Wayne Rooney

[NottsRam]

3 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

It is a token basket defence but likely to be successful.

RV is the plaintiff seeking damages. Specifically that she was accused of leaking info to the press about CR.

Colleen has been unable to prove this due to the alleged loss of evidence.

Furthermore CR has to specifically prove that RV did it or directed someone to.

The case is specific to one aspect. Proving, as the defence have, that RV has form unfortunately for the Rooney’s doesn’t mean she is responsible this time.

It’s almost certain that she did but almost certain is not enough.

In my opinion Vardy will win damages.

What is stunning about this case is that RV was suing for damages to her reputation but in bringing this case has done far more damage herself. Her reputation is in the bin and it’s very doubtful Jamie Vardy will be trusted by any team mates in the future.

If this true then the law is indeed an ass

[RadioactiveWaste]

2 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

It is a token basket defence but likely to be successful.

RV is the plaintiff seeking damages. Specifically that she was accused of leaking info to the press about CR.

Colleen has been unable to prove this due to the alleged loss of evidence.

Furthermore CR has to specifically prove that RV did it or directed someone to.

The case is specific to one aspect. Proving, as the defence have, that RV has form unfortunately for the Rooney’s doesn’t mean she is responsible this time.

It’s almost certain that she did but almost certain is not enough.

In my opinion Vardy will win damages.

What is stunning about this case is that RV was suing for damages to her reputation but in bringing this case has done far more damage herself. Her reputation is in the bin and it’s very doubtful Jamie Vardy will be trusted by any team mates in the future.

Given the way it's gone, even if the judgment is technically a win for vardy, I doubt the damages awarded will be that high (in relative terms).

[Ram-Alf]

9 minutes ago, 24Charlie said:

It is a token basket defence but likely to be successful.

I beg to differ

RV is the plaintiff seeking damages. Specifically that she was accused of leaking info to the press about CR.

Being accused or knowing your account is being used for the said leak shows collusion

Colleen has been unable to prove this due to the alleged loss of evidence.

Experts have said her WhatsApp messages were manually deleted

Furthermore CR has to specifically prove that RV did it or directed someone to.

Giving your agent your password is proof enough 

The case is specific to one aspect. Proving, as the defence have, that RV has form unfortunately for the Rooney’s doesn’t mean she is responsible this time.

I'm pretty sure in a libel case there only has to be a preponderance of evidence

It’s almost certain that she did but almost certain is not enough.

See above

In my opinion Vardy will win damages.

IMO Rooney will win

What is stunning about this case is that RV was suing for damages to her reputation but in bringing this case has done far more damage herself. Her reputation is in the bin and it’s very doubtful Jamie Vardy will be trusted by any team mates in the future.

All the above I've learned from Crown Court the UK TV programme 

[scout's dad]

24 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

All the above I've learned from Crown Court the UK TV programme 

Crown Court another 70’s classic 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

All the above I've learned from Crown Court the UK TV programme 

And in my opinion Alf, you have learned very well. I think I have learned in the past hour that maybe it is better to let Mrs Justice Steyn to take her time on this. Vardy has admitted that Watts is probably the source of leaking information that only Vardy was supposed to be able to see. Given their agent-client relationship how did Watts get the information to leak in the first place? From Vardy of course or from Vardy allowing Watts to access her own account. In that way, in my opinion, they have entered into a conspiracy together. Any person who aids or abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence can be tried as a principal. So if Vardy has assisted Watts in obtaining and passing the information, knowing or believing what she might do with it, she, Vardy, is equally as guilty as Watts. Although that principle derives from criminal law, it can be applied in civil proceedings. There is plenty of other evidence as we have seen, to support the assertion that Vardy and Watts are joint conspirators in this case and several other instances. Mrs Steyn will know that better than most.

The evidential threshold here is on the balance of probabilities not on 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' Mrs Steyn will hold the deletion of evidence very strongly against Vardy and the deletion will not help Vardy or be a barrier to Colleen's assertion that Vardy was responsible for leaking information about her.

In the legal world there is a backroom principle that may even have originated from Confucius; it is that if you throw enough s***, some of it will stick and Mr Sherborne QC has thrown a megatonne of s*** at Mrs Vardy.

Like you Alf, I do not believe that Vardy will win her claim.

[RoyMac5]

Thought this was fascinating (well sort of).

