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?

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Which bit of it is inaccurate, exactly?

Which bit is?

Did you just repeat the question you were asked?

Or did you mean which bit is accurate?

All of it is accurate, if you were inarticulately meaning the latter

Gosh. Words fail me

If only.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Which bit of it is inaccurate, exactly?

Which bit is?

You just repeated the question back to the person who asked it...

What part of @girasol's post was so glaringly inaccurate in your opinion? Seems odd to label it as inaccurate so many times and then not have examples...

I don’t believe any of it is accurate.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

I don’t believe any of it is accurate.

You don't believe any of @girasol's post is accurate? Really? Or you feel a bit silly because people have asked you directly which bits you challenge and you aren't sure what's correct and what isn't?

I thought this was going to be a relatively light hearted thread about a pea brained topic. Tally ho.

Instead it's descended into a derail by an OP seemingly intent on embarrassing herself.

You don't believe any of @girasol's post is accurate? Really?

Yes, really.

@HotSince63

Your story shows with a time stamp how long its been up, and it only stays up for 24 hours.

So if she gets the screenshot at 24 hours, and it only shows RV has viewed it, then yes it proves that only RV viewed it.

If someone did that and then moved the story into the 'highlights' section on instagram then wouldn't everyone be able to view it? The story would still only show the viewers that viewed it when it was up as a story.

OP here is an example of what we mean when we ask for inaccuracy. You said:

Of course it implies Rebekah Vardy was responsible. I believe that was exactly what it was meant to imply. But implication is not fact, especially when it comes to the law

That is inaccurate because of the natural and ordinary meaning of a statement will be interpreted to include any inference and reasonable and ordinary reader would draw from the statement.

In other words implying something can be libellous.

*a reasonable and ordinary reader

Instead it's descended into a derail by an OP seemingly intent on embarrassing herself.

Oh for heaven’s sake. I disagreed with what I feel is a highly spurious post. If you find that ‘embarrassing’, that’s your opinion and nothing more.

@StillCoughingandLaughing

You don't believe any of @girasol's post is accurate? Really?

Yes, really.

Oh dear. Someone has made themselves look quite silly on this thread.

It's... @StillCoughingandLaughing's account.

@ChocBeforeCock

OP here is an example of what we mean when we ask for inaccuracy. You said:

Of course it implies Rebekah Vardy was responsible. I believe that was exactly what it was meant to imply. But implication is not fact, especially when it comes to the law

That is inaccurate because of the natural and ordinary meaning of a statement will be interpreted to include any inference and reasonable and ordinary reader would draw from the statement.

In other words implying something can be libellous.

Yep. There was a case in which a paper printed something along the lines of "he would snort at the idea that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth", with the clear implication that the subject was taking drugs. The subject sued and won.

@youvegottenminuteslynn - You’re coming across as a silly little girl showing off.

@HotSince63
Ignore the earlier question. The highlight section wouldn't show the timestamp at 24 hours!

[quote StillCoughingandLaughing]@youvegottenminuteslynn - You’re coming across as a silly little girl showing off.[/quote]
She really isn't.

Well, we’ll just have to disagree on that, won’t we?

[quote StillCoughingandLaughing]@youvegottenminuteslynn - You’re coming across as a silly little girl showing off.[/quote]
Yes I am definitely the one who looks silly. You crack on!

@mswales

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! The way some of you are responding to her it's as if you think she was showing off. Seems rather oversensitive, it was a really helpful post. *@girasol* could CR not lean on the honest opinion defence as well? If she's indicated she's going to rely on the truth defence then presumably she must have some proof as the honest opinion defence would also be strong surely?

Honest opinion only applies if what you are doing is expressing an opinion. The classic example is a restaurant review (eg "I ate at the Brasserie Blanc and it was the worst food I've ever eaten, it was if it had been cooked in seawater" or whatever. It's not always easy to say what is opinion and what is fact in libel terms, but there's no question that what Rooney wrote was an allegation of fact and no opinion.

And gosh, some people really have got their knickers in a twist on this thread....

Oh I am sad, this thread is not the Wagatha Christie banter I was hoping for....

@StillCoughingandLaughing

Where is the accusation that she leaked the stories?

It was clear as day that she was accusing her.

It's worrying no matter whose side you believe that you think that it's ok that someone could post something like that causing huge damage to another persons reputation and think that it's ok if they cover themselves by using the correct choice of words!

I don’t like either of them very much but if I was Rebecca I would have done everything to prove it wasn’t her and it would be over by now. I think it has dragged on too long.

I think you have to have a good reputation to start with for it to be damaged.

In all seriousness, the question wasn’t about whether it’s okay - it’s about whether Vardy stands a chance in court.

Oh I am sad, this thread is not the Wagatha Christie banter I was hoping for....

Me neither. But getting back on topic, if that