Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 18:45:02 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 8DA9658F7AC013B334E1B3B7674A875546D9E30C539C38DDB1039349F60EE18A
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