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?

@PaperTowels

As *@girasol* pointed out, it doesn't matter what Colleen said in her post. What matter is what a reasonable person would have taken it to mean.

Remember Sally "Innocent face" Bercow? She lost, big time, because what she was implying was clear.

This^

so why have Rooney's lawyers made so much of what the ordinary person would think was implied by her post, if the implication is not relevant?

Because they need to make a case, and this is the best one they have. Rooney has a better one in my view.

I think you misread. This is Rooney's lawyer's argument, not Vardy's.

Even if Vardy could prove that Rooney’s implication was libellous, she would still have to prove that someone other than her personally accessed her personal account.

I think the issue is that CR might have not been as secretive as she paints it. Fake stories, but she may have decided to plant them with a couple of mutual friends of her and RV, to see if they'd get back to RV that way. Even if she told her mates - a couple of close ones - what she was planning with her little sting, then as long as other people knew of these stories, then C can't say it was only one account where they saw the light of day.

Sure you can say, well those friends would know the tales were fake so wouldn't give them to a newspaper, but just the point of them knowing knocks the case CR's been building.

Don't forget CR sacked her team of lawyers, apparently, and it was leaked that they had told her that she didn't have a very strong case

Rooney only has to prove that only one account - Vardy’s account - had access to these stories

No they don't.
Colleen specifically said in her post that one person she trusted to follow her account had sold the stories.

I don't see how Vardy can win this, but from a legal perspective I'm very curious to know what happens.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Even if Vardy could prove that Rooney’s implication was libellous, she would still have to prove that someone other than her personally accessed her personal account.

No, at that point Rooney would have to prove that Vardy leaked the stories because her defence would be that it was the truth.

Did you not read @girasol's post?

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Ok, I actually AM a libel lawyer and while it's entertaining to read people's efforts at guessing the law , the true position is this.

You’re a libel lawyer, yet in the space of a single sentence switch from using the formal nominative form to informal (‘Vardy is suing Colleen’). You also switch to an incorrect spelling of Vardy’s name halfway through your post. Aren’t lawyers meant to understand the importance of attention to detail?

Send me your bill? Two bob and a toffee apple would be extortionate.

I agree.

@girasol Their explanation is poor. Your audience is Mumsnet, not a team of graduate trainees, so you would have done better by explaining when and why the burden of proof switched from Vardy to Rooney. Later, you talk about your client accused of a criminal offence and it would have been more helpful if you had put into context why there was no criminal case at all and making the analogy clear. You could also have exploited the Depp v News Group Newspapers Limited to make your case clearer.

I find in favour of @StillCoughingandLaughing

Your bill will remain unpaid of course.

I hope Colleen wins! Vardy was awful in the jungle, a nasty bully to that radio DJ who had disclosed he had poor mental health.

Even if RV has a case - she cant exactly sue for loss of earnings. She did eff all before the tween and eff all after it.

But @girasol very clearly explained when the burden of proof would shift - when it was accepted that Vardy had been libelled.

It’s all a bit pathetic. I really like Colleen and I don’t usually hear her doing things like this so publicly so based on this I’m inclined to believe Colleen. I do think it’s gone way too far and she should of just cut her friend off

Silence is golden...

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Even if RV has a case - she cant exactly sue for loss of earnings. She did eff all before the tween and eff all after it.

Nowt to do with earnings. It's about reputation.

@user1481840227

For slander to be successful she has to have said it. She didn't.

She said earlier in her statement that someone she trusted to follow her account had sold stories...so she is pointing the finger at someone...and if not Rebekah then who?

She knows it's Rebekah. We know it's Rebekah. However all she has said is that Rebekah's ACCOUNT is selling stories. Therefore leaving it open to her I didn't accuse her defence.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Even if Vardy could prove that Rooney’s implication was libellous, she would still have to prove that someone other than her personally accessed her personal account.

Surely Rebekah would have to prove it wasn't her account that accessed it , for her claim to stand up?

