Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 20:08:49 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 67C60BCBCB9F79AF3C06CC40C7499B6DA4D00691094B375E0C89EA03CD975717
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