Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 12:14:29 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 36E661A201EB7594D98BA122881296B1FC787249D916D59908C5F7FA561F4D6F
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