Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 12:45:10 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 98D2A19C71F80B6B37D497B330A1755D038D94425F8616B2A916469089EF63E4
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