There is nothing quite like a drama unfolding on Twitter to distract a nation and with #coleenvsrebekah trending on Twitter, it is clear the most recent Twitter-spat has us all enthralled. 

Coleen Rooney has claimed that someone using Rebekah Vardy's Instagram account has leaked stories about her to The Sun. We learnt of this via a tweet, posted by Rooney, where she details how she spent five months trying to work out who was giving out information from her personal and "private" Instagram account to the tabloid newspaper. She claims she worked out it was Rebekah's account by posting fake stories to her account and blocking all her followers from viewing her Instagram stories except for one account, "...........Rebekah Vardy's account". The stories made their way into The Sun.  

Aside from being a captivating live soap opera to follow, the #coleenvsrebekah also raises interesting privacy law issues. What is "private" on Instagram isn't necessarily "private" in law. You generally share things on Instagram that you want people to see. While you can control who sees your content, is it really private if you have hundreds of followers? To bring this into privacy law territory there would need to be something more than simply having a private account. 

This 'Roodunnit?' (sorry) looks set to continue with Rebekah Vardy denying the allegations and apparently hiring a forensic expert to establish who else may have had access to her account. The Sun will certainly not be publicly outing their source (whoever that source may be).  The source is entitled to protection under the Contempt of Court Act and Article 10 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights.  Although I imagine many on Twitter would argue that the 'public interest' exception should apply here so the source is disclosed. But what interests the public and what is in the public interest are (unfortunately for those following this saga) quite distinct.