Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 11:08:15 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: D4717D48E2332EFB95B586A27498BEB416DA5BFD6FDA28FA8FB3B7F1087E4FB0
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