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?

Here is the legal bit:

Truth: it is a complete defence to a claim in libel or slander if the defendant can show that the allegations they have published are substantially true. However, the burden rests on the publisher to prove that they were true, rather than for the claimant to show that they were false.

Vardy (the claimant) doesn't have to prove anything, once it's been accepted she was libelled. At that point, Rooney (the publisher) has to prove Vardy did it (the "truth" defence).

From here:

www.carter-ruck.com/media-law-defamation-libel-and-privacy-lawyers/libel-and-slander-faq

@StillCoughingandLaughing

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.

It won't be irrelevant if Colleens comments are found to be libellous. Then there will be a lot about how much Rebekah deserves in compensation!

All Vardy has to prove is that she has been libelled.

And how will she do that?

I tend to go by what popbitch says, and the lawyer who is representing vardy 👇😜

Ahh back when the news was fun sometimes! Was it really only 2020?! Seems so long ago now..

@StillCoughingandLaughing

All Vardy has to prove is that she has been libelled.

And how will she do that?

Same as how Johnny depp tried to

It won't be irrelevant if Colleens comments are found to be libellous.

Do you see it happening?

Same as how Johnny depp tried to

And failed.

BTW

Colleen is on here

@StillCoughingandLaughing

It won't be irrelevant if Colleens comments are found to be libellous.

Do you see it happening?

Yes!

I think it will play badly for CR that she didn't speak to RV first, privately, before publically exposing what she claims was her former friend's deceit. Judges tend to consider motive and proportionality. Was it really such a big deal that some stories got into the newspapers? For a famous person to accuse someone in that public way is almost unheard of. Go to court, yes, if it's intruding your privacy and wellbeing enough: CR could have done something like that. Tell mutual friends how hurt you are. But to publically humiliate someone when the stories she had been leaked over the years were not personal-private-type stuff. Nobody would tell really personal stuff to 'friends' , inverted commas - actually fellow celebrities who share a few England wives experiences. Real personal family stuff stays within family circles - especially if you're famous and interesting to lots of people.

I think CR was badly- advised when she publicised her little mean-spirited sting. You've got to really, really be sure of your stuff and know your case is watertight, if you're going to play that game.

It has occurred to me that s disgruntled other newspaper tipped CR off as to the leaks. Maybe it was a journalist who schemes up this little sting. I don't know why, exactly, but I struggle to imagine CR perpetrating her sleuthery in absolute secrecy, directed only by her determination to get at the truth.. Hasn't she got bigger fish to fry? Going by the faked up stories, the sort stuff getting to the press about her is tepid, really. These celebs like their publicity, when all is said and done, and fame leads to gaining sponsorship deals, so I find CR's justification for pursuing and essentially trying to ruin RV not at all compelling.

i, for one don't give a shit about so called celebs, it doesn't affect my life in any way.

Colleen very clearly libeled the woman. In no way was she making out it was owing to a glitch with the RV account. A very public attempt at shaming with little thought of the consequences on the person's life. She pointed the finger very publicly at someone not caring how it impacted on that person's family or life. If she really thought it was 'the account' why did she not contact RV in person and sort things out?
Team Vardy. Whether or not she was, she could have been hacked. I suspect the law will agree.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

All Vardy has to prove is that she has been libelled.

And how will she do that?

By saying that she did not leak the stories. The proof then shifts to Colleen, as it shifted to The Sun.

Where is the accusation that she leaked the stories?

I think we should all leave them to it to be honest. We weren't there, we will never know the ins and outs of the situation. Has anyone ever thought that once again, the media are hyping us to slander two women that we don't know?

Remember what happened in February when this happened to Caroline Flack? Try to refrain from commenting unless you want blood on your hands again.

I mean, it's fairly unarguable that Colleen meant to imply that Vardy had leaked the stories. Libel by implication, as I mentioned before.

Then, Colleen has to defend the accusation of libel. And the only one available to her is Truth. So, it is then on Colleen to prove that Vardy leaked the stories, just like it was on The Sun to prove that Depp was a wifebeater.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Where is the accusation that she leaked the stories?

She implied it. Strongly. So strongly that a reasonable person would understand her to have meant that Vardy leaked the stories. That will be Vardy's position.

You only had to be on Twitter that day to see what people understood Rooney to be saying. Or read a few newspaper reports of the spat.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

All Vardy has to prove is that she has been libelled.

And how will she do that?

The hearing today is a preliminary hearing to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used by CR. If the High Court thinks an ordinary and reasonable reader would infer that CR was accusing RV of leaking the stories, then she has proved it. I expect the argument before the High Court at the moment is very similar to the one on this thread, as to whether the words used amounted to an accusation against RV or not.

At this point, the burden shifts to CR to prove truth.

I don’t know either of these women, but on basis of what has been reported CV has no chance.

BTW

Colleen is on here

Hey, Colleen 👋 if you’re reading this, the Flumpet household wishes you nothing but sunshine and rainbows, you total legend!

I thought most of these high-profile people's social media accounts were run by PR assistants?
I think that is what RV said - her account was accessible by other people not because it was hacked but because that is how famous people managed their public image - they use PR companies and the employees of these?

And their own assistants of course

How does this work. This is my imagined dramatisation.
You have an account for your real, real friends ( actually your competitors in the popularity pageant which is fame). You dream up a sting: or perhaps a journalist on a newspaper not-the-sun suggests it: they say - "No! Don't say I told you I'd found it out about R. Make out you've done a sting!"
" A what?"

A month later...

Hey ho! Sting gets done. Slowly. Friends' accounts get deleted one-by-one.
One of the mates says: " Hey Colleen, how come I'm not receiving your news-feed anymore?"
"Oh, I can't tell you. I'm doing it for an important reason. It's to do with someone who's been getting my goat for ages."

"Oh! You mean R?"
" SSH, SSH, SSH. It's about stuff"
"Oh, not those private stories about your hot tub rusting? Is about stories getting into the press again?"
"SSH, SSH!. I'll give you a hint, but leave it! And don't tell the others! Let's just say you'll probably see my news retweeted."

No. I don't buy this sting story. It's crap. It's a smoke screen with a bit of fabricated evidence, and plenty of scope to go wrong and to lead to accidentally telling mates too much about what you're planning.