[Humour] Wagatha Christie: Rooney v Vardy

[Bozza]

Not followed this in detail, but did Colleen say that it was Vardy in person that leaked the stories, because the only quote I have seen was one where Colleen said "it definitely came from Vardys account". Vardy has said that other people have access to her account and that her agent had leaked at least one story to the Sun, so isn't Colleens claim actually true?

Indeed - she said: “It’s……… Rebekah Vardy’s account.” Full detail in this tweet:

[tweet]1181864136155828224[/tweet]

However, an earlier court ruling pretty much determined that despite using the word "account", Rooney did in fact mean Vardy specifically:

The judge ruled: "I certainly do not think that the ordinary reader would take that single word (account), albeit repeated, to indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was."

He added: "There is nothing in these words, apart from the word 'account', that in any way suggests that the behaviour of which Mrs Rooney is complaining might have been carried out by anyone other than the account holder, Mrs Vardy."​

Source >>> https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/what-happens-next-judge-rules-19317520

 

[chaileyjem]

PS: The BBC have a daily podcast reporting and reflecting on the court case as it plays out.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p0c4ks17

 

[Live by the sea]

Seriously , does anyone really care about this argument between two silly chavtastic women . There’s lots of important stuff happening all over the world , this is not worth any space in the newspapers .

 

[METALMICKY]

What I don't understand is how thick and ill-advised Vardy must be to have taken this to court. Even if she's innocent (and I think she must at least think she is to have gone this far) she surely knew, or someone warned her, that she'd come out of it badly just because of what it'd reveal about her character and life? It looks like at no point did anyone tell her that the only way to come out of it with any dignity at all would be to ignore Rooney's accusation whether she's innocent or not. Not surprised her husband is keeping his distance compared to Rooney.

Absolutely this! And as a previous poster asserted Vardy should have just said ' whatever ' and the world moves on .

Presumably if she does win she will be awarded a monetary figure and even that causes a problem . If she just takes the cash and runs people will just still have her as snide money making gossip . The alternative is that she trots out some line like ' it was only ever about a principle and my reputation' and donates the cash to charity. Not very likely and any reputation pretty much beyond repair after all the court revelations. As mentioned the absence of Jamie at her side speaks volumes .

 

[Audax]

However, an earlier court ruling pretty much determined that despite using the word "account", Rooney did in fact mean Vardy specifically:

The judge ruled: "I certainly do not think that the ordinary reader would take that single word (account), albeit repeated, to indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was."

He added: "There is nothing in these words, apart from the word 'account', that in any way suggests that the behaviour of which Mrs Rooney is complaining might have been carried out by anyone other than the account holder, Mrs Vardy."​

Source >>> https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/what-happens-next-judge-rules-19317520

If I'm being honest (*wink*), I think the judge got that ruling seriously wrong. Vardy owns the account. IMO it doesn't matter if it was someone else who actually did the leaking: Vardy owns that account and should remain responsible for anything that happens through that account if she's handed access to someone else. She has, in effect, "leaked" the information to a third party by handing access to her account. While it may not have been her direct actions that resulted in the information making it to the press, she enabled that to happen.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Seriously , does anyone really care about this argument between two silly chavtastic women . There’s lots of important stuff happening all over the world , this is not worth any space in the newspapers .

I doubt anyone really cares, but I do find it an interesting distraction in my occasional 5 minute work breaks.

 

[nwgull]

Seriously , does anyone really care about this argument between two silly chavtastic women . There’s lots of important stuff happening all over the world , this is not worth any space in the newspapers .

Yes. It's very amusing to follow.

There are far more important things going on in the world than the Premier League this weekend, but we'll all be talking about it on Sunday night and match reports and photos will be splashed all over the back pages on Monday.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Seriously , does anyone really care about this argument between two silly chavtastic women . There’s lots of important stuff happening all over the world , this is not worth any space in the newspapers .

Yes.

I'm not saying I do – because I don't – apart from seeing what the great and the good of NSC make of it – but some people will, clearly.

As for 'lots of important stuff happening all over the world'? That's not really a reason to NOT have any coverage of the trial. We can clearly copy with multiple news stories, regardless of their magnitude. Granted, it does appear overkill, but maybe that's because it's more high profile – or important to people – than you think...

 

[nicko31]

Seriously , does anyone really care about this argument between two silly chavtastic women . There’s lots of important stuff happening all over the world , this is not worth any space in the newspapers .

Sadly a lot of people are obsessed with such trivia, that's why they report it

Two incredibly dull people with nothing to offer...

 

[Bozza]

Absolutely this! And as a previous poster asserted Vardy should have just said ' whatever ' and the world moves on .

Presumably if she does win she will be awarded a monetary figure and even that causes a problem . If she just takes the cash and runs people will just still have her as snide money making gossip . The alternative is that she trots out some line like ' it was only ever about a principle and my reputation' and donates the cash to charity. Not very likely and any reputation pretty much beyond repair after all the court revelations. As mentioned the absence of Jamie at her side speaks volumes .

I think I heard £40k mentioned as a likely amount of damages that could be awarded (I might be wrong). In the context of the people we're talking about, that's all but pocket money.