It’s not going to make it to court. They will resolve before their next scheduled court date. Both have too much to lose by it making it to court. That’s my opinion.

It would be funny if CR won by establishing that the statement didn't cause and isn't likely to cause serious harm to RV's reputation because people already thought RV capable of such action and wouldn't think less of her if she did it. Massive own goal for RV in bringing the claim.

I apologise if this is what CR is arguing - I haven't been following too closely, and got the impression she's mainly relying on the defence of truth.

@PaperTowels no she wouldn't. She only said only the account viewed the stories that were leaked. Thats all she has to prove. Doesn't matter it it was Rebekah or her aunt fanny (although we all know what she meant )

I've no doubt that Coleen absolutely believes, and has as much proof as she could get, that Rebekah Vardy's account was the only account to have seen her set-up Instagram stories.

In fact I thought I'd seen a screenshot somewhere (maybe it was on Coleen's instagram) that showed that the only person that had viewed the relevant Instagram stories after 24 hours was Rebekah Vardy's account.

From what I understand, Coleen didn't even tell any family or friends what she was doing, as she even suspected it could be one of them, and this 'sting' has been done carefully over a couple of years.

I'm acquainted through work ( and yeah, why should anyone believe me, I could be anyone) with someone who is in Coleen's circle and I can honestly say from what I can gather they are a tight group, she doesn't give anything away about Coleen, Coleen appears to have built a really loyal and close circle so she's gone about this whole Wagatha Christie thing really carefully, determined not to destroy that but still trying to root out the bad egg.

I think it's a quite awful thing to do to shame someone publically like that - especially been they are pregnant. I think judges often look at degrees of decency and well-intentionedness. I can't think why somebody would want another human being to feel that amount of pain.

I'm sure leaks to the press are not just from other hoity toity footballer's wives who move in these rarified private echelons and circles. I'm sure all kinds of staff and delivery people get to know things about famous people and sell titbits to the red tops. You can never say that there is another wife spilling all the gossip. It's a futile case of CR to try to make.

I wonder if the sting and the reveal was her idea, or if a PR person designed it and put her up to it.

She knows it's Rebekah. We know it's Rebekah.
However all she has said is that Rebekah's ACCOUNT is selling stories. Therefore leaving it open to her I didn't accuse her defence.

No that's incorrect.
She specifically said earlier in her statement that it was a person that she trusted to follow her account that was selling stories.
At the end she said that it was Rebekahs account.

@PyjamaLlamas

I hope Colleen wins! Vardy was awful in the jungle, a nasty bully to that radio DJ who had disclosed he had poor mental health.

Agreed. Jamie Lomas was foul as well..I really felt for Ian .

No they don't. Colleen specifically said in her post that one person she trusted to follow her account had sold the stories.

Then Rooney could argue that she reasonably expected a personal account to be just that - personal. Can Vardy prove that Rooney knew and accepted that this account was one being accessed and managed by assistants, PR managers etc.?

Think about it. How many followers must a WAG at Colleen Rooney’s level have on Instagram? Even if some TOWIE Z-lister turns off her Instagram account, it gets reported in the Mail and similar rags. If Colleen Rooney did it, it would get much more attention. She claims she gradually blocked followers for months until only one account was left. This wouldn’t have happened without some publicity for a public account.

@Diverseopinions

I think it's a quite awful thing to do to shame someone publically like that - especially been they are pregnant. I think judges often look at degrees of decency and well-intentionedness. I can't think why somebody would want another human being to feel that amount of pain.

I'm sure leaks to the press are not just from other hoity toity footballer's wives who move in these rarified private echelons and circles. I'm sure all kinds of staff and delivery people get to know things about famous people and sell titbits to the red tops. You can never say that there is another wife spilling all the gossip. It's a futile case of CR to try to make.

I wonder if the sting and the reveal was her idea, or if a PR person designed it and put her up to it.

Coleen put deliberately made up stories on her account that only Rebekah's account could see. They made it to the paper.

What delivery folk etc do is nothing to do with anyone. She was betrayed by her close friend .

I thin