Thought readers would like to see this:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article4285972.ece
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
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/andrew-norfolk-leveson-refused-include-controversial-times-child-abuse-story-good-practice-section
Rotherham Politics 
and here: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/andrew-norfolk-named-journalist-year-times-and-sunday-times-claim-seven-british-journalism-awards
LikeLike
Julia Bindle should also get credit for breaking this story on CSE
LikeLike
Do you mean Julie Bindel ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Bindel
LikeLike
Obviously Manc meant Julie Bindel ……………………
Mothers of prevention
The Times
September 30, 2007
by Julie Bindel
Schoolgirls in Lancashire and Yorkshire are falling prey to sinister gangs of pimps. Two men have been sent to jail, but the girls’ mothers, not the police, are at the forefront of the crackdown. Why are the authorities so reluctant to get involved?
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/uk-and-europe/2007/10/01/asian-gangs-are-pimping-white-english-girls.php
LikeLike
“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
LikeLike
Whilst it is true that a summary of their content was not included in volume 2 of main report, their content did appear in the submitted and published evidence.
everything reverent can be found in these two published products of the Inquiry:
Click to access 0780_ii.pdf
pages 39/40
and
Click to access Exhibit-RC12-to-Fifth-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Caseby.pdf
page 3 and then
page 128 onward.
LikeLike
Parsonage, my above comment refers to your comment below not the one above .
LikeLike
Parsonage – ignore my immediately previous comment 🙂
LikeLike
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’.”
AN
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.”
P462
Deep suspicion over Leveson’s motives are entirely justified
LikeLike
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. https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/reflections-on-recent-news/
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. .
LikeLike