Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 14:54:06 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 7509C52DCB01C256ACF24EC829AD85DAEC8AA6284FB33E6A084FCC55B42367FE
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