Draft talk:Berkhamsted child rape network

Proposed rewrite
I've had look at the proposed rewrite at Talk:Berkhamsted child rape network/Temp, and I'm afraid it still contains many phrases copied (for no good reason) from the sources – please see here. These might perhaps not be enough to trigger an alarm in a new article, but in this case they are simply the remnants of the earlier copying of non-free content, and so need to be removed. Will you deal with that or do you want me to? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Justlettersandnumbers, please identify exactly which phrases you believe are in the article "for no good reason" in the table below. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Reason this page was made a draft
This page was blanked out as a copyright violation and changed to a draft largely because it had names of criminal offences, prison sentences and quotes by judges and investigators which exactly matched text in some of its referenced sources. These matches triggered a copyright violation alert.

I have improved the copyvio score mainly by removing most names of criminal offences. However, I was told the page continues to be considered ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia for copyright reasons. The phrases still considered a copyright violation are in the table below:

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)