Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think Rebekah Vardy has no chance?

488 replies

StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 17:39

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?

OP posts:
Viviennemary · 19/11/2020 21:47

Rebekah Vardy is awful. I hope Colleen wins

LouiseBelchersBunnyEars · 19/11/2020 22:01

I think CR will lose this one. I believe it was RV, and I’m totally team Colleen, but there’s a reason that people go out of their way to have libel cases heard in England.
It’s one of the only (I think maybe the only?) place in the world where the burden of proof is in the defendant.
Anywhere else, it would be down to RV to prove she didn’t leak it, but in England it is down to CR to prove she did.

StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:02

But, you know, a screenshot is of a moment in time. Showing that 1 person has viewed the story doesn't mean nobody else did after, does it? I could have screenshotted this thread when it only had one reply. Proves nothing!

Thanks! Screenshots can be doctored, of course...

This isn’t a row on MN. It has gone to the High Court. Instagram is part of one of the biggest companies in the world. They can and will be asked to pull records as evidence.

OP posts:
Nomorepies · 19/11/2020 22:06

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ on the poster's request

StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:11

So bizarre how people got uppity with a libel lawyer coming into the discussion and giving a comprehensive breakdown of the law and how it will play out in this case!

I don’t feel anyone was uppity - and I don’t believe for a minute anyone that inarticulate is a ‘libel lawyer’.

OP posts:
pessimistiquerealistique · 19/11/2020 22:21

Why do people still use the ridiculous childish Team thing? It's just so immature and something you'd expect to hear at the school playground. Team Jennifer Aniston here, Team Angelina, Team Colin, Team Rebekah 🤮

PaperTowels · 19/11/2020 22:24

@StillCoughingandLaughing

So bizarre how people got uppity with a libel lawyer coming into the discussion and giving a comprehensive breakdown of the law and how it will play out in this case!

I don’t feel anyone was uppity - and I don’t believe for a minute anyone that inarticulate is a ‘libel lawyer’.

You just didn't like what she said Grin

Turns out that RV's got more of a chance than you thought she did...

StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:27

It’s got nothing to do with ‘liking’ what another poster said or otherwise. I just don’t believe for a second that she’s a lawyer.

OP posts:
Diverseopinions · 19/11/2020 22:29

I'm pleased we have the law as we do in Britain. There is really no need to go about saying awful things about people. The appropriate authorities can sort something out, it there has been a crime committed - but to go about damaging someone's reputation is aggressive and hateful. Children suffer, as a result; families suffer.

We encourage children not to be unkind; bigging people up and being supportive is what society is about.

PaperTowels · 19/11/2020 22:30

@StillCoughingandLaughing

It’s got nothing to do with ‘liking’ what another poster said or otherwise. I just don’t believe for a second that she’s a lawyer.
Whether or not she's a lawyer, what she posted is accurate.

There's a lot of nonsense talked about libel law, most of it on this thread!

LouiseBelchersBunnyEars · 19/11/2020 22:30

@pessimistiquerealistique

Why do people still use the ridiculous childish Team thing? It's just so immature and something you'd expect to hear at the school playground. Team Jennifer Aniston here, Team Angelina, Team Colin, Team Rebekah 🤮
I know! Because using the emoji equivalent of sticking your fingers down your throat just screams maturity to me! 🤦‍♀️😂😂
Butchyrestingface · 19/11/2020 22:35

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.

I tend to agree. I thought she jumped the gun.

friendlycat · 19/11/2020 22:35

Who bloody cares. Both women are ghastly and would be better served getting on with their lives rather than entering into this ridiculous lawsuit. Especially during these difficult times it makes them both look ridiculously stupid and entitled that this couldn’t have been resolved through mediation instead of wasting court time.

Perhaps they should just have a chat and resolve this non event.

