitome of what you suggest.
I also have never seen anyone here confusing paedophilla with homosexuality.