Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-21 15:15:53 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: FF3DB615EDD0B78C835081B6D2CC031F426BCDBA13E09C1F64C5B1584BD332FB
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