Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 11:50:03 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: C39BBBE50C626A9F15DF90029100C4D9EE95432F4A94B1F3176F2C2D5325863D
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