ChocBeforeCock · 19/11/2020 22:37

@StillCoughingandLaughing

It’s got nothing to do with ‘liking’ what another poster said or otherwise. I just don’t believe for a second that she’s a lawyer.
I am a lawyer and have no difficulty believing girasol is a lawyer. Her post was accurate and very helpful IMO.
StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:40

Whether or not she's a lawyer, what she posted is accurate.
?

I am a lawyer and have no difficulty believing girasol is a lawyer. Her post was accurate and very helpful IMO.

Worrying.

OP posts:
PaperTowels · 19/11/2020 22:42

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Whether or not she's a lawyer, what she posted is accurate. ?

I am a lawyer and have no difficulty believing girasol is a lawyer. Her post was accurate and very helpful IMO.

Worrying.

You are quite bizarre.
ChocBeforeCock · 19/11/2020 22:43

Which part of her legal analysis is incorrect @StillCoughingandLaughing?

PaperTowels · 19/11/2020 22:45

@ChocBeforeCock

Which part of her legal analysis is incorrect *@StillCoughingandLaughing*?
Yes, do please tell us!
StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:47

You are quite bizarre.

Because I don’t unquestionably believe that some completely inarticulate poster on an anonymous forum is a lawyer?

OP posts:
CornforthWhite · 19/11/2020 22:48

OP you seem far too invested in this and really quite peculiar in your persecution of posters who disagree with you.
I’m on team @girasol. To give you an idea why - I’m married to a lawyer. He makes plenty of mistakes when typing quickly, in text messages and emails. He’s very intelligent, but human, just like the rest of us Smile

StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:48

Yes, do please tell us!

You really will just believe any old thing, won’t you?

OP posts:
PaperTowels · 19/11/2020 22:50

@girasol

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

Vardy is suing Colleen for libel so the burden of proof rests on Vardy to prove 3 things, that 1) words have been published 2) to third parties (ie not just said to her) and that the words are 3) defamatory of her, which means that they have caused or are likely to cause serious damage to her reputation. She has a slam dunk on all of these points.

Then the burden of proof shifts to Rooney as a defendant to see if she can make out one of the recognised defences to a libel claim. If she can, Rooney wins, if she can't Vardey wins.

Rooney has indicated that she intends to rely on the defence of truth. She has to prove, on the balance of probabilities (so basically more than 50/50) that it was indeed Vardey who was selling the fake insta stories to the press.

In practice, however, it will be as much be Vardey who has to prove that it wasn't her, ie it that her account was hacked and someone else was doing it. Because the strong inference is that the person who accesses and Insta account is the owner of that account. (I had a broadly similar case years ago where a client was falsely accused of a crime and the defendant's defence was they were guilty. We in practice had to put together a case showing that she wasn't guilty of what was alleged because we had to rebut the defendant's case that she was guilty. We won).

Vardey will need to be able to deploy fairly compelling evidence - probably forensic IT evidence (and who knows, she may have it ) that her account was hacked and was being accessed by someone else. If she can do this then she will win because it would mean that Rooney had falsely defamed her, and Rooney will have to pay damages and will be the subject of an injunction banning her from repeating the same or any similar allegations about Vardey.

I'd say the case has a reasonable chance of settling because it's pretty high stakes and whatever evidence Vardey has about the alleged hack she will have to provide to Rooney's team well in advance of any trial.

Any questions?
I will send you my bill.

Because I don’t unquestionably believe that some completely inarticulate poster on an anonymous forum is a lawyer?

Yes, a very inarticulate post from @girasol there Hmm

Which bit of it is inaccurate, exactly?

StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:51

OP you seem far too invested in this and really quite peculiar in your persecution of posters who disagree with you.

‘Persecution’? Get a grip. If I’m ‘far too invested’, then so are 90% of the voters.

I’m married to a lawyer.

I never thought I’d feel sorry for a lawyer. First time for everything.

OP posts:
StillCoughingandLaughing · 19/11/2020 22:53

Which bit of it is inaccurate, exactly?

Which bit is?

OP posts:
CornforthWhite · 19/11/2020 22:55

Gosh. Words fail me Grin