[RoyMac5]

38 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

And in my opinion Alf, you have learned very well. I think I have learned in the past hour that maybe it is better to let Mrs Justice Steyn to take her time on this. Vardy has admitted that Watts is probably the source of leaking information that only Vardy was supposed to be able to see. Given their agent-client relationship how did Watts get the information to leak in the first place? From Vardy of course or from Vardy allowing Watts to access her own account. In that way, in my opinion, they have entered into a conspiracy together. Any person who aids or abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence can be tried as a principal. So if Vardy has assisted Watts in obtaining and passing the information, knowing or believing what she might do with it, she, Vardy, is equally as guilty as Watts. Although that principle derives from criminal law, it can be applied in civil proceedings. There is plenty of other evidence as we have seen, to support the assertion that Vardy and Watts are joint conspirators in this case and several other instances. Mrs Steyn will know that better than most.

The evidential threshold here is on the balance of probabilities not on 'beyond all reasonable doubt.' Mrs Steyn will hold the deletion of evidence very strongly against Vardy and the deletion will not help Vardy or be a barrier to Colleen's assertion that Vardy was responsible for leaking information about her.

In the legal world there is a backroom principle that may even have originated from Confucius; it is that if you throw enough s***, some of it will stick and Mr Sherborne QC has thrown a megatonne of s*** at Mrs Vardy.

Like you Alf, I do not believe that Vardy will win her claim.

And as it says in the post:

"It's............Rebekah Vardy's account."

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by RoyMac5

[RoyMac5]

Didn't realise this. But they're still a bit naff! ?

 

 

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, 24Charlie said:

It’s almost certain that she did but almost certain is not enough.

"Almost certain" would meet the "balance of probabilities" test. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NottsRam said:

If this true then the law is indeed an ass

It is not true but that still does not mean that the law is not an ass. Sometimes it is.

[angieram]

8 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

I don't know, but I've heard @angieram stands outside the youth team's houses with a pair of binoculars she may know!

I know (hope) you are joking, DFR, but it really annoys me when people say this.

There are any number of blokes go to academy matches, and no one accuses them of stalking.

I am old enough to be the grandmother of some of them. 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

Didn't realise this. But they're still a bit naff! ?

 

 

That explanation would be reasonable for normal citizens appearing in court but there are plenty of public photos of the Rooneys and the Vardys that the artists could base their sketches on or at the very least correct the obvious flaws in the sketches they’ve done. It’s hardly as if they need to rely on what they remember the individuals look like.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Tamworthram

[jimtastic56]

2 hours ago, angieram said:

I know (hope) you are joking, DFR, but it really annoys me when people say this.

There are any number of blokes go to academy matches, and no one accuses them of stalking.

I am old enough to be the grandmother of some of them. 

I don’t think anyone really thinks you are a stalker, it’s just banter. If you don’t have grandkids , I can see how you would get attached to players. But I think you have to be careful as the can let you down. Mason Bennett a perfect example.

[Ghost of Clough]

20 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

I don’t think anyone really thinks you are a stalker, it’s just banter. If you don’t have grandkids , I can see how you would get attached to players. But I think you have to be careful as the can let you down. Mason Bennett a perfect example.

I think it's the watching them for a number of years from the age of 16 (the odd one being younger).  Just like people do with first teamers who have been around a few years

[Guest]

A bit of light hearted fun hear from the bookies as to what might happen next in Vardy v Rooney:

https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/how-the-bookmakers-are-betting-rooney-vs-vardy-will-conclude/

 

[Ram-Alf]

6 minutes ago, Brailsford Ram said:

A bit of light hearted fun hear from the bookies as to what might happen next in Vardy v Rooney:

https://graziadaily.co.uk/celebrity/news/how-the-bookmakers-are-betting-rooney-vs-vardy-will-conclude/

 

"Meanwhile, after his reported ex, Rebekah, likened his manhood to a chipolata, Peter Andre may consider a deal to become the new face of the Greggs sausage role (66/1)"

I'm off to Greggs to order 4 sausages, I'll tell them to take the 4 skins off ?

[RadioactiveWaste]

My beloved disagrees on Peter Andre's chipolata - believes it to be a slanderous lie. Watched the video of mysterious girl several times to make the point. "It can't be a sock" she keeps saying.

 

[jimtastic56]

I would imagine Wazza will be watching the Burnley game today on his Sun-bed in Dubai. If they go down perhaps they will keep Bardsley . As Wayne’s best mate he would be a likely target for Rams. Stretford will be lining up players in the absence of Wazza , hopefully.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

18 hours ago, jimtastic56 said:

I would imagine Wazza will be watching the Burnley game today on his Sun-bed in Dubai. If they go down perhaps they will keep Bardsley . As Wayne’s best mate he would be a likely target for Rams. Stretford will be lining up players in the absence of Wazza , hopefully.

Stretford should be nowhere near the running of the club.

[jimtastic56]

6 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Stretford should be nowhere near the running of the club.

Stretford has been at Rooney’s side since Wayne was a kid. I would imagine it was Stretford who got the deal done to bring Wayne to DCFC. I don’t know much about him - only that he is an Agent and wants to own a football club at some point.