Powerful speech by @tom_watson on the tech giants and their duty of care to users of social media. 1/3rd of social media users are children. He talks of the tragic story of Molly Russell “the consequence of industry that chooses to profit from children rather than protect them”
Just as importantly @tom_watson talks about ways of tacking the global monopolies of the digital giants, and even suggesting they should be broken up if ‘in the public interest’
Watson talks of creating a digital public sphere - British Digital Corporation - free from capitalist surveillance and supporting, with charitable status, the journalism devastated by the loss of advertising in traditional publishing
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
McCormick mentions a researcher. Cadwalladr says she obtained them indirectly. The emails were given to Isabel Oakeshott.
McCormick says more than 10,000 emails were exchanged between Oakeshott and the Banks and Wigmore. She says she doesn’t know about the arrange Oakeshott had. Oakeshott told Cadwalladr she ‘wished to put this information into the public domains”
New thread. Now onto the violent Leave EU Airplane tweet targeting Cadwalladr. “It felt like a long time to see my face being hit,” she tells the court. She does not recall Banks making an apology for it. Witness statement below
Another debate about references in the witness statement and Cadwalladr’s citation of @openDemocracy and another article about Banks’ diamond mines. Witness statement below
“There was a wealth of investigative journalist that pointed out the mines were not viable” says Cadwalladr of Banks’ diamond mines. McCormick suggests it would be ‘irresponsible’ to ignore contrary evidence. Getting a bit testy now
Back for the final session today of Banks v Cadwalladr. McCormick is resuming his cross examination of Cadwalladr about Banks contact with the Russian embassy betwee Nov 2016, and November 2017
*Between. Now we’re looking at an article Cadwalladr wrote in the Observer about Electoral Commission’s inquiry in November 2017.
Cadwalladr’s article is about the wash of dirty money into London, and people “financially benefiting” from the Brexit vote. It references a number of people, including Mr Banks and Bad Boys of Brexit and the Oleg character who introduced him into the Embassy
New thread from Banks v Cadwalladr. Banks’ QC is questioning the Observer journalist about this section of her witness statement. Did she join Banks’ call for a judge led inquiry
“I don’t see where you’re going with this, Mr McCormick” says Cadwalladr. “You don’t need to. You need to answer my questions” he retorts.
This is the day the Electoral Commission opened its investigation into the sources of Mr Banks’ wealth and he said he only had one ‘boozy lunch’ with the Russian Embassy (changing from two in her interview with him)
Back after lunch in the case of Banks v Cadwalladr. The Observer Journalist is being cross examined by Banks’ counsel, William McCormick QC — I’ll 🧵from here 🔽
Cadwalladr is being quizzed over an interview with banks in March 2017 about references to his Russian wife, and her embroilment as a peripheral figure in a spy scandal around an MP
McCormick references a discussion about whether Banks spoke Russian. He wouldn’t engage in speaking Russian with her.
Back after a break at Court 13 of the Royal Courts of Justice in the case of Banks v Cadwalladr. William McCormick QC is cross questioning the Observer journalist for Banks
“The subject of Russian influence was obviously on my mind” but Cadwalladr but “there was no suggestion of direct Russian money into Brexit, so it was an odd thing to say. The question was answered without me raising it”
“It was a profile piece, trying to understand why Mr Banks had made statements in favour of Russia… trying to understand Mr Banks and the offshore structure of his companies. It was about opening things up,” she says of the first Banks interview