Excellent news Carol Cadwalladr has won her libel case.

Journalists and activists who share leaks of official information which could prejudice government policies could face imprisonment under the National Security Bill if they belong to organisations that have been given grants by other countries. That includes grants from UK allies, such as the Swedish Development Agency or US AID.

This is a clear attack on press freedom.

There is still time to stop it but we need to act fast and let MPs know we will not stand for the media being attacked in this way.

Will you please take a moment to email your MP to tell them you want journalism protected? This kind of contact from a constituent can really ram the message home.

do.opendemocracy.net/national-security-bill?fbclid=IwAR3buD8OOLJ7EXjdYSg_lKP0mlL-dXXnUOOpZ2rmkYXq2aurPToMDEQPES8

It is worth reading her own account. It is clear that Banks was the one who dis not tell the truth.

I heard an interview with her on R4 the other day. Apparently the Observer had printed the same story, which did turn out to be unfounded, but unlike CC they were not sued.

As I understood it, what she wrote was in fact untrue, but the judgement was that she’d had sufficient grounds for believing the truth of it, at the time that she wrote it.

While I’m not disputing the judgement, of course I was pleased for her, it does seem a bit odd that a journalist can print ‘facts’ about someone, that turn out not to be facts at all, but it’s allowed as long as they had fair enough grounds for believing them at the time.

As she pointed out in the interview, this will now pass into case law, i.e it will set a precedent.

Read Carole Cadwalladr's own account

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/commentisfree/2022/jun/19/arron-banks-set-out-to-crush-me-in-court-instead-my-quest-for-the-facts-was-vindicated

Joelsnan

Interesting read. Cadwalladr did not contest that she had lied, indeed she issued an apology. This is a dangerous time for truth in Journalism.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

She didn't contest something which she hadn't done.

Joelsnan

Interesting read. Cadwalladr did not contest that she had lied, indeed she issued an apology. This is a dangerous time for truth in Journalism.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

No, she did not issue an apology. What she said has been twisted by Guido Fawkes and some others.

Cadwalladr wrote “It was not my intention to make any such allegation and I accept that such an allegation would be untrue.”

This was not an apology, but a statement that she had no intention of making an allegation which she knew would have been untrue. Banks had accused her of intending to make the allegation.

Isn't it amazing that people can get away with misreporting and that people just accept it without looking any further?

Come on volver, everybody knows lefties are easily brainwashed by Bad People.

I have a question to UG or anybody else who uses this phrase as an insult.

How does one recognise a "leftie"?

Asking for a friend.

HousePlantQueen

Urmstongran, have you read the details of this case? It is quite frightening and Ms Cadwalldr has endured years of stress and seriously worrying threats. This isn't about left and right, it is about a journalists freedom to investigate without being silenced by those with more money. Please don't taint it with silly comments about "like minded lefties" Ms Cadwallader has a well respected career in investigative journalism.

Urmston sometimes it may be good for you to park your prejudice about ‘lefties’. Our Judges are impartial. Unlike the US where they’re selected because of their politics.

This is a dangerous time for truth in Journalism.

The irony. Oh, the irony

The three losers

Interesting read. Cadwalladr did not contest that she had lied, indeed she issued an apology. This is a dangerous time for truth in Journalism.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

Urmstongran, have you read the details of this case? It is quite frightening and Ms Cadwalldr has endured years of stress and seriously worrying threats. This isn't about left and right, it is about a journalists freedom to investigate without being silenced by those with more money. Please don't taint it with silly comments about "like minded lefties" Ms Cadwallader has a well respected career in investigative journalism.

Anyone who hasn't heard her TED talk should listen to it now.

www.ted.com/talks/carole_cadwalladr_facebook_s_role_in_brexit_and_the_threat_to_democracy?language=en

Great result. Carole Cadwalladr is a brilliant investigative journalist and has been fearless in exp?owing the corrupt leave campaign.

I did read that part of it was that Banks's reputation was so bad that nothing Cadwalladr could say would have caused him reputational damage. ??

Hmm. So she "investigated," found no evidence, but libelled him anyway, but because it was to other like-minded lefties, that was ok?

Where do they get these judges from?

Joelsnan

order-order.com/2022/06/13/judge-rules-cadwalladr-claims-of-russian-backing-for-banks-were-defamatory-awards-no-damages/

Its an interesting thing isn't it?

Cadwalladr wins her case, Banks loses his and extreme right wing site Guido Fawkes pretends it was the other way around.

So, no damages awarded to Ms. Cadwalladr?

order-order.com/2022/06/13/judge-rules-cadwalladr-claims-of-russian-backing-for-banks-were-defamatory-awards-no-damages/

I wasn't up on this.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61782578

He has taken to Twitter to say he will appeal. ?

This is excellent news and it will be interesting to see if it is reported on TV news later.

Petera

Failing to look on the bright side, I suspect he might consider his (enormous) legal costs still worthwhile if it deters any other journalist.

Yes I think you are right.

In my view whilst only the rich have access to the libel laws there is no equality before the law. It needs looking at.

Failing to look on the bright side, I suspect he might consider his (enormous) legal costs still worthwhile if it deters any other journalist.