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?

I imagine the likelihood of settling out of court is heightened by yesterday's judgement. Whilst not equivocating on the proof/truth of whether RV leaked stories, the judgement suggests RV was wronged, hurt - or wronged until proven otherwise. RV could hold her head up if she settles. I don't think, on balance, the public would read it that RV was getting nervous about a court case and so changing tack and settling in private. I think I remember that her wish was for a public apology. Perhaps RV will view the first round judgement as a sort of vindication of her position and feel less in need of a court case and apology to protect her reputation and popularity from detriment. I think the success of her current TV appearances will reassure her that no lasting damage has been done to her name, and I predict that she will elect to privately settle.

Equally, the OP (and others) clearly don't like RV, this thread was basically started to slag her off and they did that for the first few pages, until it turned out she was in a better position legally than they thought she was. But I don't see you criticising them?!

As I’ve said more than once, I’ve got no axe to grind with Rebekah Vardy. Do I think she comes across particularly well in the media? No - but I’m also well aware the public only really sees what the press wants to present.

You’re the one who seems weirdly invested in both this case and this thread (in particular my posts). Maybe you were hoping I’d be in for a lot of criticism and are now bitter it didn’t happen.

Vardy is probably even underpaid for his level. Gareth Bale is on 600,000 a week. Its insane. I just think of all the tax though.

Interestingly I don’t think this is actually about whether vardy personally did it or not.

It’s about whether Colleen can prove it. Prove on balance it couldn’t have been someone else. And I think that will be very very difficult indeed.

@user1471565182

Vardy is probably even underpaid for his level. Gareth Bale is on 600,000 a week. Its insane. I just think of all the tax though.

I'm sure, with a good accountant, the tax they pay will be very small in comparison to their earnings.

@user1471565182 I don’t think Gareth Bale is a good example. Massively overpaid.

@Bluntness100

Interestingly I don’t think this is actually about whether vardy personally did it or not.

It’s about whether Colleen can prove it. Prove on balance it couldn’t have been someone else. And I think that will be very very difficult indeed.

Exactly. Rooney has boxed herself into a corner - she was very specific about three posts. And if Vardy can say, beyond 50% doubt, that somebody else knew about those posts, then it's game over for Rooney.

If I were Vardy's legal team, I would be arguing that it's possible Rooney leaked those stories herself, to drop Vardy in it with her little "sting"...

If I were Vardy's legal team, I would be arguing that it's possible Rooney leaked those stories herself

Her legal team would keep well away from any such argument unless they have proof. The courts are not keen on people making allegations without any evidence.

The problem for Rooney is that, although she said it was Vardy's account, it is clear from her messages that she was saying Vardy leaked the stories to the Sun. If she had been more careful to say that it was someone with access to Vardy's account, she would be in the clear. However, given what she has said, she now has to prove that either Vardy personally leaked the stories, or they were leaked with her knowledge and consent.

It's almost like at the start of Covid, someone said "But think of the lawyers" and Vardy and Rooney stepped up to the plate.

Interesting the effect that Twitter and the web in general can have on the “what would the average person think” element of a libel case.

Back in the dark ages when the Spectator said “isn’t it shocking that all these totally untrue rumours are circulating about John Major shagging the cook” the lawyers had to go through a whole argument to demonstrate that most readers would think “Aha! Major is definitely shagging the cook but the Spectator are covering their backs”

Nowadays presumably Vardy’s lawyers can produce analysis showing 3 million tweets and blog posts by members of the general public in the 24 hours after CR’s big reveal, of which only 0.13% mention the possibility that someone other than RV was responsible for the leak.

Likewise that guy libelled by by Sally “innocent face” Bercow. The effect of a given libel is suddenly much more easy to evidence.

Whoops, New Statesman not the Spectator.

Personally, I cannot understand the great admiration for Coleen. She is probably one of the worst role models for young women. The lack of backbone and dignity is gobsmacking. She held on to her golden meal ticket, when she was his girlfriend, despite his well-publicised visits to various prostitutes. Ok, so some tried to explain it in the most appalling way, as Rooney sowing his wild oats before settling down. But then, he was busted multiple times with prostitutes after getting married and she clung on to the lifestyle for dear life. That really doesn’t make her someone to admire. That’s pathetic!

Is there great admiration for Colleen? I knew she was a Wag, but I wasn't aware of any huge fan base particularly. Are any of the Wags seen as role models? Anyway, why do women always have to be role models when men are allowed to please themselves?

