Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 12:43:21 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 8F182D30AB51A6FCA3392BD50DBB20CDE0F9312CC9B7D90084D58DF95CA19026
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