Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-03-02 09:50:38 UTC - HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: C17D71C06F33F0204B945AA2E0542469031599DD1136997C3561BA799D1321B8
Participant Details

Original Note:

The statement that the Bill fell “because of filibustering” is false. A closure motion, which would have enabled a vote to pass second reading, failed because not enough MPs were present in the debate. That is why the Bill fell. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-03-01/division/C607EE37-ACC9-46BC-B0B4-04483D113F5A/ConversionPractices(Prohibition)Bill?outputType=Names

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1763705609998766147
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - C17D71C06F33F0204B945AA2E0542469031599DD1136997C3561BA799D1321B8
  • createdAtMillis - 1709373038507
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 1
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 1
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 1763705609998766147C17D71C06F33F0204B945AA2E0542469031599DD1136997C3561BA799D1321B8