Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-21 00:55:34 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: B04413BDD0120D511743ED3DEE6697169F3FBBC74C5AC2487FCC01E5AA4DE838
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