To think Rebekah Vardy has no chance?

[StillCoughingandLaughing]

Her case hinges on claiming someone has somehow hacked her account; be that someone she employs or someone who has somehow done it at random. Colleen Rooney very, very deliberately (and now infamously) stated ‘It’s... Rebekah Vardy’s account’.

She’s suing for libel, yet she hasn’t been personally accused. That wording was not an accident. Surely unless she can somehow prove that the fake stories were not accessed via her account, she has no case?

If it is established that she is the ‘secret wag’ in the Sun then her reputation among her peers and most of the public would be in the toilet and no reputation left to defame

How do they establish that though?

How does a case like this progress? Does RV give verbal evidence and could/would she do it under oath?

Seems the Pope is having similar issues!

Well, you are because you clicked on the thread, read about it and posted on here.

How predictable! I just knew someone would think they were being clever by making that “valid point”. What I meant was I have read nothing about their pathetic spat in the red tops nor have I read anything about it on this thread. 🙄

@Janegrey333

Who. cares.

You obviously do or you wouldn't have bothered clicking on a thread about it, reading the thread about it or posting on a thread about it

@Janegrey333

Well, you are because you clicked on the thread, read about it and posted on here.

How predictable! I just knew someone would think they were being clever by making that “valid point”. What I meant was I have read nothing about their pathetic spat in the red tops nor have I read anything about it on this thread. 🙄

But it is a valid point. It's also what everyone thinks when someone opens a thread, clicks in the comment box, types a response about how very much they don't care and hits post. Especially when they do it several times, proving they are reading at least some responses.

Nobody thinks, "What an intelligent and high-minded person, with nobler concerns than us trash addicts! How I wish I could be like her!" They think, "If she's so intelligent and high-minded with such noble concerns, why isn't she smart enough not to waste her time on it, or at least not to let on that she's wasting her time on it?"

Honestly, you don't take any of us down when you do this. We've already demonstrated we have an interest and don't mind people knowing. You just look a bit...daft.

Small additional point, too...this hasn't been reported only in the red tops. It's been on the BBC and in the broadsheets. The nature of the case
throws up some interesting legal questions that some people are curious about.

If you think it's been only in the red tops, you can't have been looking very closely anywhere else. Or do you mean you've been reading about it everywhere except the red tops?

@Dontlickthetrolley

Seems the Pope is having similar issues!

Is this the same liker who runs Michael Gove's twitter and liked a porn post?! They must be very busy running all these SM accounts

@Janegrey333

Who. cares.

Cannot roll my eyes far enough.

Posting that is like going on to a thread asking for kale recipes and posting "I don't like kale!"

I mean really, why bother?

Still struggling to discover what was inaccurate about @girasol's very useful and informative post

If you think it was so useful and informative, bully for you. You enjoy it. I didn’t think it was useful or informative.

Honestly, you don't take any of us down when you do this. We've already demonstrated we have an interest and don't mind people knowing. You just look a bit...daft.

Celebrity culture, aka common behaviour, is not my thing. I’m not sure anybody is trying to “ take you down”. Do you really need help in this respect...?

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Still struggling to discover what was inaccurate about @girasol's very useful and informative post

If you think it was so useful and informative, bully for you. You enjoy it. I didn’t think it was useful or informative.

I'm not a lawyer but I have some knowledge of defamation law and it all looked right to me. The only thing that struck me as a little unusual was the use of the word "truth" for that defence, which I believe is called "justification" in law. It amounts to the same thing; basically, it's not defamation if it's true. Oddly, though, justification isn't the most common defence (it can be very complicated). It's more likely to be "fair comment", which as you can imagine can get a bit blurry.

In this case, it looks as though a lot of it is going to hinge on whether accusing Vardy's account rather than Vardy herself makes a defence; Rooney's post before the dramatic reveal does certainly imply that she's thinking of a particular individual. How likely is it that someone else regularly used Vardy's account? Given the presumably reasonable assumption that it was Vardy herself? I honestly don't know. I certainly can't see how Vardy can get out of this one, but courts and out of court settlements are funny things. I am curious to see how it pans out.

