Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 11:17:25 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 19CE42D7394A68F0806D644F6E29D7EABD217A781FF2B3B894F2843EAE02952C
Participant Details
Original Note:
The court found: “the Defendant was responsible for the unlawful publication […] which caused serious harm to the Claimant’s reputation, which the Defendant accepts was not true, and which (as she also accepted on appeal) was no longer defensible in the public interest.” https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/cadwalladr-to-pay-million-pound-damages/ https://inforrm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-CA-order.pdf
All Note Details