I've followed this case with some interest given the comments about parties in the public domain. Allowing for the summary from the presiding judge I'm still a bit baffled. I cannot accept this as libel. So. Blonde comments about a social media trend due to somebody else's inaccurate reporting and winks when asking why everyone's talking about the wrongly named individual. It comes across to me as a gloat about someone else's predicament rather than a libel. So for a hypothetical scenario try this. Baronet of Goodwin Sands (hope no such fella exists) attends church with is son and heir. Both sitting far apart on a pew with no one else on it. Son and heir beside a pillar making him almost invisible to the rest of the congregation. There is a loud and smelly fart during the service which seems to come from the Baronet. Everything tuts and makes comments about the farting behaviour after the service pointing the finger at said Baronet. The next day the son and heir points out 'twas him who did the ghastly deed. The fact hasn't yet reached someone who was talking about it and makes a referring comment about the Baronet, having heard the tale, and wonders out loud in the pub why everyone is talking about the Baronet full well knowing the reason. Is it really libel? From where I sit far away from it all I cannot see the difference between the real case and the hypothetical one. I don't think any real wrong was done - just someone taking the pee out of the situation as everything tends to do at some point. Perhaps the more learned of you can explain this case to me. It doesn't tie in with what I was taught in years gone by.