I rather think most of the reporting - at least the blow by blow stuff - has been done by the lesser press. Not sure if the two women have actually come to blows yet but nothing would surprise me!
Money does not buy you class.

@Janegrey333

Honestly, you don't take any of us down when you do this. We've already demonstrated we have an interest and don't mind people knowing. You just look a bit...daft.

Celebrity culture, aka common behaviour, is not my thing. I’m not sure anybody is trying to “ take you down”. Do you really need help in this respect...?

Ah. Well done, you got me and some others. You could probably have sustained it a bit longer if you'd made the character a bit more subtle, this post is a bit too obvious. Name change and try again on another thread.

Argh, pp, please, I have a limited and boring life and am really looking forward to fantastical theories and detailed breakdowns of why three sets of ellipses and a full stop are so very important and people referring to archaic law and quibbling over whether it applies and legal bods doing that thing they do where they make insider jokes totally incomprehensible to non legal people but we all pretend we get it and laugh. Can we have that instead of yet another run of the mill MN squabble? I like a good squabble as much as the next person but every time I see this thread has been updated I think ooooh, and then it just turns out to be posters being fucked off with one another.

I’m not sure. Because for the simple reason that Even if Vardy was the only person to see those made up stories, she could have told someone, and they sold it, the fact she was the only person who saw doesn’t mean she was the one to sell it.

However her defence seems to be she was hacked, although I guess we need to wait and see. But I can’t Imahine she’d be stupid enough to use that if it wasn’t true, she’d be better saying she did see it, and she told x people, who told x people and so on, so any of them could have sold it.

I shall leave you to your philosophical musings.

The only thing that struck me as a little unusual was the use of the word "truth" for that defence, which I believe is called "justification" in law

No, @PrincessNutNu, it's called Truth. Here's a link to the legislation: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/crossheading/defences/enacted

Everything that @girasol wrote was accurate, but that is apparently not going to stop @StillCoughingandLaughing who apparently knows some other law, but can't actually tell us what that is

@Janegrey333

I shall leave you to your philosophical musings.

Actually we are discussing libel law, but that is obviously far below you Byee!

I certainly can't see how Vardy can get out of this one

It’s fundamentally irrelevant who saw it. What’s relevant is who Vardy told. And who that person told and so on

Colleen made an erroneous link. She assumed who saw it sold it. She forgot that who saw it, could have told someone else, who told someone else, who told multiple people, and one of them sold it.

@PaperTowels

The only thing that struck me as a little unusual was the use of the word "truth" for that defence, which I believe is called "justification" in law

No, @PrincessNutNu, it's called Truth. Here's a link to the legislation: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/crossheading/defences/enacted

Everything that @girasol wrote was accurate, but that is apparently not going to stop @StillCoughingandLaughing who apparently knows some other law, but can't actually tell us what that is

Ah, thank you. Like I said, I have some knowledge of the relevant law, but I'm not a lawyer or expert.

I didnt know about this "secret Wag" column, but if it was indeed Vardy, then I wonder if Rooney could argue that even if someone else had used Vardy's account, it still isn't defamation because Vardy obviously DOES sell Wag stories to the press via the column. Again, I don't know. It's just interesting.

@Bluntness100

I certainly can't see how Vardy can get out of this one

It’s fundamentally irrelevant who saw it. What’s relevant is who Vardy told. And who that person told and so on

Colleen made an erroneous link. She assumed who saw it sold it. She forgot that who saw it, could have told someone else, who told someone else, who told multiple people, and one of them sold it.

Were there any images published that would have to have been taken from Rooney's Instagram? That might strengthen the case, although it would also open up a can of copyright worms.

Everything that @girasol wrote was accurate, but that is apparently not going to stop @StillCoughingandLaughing who apparently knows some other law, but can't actually tell us what that is

You’re just acting like an idiot now. I can only say so many times that if YOU think that post was accurate and useful, you crack on. I don’t owe you any explanations.

Images of CR's Instagram Stories were published here ... this is way after it all came out though.

YANBU it's embarrassing that she's pursued this she has so little chance.