Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 19:08:37 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 1E8ABC065F44655CD1D1815ECBA45FF400EFDFE9B6CC1EC39F2C47C5969AEE0B
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