Andrew Norfolk – Journalist of the year

Thought readers would like to see this:

Congratulations for a very well deserved award.

The Press Gazette are also running this:

Andrew Norfolk: Leveson refused to include ‘controversial’ Times child abuse story in good practice section of report

10 thoughts on “Andrew Norfolk – Journalist of the year

  1. “The judge explained that he decided to omit one or two because , and again I quote his words, they were ‘not without controversy’.”

    At first sight this seems extraordinarily perverse, given that Norfolk’s reports represent the finest investigative journalism we have seen for many a long year. But then of course this bewigged buffoon Leveson is a pillar of Britain’s rotten to the core, rapidly decaying Ancien Regime Establishment

    Norfolk’s reports disturb comfy conventional “community cohesion pieties, and we wouldn’t want a
    learned man of law to be disconcerted at his breakfast or in his Chambers; still less to feel any little twinge of guilt that as a member of the ruling “elite” he might share in the collective responsibility for the dreadful suffering and shameful abandonment of the victims and their families.

    Leveson would also doubtless think it inappropriate – that most weasel of words – that the Times should have printed the leaked council files; the brave whistleblower should obviously have followed proper procedures, gone through channels and discussed his or her concerns with Joyce Thacker

    What a rotten mess this country has descended into – one moral of the story is don’t vote for it


  2. The lsection of Leveson that you have linked commences at P439

    Part F – Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press

    I have had a look at the examples of “good practice” Leveson saw fit to cite from the Times and it seems to me that Norfolk’s complaint is well merited indeed

    “The good practice chapter of that report duly featured most of those stories – but not quite all of them.

    “The judge explained that he decided to omit one or two because , and again I quote his words, they were ‘not without controversy’.”


    Leveson’s decision to omit the grooming investigations and yet to include this piece of glorified tittle tattle for example is quite bizarre on the face of it

    “Fox in dock over links with “bogus aide”” (8–15 October 2011). Times reporters revealed that
    Adam Werrity, a defence consultant and friend of Liam Fox, the former Defence Secretary,
    was accompanying Dr Fox on trips around the world despite having no official role at the
    Ministry of Defence. The disclosures led directly to the resignation of Dr Fox.”


    Deep suspicion over Leveson’s motives are entirely justified


    • Re: page numbering. – sorry for your confusion.
      I tend to use the relative page number within the pdf rather than the page number printed on the page. TO me it is the obvious thing to do since searching for a particular printed number within a pdf can take a while compared with simply telling Adobe Acrobat to go to a particular page number.
      I’d originally recorded the page numbers for my own use when creating the extracts for Rothpol that appear here.

      Re: Werrity / Fox – Whilst you may disagree, I could never stand Fox or his neocon attitudes. (just my opinion). So I agree with the Times that it was one of their more worthwhile investigations.

      Re: Leveson – I certainly would like to hear Leveson justify why Andrew Norfolk’s work was excluded. Far far more important than sorting out Liam Fox. .


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.