Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 18:33:05 UTC - HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: ABF995EF0AC5C3746844DE7A27FF93C1175C5C6CD9D93413231BE242A202268D
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