You can phrase it any way you want, shield it behind a ton of "I'm sure she isn't, but the doubt is there". It's still libellous. You're implying. I know that, he knows that. EG lawyers know that.
Anywhere else, someone who wrote a piece on that without having proof to back it up would have been asket to stick to the facts. In fact, many would argue that the article was amended because it's sloppy journalism.
But there wasn't implication. You can't just imagine it was implied because it suits your argument. No reasonable court would ever see that as implication.
All Rab did was take something she wrote on Twitter -- in the public domain -- and tell her what people may interpret that as. It wasn't shrouded behind weasel words or anything like that. It was in plain English:
"If you write that, people are going to think this."
This happens on a daily basis when people are writing about what others say, and pretty much boils down to him saying she should watch how she presents herself to her readers if she wants her readers to hold her in high regard. Nothing wrong with that.
And the sooner you realise this, the sooner you'll realise that you're wrong.