To think Colleen Rooney

[Smidgexxx]

Shouldn't put things online that are so private to her? None of us should?
I just think the money wasted on this court case with Rebekah vardy.

I know we all have our own opinions. I found the way Colleen dealt with it wrong personally. Rebekah was 7 months pregnant and she wasn't just causing stress to Rebekah but to her children too. She went all public about it and aired her dirty laundry in public whilst being angry about her own privacy.

I just saw an update and one of the things she said was Rebekah was sitting behind her at the 2016 euros to be seen even though it was someone else's seat. What a petty thing to say.

The whole thing is just ridiculous.

I find the argument of Colleen's account being 'private' tough to agree with. If you want something to be private then keep it to yourself. If you are sharing it with others, its not really private anymore?! How many people follow this so called 'private' account?! If Colleen and Rebecca were never particularly great friends, why was she allowed access to this 'private' account - particularly when Colleen seemingly already had concerns about her?

If I was Rebeka and had not done this, I'd want to clear my name too. Its not like either are short of money so the court case won't matter to them in that regard.

Neither of them are my cup of tea though. It seems to cost a lot to behave so cheaply

Can you imagine having to live like this? Not being able to talk to or trust your friends in case the details end up in the tabloids. I honestly don't know why these women socialise together if they don't actually like, trust or respect each other.

Re cheating husband's - I can see how a woman might decide to stay with a rich husband if she has children whose financial future she wants to protect. Get divorced and you lose control of where that money goes. Rich men, (even ugly ones with dubious sexual tastes) aren't single for long. Staying can be a pragmatic decision to ensure some new woman doesn't come along and take what belongs to your children.

I find the argument of Colleen's account being 'private' tough to agree with

If you use social media as a regular person it is also with the expectation that your friends won't share personal things. You'd be rightly upset iff they did. Vardy knew it wasn't for public consumption because she knew that Roney gas public social media that anyone can see, and a second much smaller account (someone mentioned 39?) with only actual friends seeing it. I'm assuming that lots of these types of account exist. The "blue tick" ones run by your social media manager and a private one for family and friends like the rest of us.

There are always outraged threads here when, say, a Mol shared à photo on her fb that was originally shared only on a family WhatsApp. And people generally side with the poster, not the MIL.
This is the same, no ?

@brefugee - I disagree, if I post something on social media its not private any longer, the photos are owned by the social media company and can be screenshotted by any person on my page. I am neither famous nor very interesting but all of my pages are private and i still watch what i post eg. I don't post anything which I would consider controversial on my page and all my photos are hidden as I have people from work on my page. I have nothing to hide, its mostly just photos of drunken me when I was 18 on uni nights out, but you read in the paper about people getting into trouble at work for all manner of things on social media so why take the risk - and even more so in the public eye. If Colleen is moaning about Rebeka sitting behind her at a football game years ago, they are obviously not friends, so why did rebeka make it into this exclusive insta camp if her motives cannot be trusted?! Look at other famous wags eg. Alex Gerrard who used to be in the paper every day but now seems to have stepped back. I don't remember the last time I saw anything at all written about her. How does she manage it?

If I put something on line in a 'friends' group I would be more than pretty annoyed to find one of the friends was selling the information to the papers. If that is indeed what happened.

I just think if Vardy wins does that mean if anyone says anything about someone else or leaks something can they jsut say wasnt me other people have access to my account

isnt that a dangerous precendent to set

If Colleen is moaning about Rebeka sitting behind her at a football game years ago, they are obviously not friends, so why did rebeka make it into this exclusive insta camp if her motives cannot be trusted?!

Well obviously Rooney didn't know she couldn't be trusted! She said she had been upset to realise someone on her protected account was leaking thr stories.

The thing about Vardy sitting behind her in 2016 was part of Rooney's defence that was thrown out. She brought it up because she's trying to make a case that Vardy must have personally leaked the stories, because she's long had an interest in being active in the press.

I just think if Vardy wins does that mean if anyone says anything about someone else or leaks something can they jsut say wasnt me other people have access to my account

What it means is that people will need to be much more careful about how they handle making such accusations. Rooney may have said "her account" at the end of her announcement, but before that, the post contained references to "an individual" and so on, and it was very clear she did mean Vardy as a person. Now she has to prove it's true, since she said it and a court has ruled that people would have taken it as an accusation against Vardy herself.

