Reply With QuoteI doubt it.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Jamie Vardy and Wayne Rooney, will surely be cringing about this court case.
I doubt it.
I should imagine that, like everyone else, they don't give a f*ck....Originally Posted by William Treseder
You'd wonder how anyone on here cares enough to mention it as well, to be fair.
Sorry boss. Just caught it on the news whilst eating my tea.
You seem to have cared enough to read the thread and reply?
What about poor Pete's "chipolata"?
I'm not going tit for tat. My reply was on the back of your commenting on it being cringeworthy.
It is and it's not the type of thing I ever expected being discussed on here, if it is it is, if it gets 10 pages of in depth discussion, great.
I just didn't think anyone on here would care hence my reply.
Libel cases are interesting and, as I understand it, usually the domain of the wealthy and where the 'winners' are not able to recover their full costs (which are often astronomical) from the opposition. A media lawyer has estimated that the case will cost each party around £1m and the winner will be re-imbursed around 70% of their costs only and a mere £15K-£40K in damages - leaving a deficit of around £300K. The loser will pay hugely, of course.
During some trials such as this, and indeed the Heard v Depp trial, information about poor behaviour and serious character defects on both sides can be exposed and neither party may come out the other end with much credit.
It seems a extremely expensive poker game where only the lawyers really win.
Agree. The OP is not even worth the time replying about.
I doubt the money makes a big difference to either but the ego in allowing it to get to court from Vardy's side is mental. She will probably "legally" win the case that it can't be proven it was her that leaked the specific story as a couple of people had access to her account, but she has been exposed via whatsapp convos on trying to sell numerous stories on Drinkwater, Mahrez etc to a rag like the sun for relative peanuts and comes across a c*nt, baffling all round!
Poor old Pete, he's finished on the pulling front, although I doubt Jordan would have hung around for as long if that was true?
She'd have been on to the next one before he'd finished the frst line of mysterious girl!
Some of these celeb couples are a but more complicated, perhaps she could put up with the tiny manhood for the extra fame it brought them being a couple?
That’s being William Tresederist. Reported 😂
Yet Maddonas clunge is being discussed on another thread 😂
Sense of humour detected. Reported.
Jamie Vardy needs to run away as fast as he can. That bitch is a narcissistic sociopath.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b2077656.html
‘It was me’: The not-so-sudden plot twist at the Wagatha Christie trial
Rebekah Vardy must have seen the moment coming over the horizon like a train whose tracks she has been standing on for the last three months, but has declined to get out of its way
“It was me.” They’re three “Kind-Of-A-Big-Deal” words in affairs of this nature. In crime and courtroom dramas real or fictitious, the “it was me” moment tends to be where the plot starts to resolve itself.
Yet Rebekah Vardy, facing down a second full day of cross examination at the Royal Courts of Justice, must have known that the “it was me” moment would be coming since at least February. And what makes matters all the more bizarre is that she is not the defendant. This is a libel action she has brought herself.
She is suing Coleen Rooney for daring to suggest it was her who had leaked various stories about Rooney to The Sun newspaper (stories which Rooney made up purely to ensnare the perpetrator, earning the now unshakeable moniker “Wagatha Christie”).
Vardy must have seen the moment coming over the horizon like a train whose tracks she has been standing on for the last three months, but has declined to get out of its way.
It was shortly before lunch when it arrived, when Vardy had done seven-and-a-half hours of interrogation, all of which involves her being able to credibly claim that she would never collude with her agent to sell stories to The Sun. It was read out to her, by Rooney’s barrister. Three simple words. “It was me.”
To be clear, it was not Vardy who said “it was me”. It was her agent, Caroline Watt. Though that fact scarcely makes matters less tricky for her.
Watt’s own phone sadly went missing in the early stages of this case, when it dropped off the side of a boat and into the North Sea. Watt herself has also now sadly gone missing, in the sense that she has been deemed too unwell to give evidence in this trial.
(At one point, it was put to Vardy that it was somewhat helpful that crucial messages on Watt’s phone were now in “Davy Jones’s locker”. She turned to the judge to ask: “Who is Davy Jones? I don’t know who that is.” The judge’s reply, that it was “figurative”, did not appear to fully clear up the mystery.)
Anyway. Watt had said that “it was me” to make clear that Rooney was wrong to think that someone she “trusted” was leaking stories about her to the press. Wrong because it hadn’t been Vardy, it was merely her agent.
It is on this distinction that Vardy’s defence depends (though yet again we must make clear that she is not the defendant, this madness was all her idea). That Watt, who had access to Vardy’s social media accounts – or, if not hers, then by some process of digital alchemy – was giving stories gleaned from Rooney’s private instagram to journalists at The Sun newspaper. And that Vardy had nothing to do with it.
