Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 14:32:27 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 4791133744552006A53BECD385D7C0D0D7789A909DC8F50D1BC97C93FDF25EF3
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