Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 19:08:37 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 9E3BDBF286D82D7BF584D1765A868A53D93B7E1869675EEE4F3560A129130942
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