In a defamation case, the plaintiff doesn't need to prove it's false. The defendant needs to prove it's true, or use some other defence such as fair comment (which is more common).

I expect most people do believe Vardy is personally responsible, but now it has to be proven to the satisfaction of a court.

There was a libel lawyer on a previous thread who said that if Rooney were her client, she would be advising her to get her cheque book out and just settle. How can she actually prove that Vardy, and not an aide or hacker, passed the stories to the Sun?

Plus legal costs in defamation cases frequently run to much more than any damages.

@DrSbaitso

I expect most people do believe Vardy is personally responsible, but now it has to be proven to the satisfaction of a court.

There was a libel lawyer on a previous thread who said that if Rooney were her client, she would be advising her to get her cheque book out and just settle. How can she actually prove that Vardy, and not an aide or hacker, passed the stories to the Sun?

Plus legal costs in defamation cases frequently run to much more than any damages.

I am quite surprised a libel lawyer said that, unless they don’t understand who is suing who.

Rooney doesn’t have to prove anything, she is the defendant, the burden of proof lies with Vardy who is bringing about the claim.

So it is Vardy that needs to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that Rooney committed libel against her. Rooney does not have to prove that it was Vardy not an aide or hacker, it is Vardy that would need to prove it was an aide or a hacker (or otherwise provide a plausible explanation).

But surely saying the excuse of your account being sabotaged can be used by anybody in trouble for what they post on line is a dangerous road to go down. Because then people are going to get away with it by saying somebody else posted it, their account was hacked and so on. I think Vardy's case is flimsy.

Rooney doesn’t have to prove anything, she is the defendant, the burden of proof lies with Vardy who is bringing about the claim...So it is Vardy that needs to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that Rooney committed libel against her. Rooney does not have to prove that it was Vardy not an aide or hacker, it is Vardy that would need to prove it was an aide or a hacker (or otherwise provide a plausible explanation).

I found the posts, by girasol. I'm not a libel lawyer so I will obviously defer to those who are (as far as we can tell on here, of course). What she said initially was:

"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..."

I'd forgotten the bit about Vardy having to prove anything. I thought that as Rooney made the claim, she had to prove it if she was going to use the "truth" defence.

In a later post, after the court ruled that the post constituted an accusation against Vardy herself, girasol said: "However, the judge agreed with Vardy (and me!) that the meaning of the post was that Vardy was, as a matter of fact, guilty of leaking the stories. So that's what Rooney now has to prove to the court. Vardy just needs to muddy the water enough to undermine Rooney's case that it must have been Vardy who did it...I don't know much about what evidence either side actually has but if I was advising Rooney I'd be telling her to get out her chequebook, and exit sharpish...."

Link to thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4084026-To-think-Rebekah-Vardy-has-no-chance

Perhaps Rooney has more evidence than we realised?

I read yesterday that some of the evidence Vardy wanted removed won't be removed.

@Viviennemary

I read yesterday that some of the evidence Vardy wanted removed won't be removed.

And some of it was shrug I think that's pretty standard at this stage? Experts can confirm.

Yes i was under the impression now that Rooney needs to prove that the accusation is true, to defend herself.

Its already been ruled that Rooney's claim that Vardy leaked info to the sun could be defamatory as it identified Vardy and not "her account"

So Rooney now has to prove that it was true as a defence against the defamation claim.

Separately, Rooney MAY have a claim against Vardy for breaching her privacy but that is not what this case is about - its about Rooney publicly accusing Vardy of leaking information (which makes V looks bad in the eyes of "right thinking members of society")

Frankly? If I were Rooney I'd have done some very careful leaking of my own... Or made up increasingly stupid things for Vardy to leak so she lost credibility.

Saying you don’t like the spelling of a name is being anti Semitic? Well that’s a stretch and quite offensive.

@Dasher789

I find the argument of Colleen's account being 'private' tough to agree with. If you want something to be private then keep it to yourself. If you are sharing it with others, its not really private anymore?! How many people follow this so called 'private' account?! If Colleen and Rebecca were never particularly great friends, why was she allowed access to this 'private' account - particularly when Colleen seemingly already had concerns about her?

If I was Rebeka and had not done this, I'd want to clear my name too. Its not like either are short of money so the court case won't matter to them in that regard.

Neither of them are my cup of tea though. It seems to cost a lot to behave so cheaply

The posts were only visible to Vardy.