Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 10:48:47 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: EEB9419C532F8CF69B5738655505FA28854497541D1B98F68241F9ED9F22DC7A
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