Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 15:36:36 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: 60036D04280F1CD94B89DCF726BBBB8100FC1E16E099859166178AE5BACE6E0A
Participant Details
Original Note:
Ms Cadwalladr initially claimed that what she had said about Mr Banks, which he said was defamation, was true. It was later proved untrue, which she has admitted but then claimed it was "in the public interest" to have said it anyway. The appeal court disagreed. https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/arron-banks-wins-carole-cadwalladr-libel-appeal/ https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf
All Note Details