So it is more than a little bit inconvenient that Vardy has had to spend 10 full excruciating hours in a witness box at the Royal Courts of Justice, where a never-ending tranche of WhatsApp messages have been read out to her, all of them spelling out in grand detail the degree to which her and Watt appear to have worked together to provide stories to The Sun.
When Rooney dropped her bombshell tweet nearly three years ago, she was immediately heralded as a private investigator beyond compare. She had put entirely fake stories on her Instagram, ensured that only one account could see them (Vardy’s account), then watched as these stories made their way into The Sun.
But this jawdropper has been at least matched, if not surpassed, by the equally jawdropping incident, earlier in this case, where large numbers of WhatsApps shared between Vardy and Watt were accidentally shared with Rooney’s legal team.
The consequences of that accidental leak have been quite spectacular. It has led to such incidents as Vardy, sitting stony faced in the witness stand, claiming that an earlier sworn statement provided to the court wasn’t deliberately untrue, but was only inaccurate because she hadn’t read the WhatsApp messages in question. Which may be true. Maybe she hadn’t read them. But she did write them.
To seek to establish the degree of Vardy’s contact with the newspapers, the court heard about an incident in a restaurant at the World Cup in Russia in 2018. Vardy denies that she persuaded a large group of England Wags to gather outside a restaurant for a photograph, where she had allegedy arranged for them to encounter a photographer who was meant to be hiding in the bushes, but who hadn’t been kept up to date on a last minute change of plan, so was instead just standing there with his rather large camera out, much to the disgust of the rest of her party.
Vardy denies this caused her to “panic”, but she also declined why, if she was not panicking about it, she was messaging her agent, Watt again, with the word, “f***!”
It is also crucial to Rooney’s case that she establish that Vardy had a long and prosperous relationship with The Sun, and with its showbiz reporter Andy Halls. And it is just as crucial to Vardy’s case that she demonstrate that no such relationship existed.
And this is a case she continued to make, even while being shown, for example, an Instagram photograph of herself, eating a kebab in The Sun’s hospitality area at The National Television Awards, for which she personally thanks Halls in the accompanying caption, at the same time as, the court heard, not knowing whether or not he was even there.
Her case rests on convincing a judge that she would never message Halls from The Sun with stories about other people. And her WhatsApps to her agent include such phrases as “messaged Halls”.
There’s also the unfortunate fact that, back in 2019, when she replied to Rooney, claiming that lots of people had access to her account and it could have been any of them, she has inadvertently let us see behind the magician’s curtain, at WhatsApp messages, yet again with Watt, where the reply gets workshopped out, not to mention a defence, suggested by Watt, in which they could claim that she left the company and somebody else got hold of her laptop. This line, Watt explains, should only be used if all gets “undeniably obvious” that it was her.
It is important to remember that as this is merely a civil libel trial, the judge will have to decide whether Vardy was involved in the selling of these stories to The Sun only on the “balance of probabilities” as opposed to “beyond reasonable doubt.” That it is, in other words, more likely than not that she was involved.
There is still a chance that Vardy could win. The judge may yet decide that the evidence against her is not overwhelming enough. At that point, Vardy could decide to bring damages. It will then be up to the judge to decide quite how much her reputation has been harmed by the suggestion she would leak stories to the press. It is, after all, a rather mean and tactless thing to do. And while they may decide it’s not certain she leaked this one, the intricate details of other such instances have been laid bare, and they are exceptionally ugly.
One reaches for such a metaphor with great reluctance, but if you were to wrongly accuse Harold Shipman of killing your grandma, he might have a case for libel, but it would not have been altogether easy for him to suggest that your outrageous suggestion had left his reputation in tatters.
The case continues.
he must be very pissed off that some of his hard earned money is being pissed up the wall on this "defamation" case which, even if she wins seems to be making her lookn a lot worse than the original defamation in the first place.
What on earth were both the individuals concerned thinking?
This was only going to get very messy and extremely expensive.
I’m no advocate for violence but surely this could have been sorted via handbags ( quite literally, probably) in the car park of some WAG hotel.
Waiting for Peter Andre to start legal actions over todgergate next!
Strongly encouraged by their respective lawyers, no doubt.
Nice assumption that she is a kept women, i understand she is very rich in her own right as a model and through advertising, now back in the kitchen and look pretty.
fair point, but even if it was her own money she's used to bring this case I'd be pissed off if my partner spent a fortune to make herself look really bad
I have tried to avoid it because I have no interest in celebrities.
However, almost impossible to avoid at the moment and I am just left empty reading some of the commentary.
What an absolute farce of a case... what entitlement (by both women) who seem to value their celebrity status and all the arrogance and nonsense that comes with it. Neither seem to be nice people or at all bright.
Which is why it's ok to find it absolutely hilarious.
Feel bad for Peter Andre though.
Posting Permissions