Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 14:02:58 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 7C14239EE11709B21307580A36EBEB3B167232D573D8BF01CBFCDC9A66271D50
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