The requirement to cover the legal expenses of both sides (estimated to be £1.5m+ I believe) is more significant, but clearly that is only required because it did make it to court.

If potential damages are in the ballpark of £40k, money doesn't seem to be the prime motive here, which leads us to down the "clearing my name" path. From what has been covered over the opening days of the trial, it's done anything but clear her name. I didn't know much about Rebekah Vardy before this, but what I now know is all rather unpleastant - she doesn't seem like a nice person at all.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Seriously , does anyone really care about this argument between two silly chavtastic women . There’s lots of important stuff happening all over the world , this is not worth any space in the newspapers .

Yes..

It's bloody hilarious.

 

[Bodian]

If I'm being honest (*wink*), I think the judge got that ruling seriously wrong. Vardy owns the account. IMO it doesn't matter if it was someone else who actually did the leaking: Vardy owns that account and should remain responsible for anything that happens through that account if she's handed access to someone else. She has, in effect, "leaked" the information to a third party by handing access to her account. While it may not have been her direct actions that resulted in the information making it to the press, she enabled that to happen.

I think the judge was right - and what you are saying is also possibly actually what the judge is saying. Rooney said it was from Vardy's account, but implied (and people took it to mean) it was Vardy. The judge by saying that basically Rooney meant Vardy, and that even if it were someone else on Vardy's account - Vardy is the one enabling it. And therefore, even if it is proven that Vardy knew nothing about it and it was someone else using her account - she is responsible.

And therein lies Rooney's potential defence. She may well have said 'Vardy's account'. But to a reasonable person (which is what libel laws are supposedly based around), Vardy's account means Vardy. And therefore, in reverse, Vardy means Vardy's account.

So, if it can be proved whatever it was was from Vardy's account, I don't think it matters if it were Vardy herself or not. There would be an expectation that posts on Vardy's account were from Vardy - therefore Rooney can claim that it was her honest belief that what she claimed was true.

Not sure if I've made myself as clear as it seems in my head though......

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Was watching the news last night and they had a piece on Deborah James and then they followed that with these 2 bints, just about showed them for what they are.

Unfair on Colleeen. It is the other 'bint' who created the court case. Colleen's bit of detection was amusing and perfectly reasonable. Vardy is completely mad to attempt to sue over it, especially using the 'yes, it is all true' ploy to prove that it's false .

 

[rippleman]

If this Court case (and more relevantly the media / social reporting of it), results in young girls going "Ew, I dont want to aspire to become a thick chav like those two slappers", it will have done its job.

Parents of young girls can point to this pair (and the Queen of Chavs Katie Price) as anti role model's. "See them there? That's how NOT to behave and live your life"

I believe some good may come out of this circus after all.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think I heard £40k mentioned as a likely amount of damages that could be awarded (I might be wrong). In the context of the people we're talking about, that's all but pocket money.

The requirement to cover the legal expenses of both sides (estimated to be £1.5m+ I believe) is more significant, but clearly that is only required because it did make it to court.

If potential damages are in the ballpark of £40k, money doesn't seem to be the prime motive here, which leads us to down the "clearing my name" path. From what has been covered over the opening days of the trial, it's done anything but clear her name. I didn't know much about Rebekah Vardy before this, but what I now know is all rather unpleastant - she doesn't seem like a nice person at all.

Given that she wanted paying for reporting that some footballer had crashed his car, the odd bit of bunce seems quite important to her, maybe she has expensive habits. Both will be selling their tale of woe in the near future no doubt, with teary eyed images, and shots of their gaudy homes.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Given that she wanted paying for reporting that some footballer had crashed his car, the odd bit of bunce seems quite important to her, maybe she has expensive habits. Both will be selling their tale of woe in the near future no doubt, with teary eyed images, and shots of their gaudy homes.

I am seriously bemused by this 'all as bad as each other' guff. Roony's wife is absolutely the victim here, and has more GCSEs that most people posting on NSC

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If this Court case (and more relevantly the media / social reporting of it), results in young girls going "Ew, I dont want to aspire to become a thick chav like those two slappers", it will have done its job.

Parents of young girls can point to this pair (and the Queen of Chavs Katie Price) as anti role model's. "See them there? That's how NOT to behave and live your life"

I believe some good may come out of this circus after all.

Since you think they are all as bad as each other, and that a certain type of young female will always see the world somewhat differently from you, I suspect not.

Other than, perhaps, the good advice to not take someone to court over somethng that's you'r own soppy fault, perhaps. Although that message yas yet to percolate even among 'the moral guardians of young women' of NSC, it seems

To paraphrase Chris Suttan, Rippleman, you're better than this

 

[carlzeiss]

I am seriously bemused by this 'all as bad as each other' guff. Roony's wife is absolutely the victim here, and has more GCSEs that most people posting on NSC

More than . that's for sure

 

[Iggle Piggle]

The Premiership FFS.

[TWEET]1525100048845086721[/TWEET]

 

[dejavuatbtn]

I don’t have a lot of time for either of them but clearly Jamie Vardy married a headcase.