Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 14:54:06 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 1B1CB1E274FAC90F3FE6B0066D9F24CBEA09F6B8F554966DD5F291A9F389F072
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