Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 21:27:01 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 3292B08F942D18B978AFA4AAE4BBC5D3351152C35A5653406955E1B940E3B2EC
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