Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 18:45:02 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: ED6668127B782DD9A78AA86EA2D3DCEA62830A7FDD6EC7038A6F3FD876C43BDA
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