Birdwatch Note Rating
2023-05-20 23:27:37 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL
Rated by Participant: D837569E9182A140D708FA21B0B69D0E0652DABC095B21E2CAA45D6C76BD5828
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