Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 11:09:42 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: A8544CE3CE4FCDF2A6F66A4C83095AA2C58977A7568A924CA53C5FEB74654FE4
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