Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 14:20:28 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 3E39A74C132590E18DC08C3C871AA3AB05600424883F74396EA39F1C8F720230
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