Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 11:13:23 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 1BE930A0C2FF24F1249EC87109BD804C28381F5E2A9ADAC8B52772DBACB7C720
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