Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 17:38:20 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: F00077A26F60BB6B954F31ED885442D5FBE442EAE4AE896AAE966A72547B76FF
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