Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 13:56:00 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: C9B3E4BEA64BC7CA6BA94C416D272B5492F823C3AB2A555F591089C461CCF2EC
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