Birdwatch Note Rating
2024-04-22 10:37:56 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 53DFE93AD4B59D26D03EF0E18292CD4EABB5753AE72A50D03AB0A447F61D7847
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