@SerendipityJane

It's almost like at the start of Covid, someone said "But think of the lawyers" and Vardy and Rooney stepped up to the plate.

So if The Sun protects its source and it wasn’t RV could they say, ‘we’re not saying who it is but we can say it isn’t RV’?

No I dont think theres a massive colleen fan club or anything, especially now that her pet spud is semi retired at derby, she seems to live a fairly subdued life.

Supposedly she sticks around in the marraige due to her hardcore catholicism.

She wouldn't be the first woman to stay with an arsehole because of the lifestyle.

Being pregnant doesn't mean women can't be held to account for their actions!

If I gave my bank details to a friend and that friend stole from me, would the bank give me back my money, or would they think that I was responsible for the information I shared? Are celebrities not accountable for who has access to their personal SM accounts?

Vardy did not come across at all well in the jungle. Imo her reputation hasn't been further damaged by anything Rooney has said.

No vested like or dislike for either woman.

Colleen is not the first person to have said something on social media with passion that she didn't realise the consequences of. Particularly after spending months feeling like she had followed a careful process to identify the 'friend' who was leaking her personal information to the press. Something she was understandably extremely upset about.

But as soon as she met with her lawyers when RV brought her case she will have been advised about the difficulty of winning a libel case. The burden of proof is on her to prove it was RV or her account that was guilty of the leak. As others say she will have to prove no one else knew what she was posting or the fake or real news it included.

I had at first thought that her legal team could call the Sun as a witness to disclose the source of their stories but they may refuse to do so (though I would think that they could be held in contempt for doing so - journalists have been sent to prison for that refusal).

I am feel sure that Colleen's legal team will have advised her from the outset that one option on the table would have been to settle out of court and issue an apology. This is still an option before they come to court for the next phase. I can imagine that will be galling for Colleen but there will be very big financial implications at stake - libel damages can be huge. Even for WAGs.

I don't think a newspaper could convincingly claim that Person A was not the source of the leak without presenting an account of how they did get the information. And they won't do that. Even saying it wasn't Person A and saying nothing else besides would frighten people off from giving them stories. Their stance is always to say nothing at all.

I was in hospital for an induction in 2006 and given a magazine which had an article about and interview with Colleen Rooney; the premise of the article was to promote her as much more than Wayne Rooney's wife. Which of course she is, we are all far, far more than someone's partner! But the only reason she was in the magazine, the reason she has any fame or fortune, is that she is Wayne Rooney's wife, so I found the article irritating and pointless.

WAGs were a bigger deal back then I think. When David Beckham was still an England player and Victoria was chief WAG, they got a lot more attention iirc.

I haven't read the full thread but if someone had access to my account I would still surely be responsible and want to know what was being posted in my name. Particularly gossip about other people. Whether she wrote it or not she is responsible

So if The Sun protects its source and it wasn’t RV could they say, ‘we’re not saying who it is but we can say it isn’t RV’?

They won't want to get into that game. Protecting their sources, in their eyes, means saying nothing at all. If they rule people out as possible sources it may end up revealing the actual source through a process of elimination.

I had at first thought that her legal team could call the Sun as a witness to disclose the source of their stories but they may refuse to do so (though I would think that they could be held in contempt for doing so - journalists have been sent to prison for that refusal).

No, they cannot be held in contempt for doing so. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in 1989 that ordering a journalist to disclose their sources is a breach of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 is enshrined in UK law through the Human Rights Act.

Whether she wrote it or not she is responsible

Possibly, although her responsibility is limited if it was one of her staff leaking the stories without her knowledge. If her account was hacked, she is not responsible at all. But the judge has (correctly in my view) decided that Rooney's messages alleged that Vardy had disclosed her fake stories to the Sun, not just someone with access to Vardy's account. She therefore needs to prove that the Sun got the stories from Vardy or someone acting on her behalf with her knowledge and consent.

@PrincessNutNut given your username I smiled at your comment.

Both sides will say things. If CR brings 'evidence' from other wags that RV is indeed the 'Secret Wag' - I wonder how that will sour the mix. The Sun will deny it and so will RV's team. But I don't think this is going to be about one strand of reasoning.
I think - bearing in mind they have mutual 'friends', RV might try, through her lawyers, to paint a picture of CR telling her friends things. CR might have planted false info with mutual friends to see if it got to the press via RV, and then afterwards decided to do the sting as well. There are those false stories out there and it's maybe not sufficient to say 'I did the sting so it's the only way the information could have reached the ears of others.'