Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 21:27:01 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: CEF1531C7048EC748FF58650102E6D3C11997072AEC2DA7DBB06BD25367401B3
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