Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 14:02:58 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 936FA24149B0170872A6B3632A90FF87F48C0E0C8A82C1AF3F402DAA9FD6C832
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