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 am on and will ALWAYS be on Colleen's team purely because I saw her at Manchester Airport and she was an absolute fucking rockstar at keeping the kids and Wayne in order

@user1481840227

*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.

As PP said , Coleen trusted her to follow her account and not betray her. In other words she trusted Rebekah not to let other folk on her account.

It's a sticky situation. Rebekah has to either claim her account didn't do it (difficult when Coleen has proof ) that it wasn't her and was someone else , which goes against your above point ,or claim she was hacked in which case there is no case to answer as Coleen never said it was Rebekah.

Never liked RV since she bullied that guy Ian in the jungle. Her true colours came out so on that basis, guilty as charged.

Did you not read @girasol's post?

I did - and I found it to be poorly written and of minimal substance.

[quote Storyoftonight]@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 )[/quote]
And there you have it: "although we all know what she meant". That's the libel.

@PaperTowels

Nope. Libel has to be a direct claim. This wasn't.

CR has been very clever here.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Did you not read *@girasol*'s post?

I did - and I found it to be poorly written and of minimal substance.

So tell me, if you and everyone else is so sure that you have to state something for it to be libel, not just imply it as @girasol said - why was Sally Bercow found guilty of libel?

@Fatted

Coleen was the one who slandered Vardy, so she has to prove what she said was true.

At the end of the day, the pair of them are both doing very nicely I would imagine out of magazine deals, social media followers and over exposure on the whole load of nonsense.

And you’ve just libelled Coleen! I hope you have a SHL!

[quote Storyoftonight]@PaperTowels

Nope. Libel has to be a direct claim. This wasn't.

CR has been very clever here.[/quote]
No. It. Doesn't.

I know nothing of the law.But its Vardys account and the buck stops with her.

Why didnt she notice all the false "stories" coming from her account.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

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.

She can argue that if she wants to. That doesn't mean that Rebekah deserves the punishment of having millions of people believe she did that if she didn't in fact do it. At the end of the day it should come down to whether Rebekah did it or not, because if she didn't then no one deserves to have their name slandered like that.

It shouldn't come down to whether Colleen chose the correct words to protect herself while still being able to cause maximum damage to another persons reputation.

It would save us all a lot of time if people could Google "libel by implication".

As PP said , Coleen trusted her to follow her account and not betray her. In other words she trusted Rebekah not to let other folk on her account.

And if Colleen really was being careful about not blaming Rebekah specifically herself for the act of selling the stories then she would have used words similar to what you have just said!...but she didn't...she said one person that I trusted to follow me has consistently sold stories

I think it's a quite awful thing to do to shame someone publically like that - especially been they are pregnant.

Rebekah Vardy is not Moll Flanders, and pleading her belly will not save her now.

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.

This was done on Coleen’s private account. She has 2 accounts, her verified public account for fans etc. She also has a private account with a small number of followers, who she had to personally accept. The stories were posted to the private account.

Storyoftonight

I'm thinking she probably did tell others about her little plan. I'm also saying she maybe planted some fake news with mutual friends to see if the info went back to RV and was passed to the press via that route. How do we know she didn't? How does anyone know if this story of gradually removing links to accounts is what actually happened.

I'm just saying that CR thinks that stories about her have been sold by another WAG for years and years. Is this just being almost paranoid? Stories can emanate from hairdressers and people working in the home of somebody famous.

She can argue that if she wants to. That doesn't mean that Rebekah deserves the punishment of having millions of people believe she did that if she didn't in fact do it.

What you, I or anyone else think she ‘deserves’ is irrelevant. It all comes to whether Colleen Rooney’s comments were legally libellous.

I don’t care who wins as long as it doesn’t stop Jamie Vardy scoring goals!

I also don't understand how she can argue that she wasn't accusing Vardy when she said: "clearly show just one person has viewed them" just before the infamous ..... reveal.

I love cases like these, you learn so much about the law. Like the Heard/ Depp one recently; a lot of people I knew were adamant when the hearing ended that Depp must have won and were astounded when we heard the judgement. As is very obvious IANAL and have no specialist knowledge but I do love to read the opinions of those who do and hear the discussions those opinions provoke. It's so interesting.

@unmarkedbythat

I also don't understand how she can argue that she wasn't accusing Vardy when she said: "clearly show just one person has viewed them" just before the infamous ..... reveal.

I love cases like these, you learn so much about the law. Like the Heard/ Depp one recently; a lot of people I knew were adamant when the hearing ended that Depp must have won and were astounded when we heard the judgement. As is very obvious IANAL and have no specialist knowledge but I do love to read the opinions of those who do and hear the discussions those opinions provoke. It's so interesting.

They clearly didn't even understand what the case was. I think somehow people thought it was Heard v Depp, or similar.

Doesn't matter what Heard ever did to Depp. It was for him to prove that the Sun had libelled him.

@Diverseopinions

Storyoftonight

I'm thinking she probably did tell others about her little plan. I'm also saying she maybe planted some fake news with mutual friends to see if the info went back to RV and was passed to the press via that route. How do we know she didn't? How does anyone know if this story of gradually removing links to accounts is what actually happened.

I'm just saying that CR thinks that stories about her have been sold by another WAG for years and years. Is this just being almost paranoid? Stories can emanate from hairdressers and people working in the home of somebody famous.

I see your point

This was done on Coleen’s private account. She has 2 accounts, her verified public account for fans etc. She also has a private account with a small number of followers, who she had to personally accept. The stories were posted to the private account.

That was exactly my point. Someone of Colleen Rooney’s level of prominence, and even Rebekah Vardy’s level of prominence, might reasonably be expected to have ‘@Colleenofficial’ type accounts that cater for a public fan base, and are therefore managed and accessible by members of the owner’s PR team. But the account in question was a personal, private one.

I'm thinking she probably did tell others about her little plan. I'm also saying she maybe planted some fake news with mutual friends to see if the info went back to RV and was passed to the press via that route. How do we know she didn't? How does anyone know if this story of gradually removing links to accounts is what actually happened.

Presumably if a libel case goes as far as the High Court, a judge could insist Instagram provides the relevant records. Colleen Rooney could easily have told mutual friends, but she doesn’t have to prove she didn’t - Rebekah Vardy has to prove she did.

Rebekah Vardy has to prove she did.

No she doesn't! All Vardy has to prove is that she has been libelled. Once (if) that is accepted, the proof shifts to Rooney if she wants to use the "truth" defence.