Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 14:32:27 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 42139484F4DC91D23420FFCB145370E8AA1F85F3061492279EFAB56F8EB9CC93
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