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?

Shes doing that thing that caught out two faced bitchy friends do when you're a teenager. They think if they massively over react and create a bit of a shit storm people will think 'well if she feels that strongly, she cant have done it'.

I do wonder if Rebekah Vardy - and indeed her lawyers - are simply hoping Colleen will blink first. They think maybe she’ll get scared that she might lose, offer up an out of court settlement without admitting liability, and no one admits they’re blame. Vardy could then donate the settlement to whatever charity she thinks will redeem her in the eyes of the public (my guess would be mental health or premature babies). But Colleen isn’t blinking.

@ClareBlue

Don't you need to have a good repretation to defend to win a libel case, just saying.

In a court situation then hopefully they are professional and don't let any previous personal judgements they have about someone they don't know cloud their decision. I certainly hope a judge wouldn't say nah well I didn't like RV on i'm a celeb and she was a bitch so even if she didn't sell the stories it doesn't matter that this tarnished her reputation further

I hope you don't ever sit on a jury!

For defamation, you need to prove that your reputation has been damaged. So if, for example, it's already established and known that George sells drugs, hits his wife, kicks his dog and pushes pensioners down staircases, he isn't likely to win a case that he also drops litter. Even if it's not true, it doesn't damage his reputation because he's barely got one.

Which is why I wonder how it might affect things if Vardy is shown to be the "Secret Wag" columnist. Even if she didn't sell THESE stories, does it matter if she did sell all those others?

I wonder if CR sought legal advice when she executed the sting. I think she probably sought advice to protect herself from exactly this kind of thing happening, so knows she can face-off RV and not lose because she's worded it to keep her nose clean.

RV doesn't come out of this well, does she?

@PrincessNutNut

For defamation, you need to prove that your reputation has been damaged. So if, for example, it's already established and known that George sells drugs, hits his wife, kicks his dog and pushes pensioners down staircases, he isn't likely to win a case that he also drops litter. Even if it's not true, it doesn't damage his reputation because he's barely got one.

Which is why I wonder how it might affect things if Vardy is shown to be the "Secret Wag" columnist. Even if she didn't sell THESE stories, does it matter if she did sell all those others?

I'm sure that that is why her team have been producing all the tweets or DMS and so on from all of the trolls, and they will be probably able to compare the amount of negative tweets or stories or DMS or so on before compared to after and show how large of an impact it had.

All WAGS would have trolls and hate even if they didn't have any bad reputation for anything except for simply being a WAG......so it would be difficult to prove anything about her previous reputation.

@FudgeBrownie2019

I wonder if CR sought legal advice when she executed the sting. I think she probably sought advice to protect herself from exactly this kind of thing happening, so knows she can face-off RV and not lose because she's worded it to keep her nose clean.

RV doesn't come out of this well, does she?

I really doubt she had legal advice. I don't work in a legal area but even I would have been able to word it better than that to try to keep her nose clean!

Judge has ruled in Vardy's favour. Wonder if they'll settle now?

@JeNeComprendsPas

Judge has ruled in Vardy's favour. Wonder if they'll settle now?

If I was CR I wouldn't settle. Not a chance.

I don't really cate, but my suspicion is it was Rebekah Vardy herself, not a friend or hacker.

• care

I don't think Coleen will settle.

I think she's got some pretty solid proof that it was RV and there's going to be a surprise twist in this story.

Good
No matter who is right or wrong it would be really worrying from the perspective of law if someone could make a blatant accusation like that and get away with it because of their choice of wording which definitely did not leave it open to interpretation about who she was accusing!!

So. Rebekah wins Round 1. Not looking quite so hopeless for her now is it, OP?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coleen-rooney-rebekah-vardy-court-case-twitter-b1759169.html

In his judgement on Friday, Mr Justice Warby ruled that the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Mrs Rooney’s posts was that Mrs Vardy had “regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of Ms Rooney’s personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories”

So now Colleen has until February to decide if she's going to defend it, I guess. As yesterday they both agreed a stay until then,.

I wonder if any of CRs legal team get Popbitch?

If the case does make it to trial, things are likely to get a little messy – and Vardy is going to want to hope that she doesn't get asked too many questions about her prior relationship with the Sun. If they ask her under oath about who it was that kept tipping the paps off to her husband's whereabouts when they would go out on the town together, she might find it hard to convince anyone that her hands are entirely clean...

[quote PaperTowels]So. Rebekah wins Round 1. Not looking quite so hopeless for her now is it, OP?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coleen-rooney-rebekah-vardy-court-case-twitter-b1759169.html[/quote]
This doesn't surprise me. It was only the explosive last line that tried to pin it to the account. Take that away and there are phrases such as "only one person has viewed them" and so on. Even back when the story broke, I remember thinking it was a bit careless and inconsistent.

Still, that obviously narrows down Rooney's potential line of defence. I'm very interested to see how this will pan out. It does look clear at the outset but then the lawyers' job is to break it down...

So. Rebekah wins Round 1. Not looking quite so hopeless for her now is it, OP?

You seem to think I have a personal investment in the outcome. I won’t pretend I like Rebekah Vardy based on what I’ve seen of her in the media, but it isn’t going to affect me one way or the other if she wins or loses.

@JeNeComprendsPas

I wonder if any of CRs legal team get Popbitch?

If the case does make it to trial, things are likely to get a little messy – and Vardy is going to want to hope that she doesn't get asked too many questions about her prior relationship with the Sun. If they ask her under oath about who it was that kept tipping the paps off to her husband's whereabouts when they would go out on the town together, she might find it hard to convince anyone that her hands are entirely clean...

Bloody love PopBitch

I agree, coleen clearly pinned it on vardy but then tried to back track and say it was the account. Which is actually dishonest.

Which means the defence lay in them saying it was the account to blame and they don’t know who sold it. Which would have been accurate and winnable

However if it’s deemed she said vardy did it herself and sold it, which is basically what the judge has said she meant, then I think this becomes a lot harder to win.

I wonder if Colleen will climb down.

Lawyers, is it true that if Rooney makes an out of court offer to Vardy, Vardy refuses and it goes to court, and Rooney loses but the compensation she is ordered is less than or equal to the amount she offered out of court...that Vardy, despite winning the case, would be liable for all costs? Which could well come to more than the compensation? Is that correct?

That happened to Bill Roache when he sued The Sun in the 90s.

Colleen's not daft. She'll have made sure she had proof before going public with it. And she'll probably have taken advice on how to word it.

It was.....Rebekah Vardy's account

Made my week that!

@StillCoughingandLaughing

OhI've read @girasol 's post now and am glad to see "I said her account not her" is not the robust defence claimed!

I really wouldn’t take it as gospel.

Turns out it was

Bloody love PopBitch

I've just signed up for the emails

Whoops, would appear that I'm daft...

@JimmyTheBrave

Colleen's not daft. She'll have made sure she had proof before going public with it. And she'll probably have taken advice on how to word it.

It was.....Rebekah Vardy's account

Made my week that!

Well she needs to ask for her money back then because her supposed legal "advice" has just caused her to lose the first round. The judge has ruled that what she posted was libellous.