Skip to main content

The trouble with super injunctions

Although we're not supposed to know who they are, it transpires that only men have so far taken out so-called super injunctions to stop the world and their wives finding out who they've been sleeping with - or swindling.

And while such esteemed publications as the Sun burble on about who's been porking whom, without quite mentioning who's involved - although the 'other' woman is fair game, particularly if she a prostitute or Big Brother contender and more so if she's slept with Wayne Rooney - Twitter is awash with informed chat and uninformed guesswork on the matter.

In fact, according to data published by analyst group Experian Hitwise, UK visits to Twitter increased 14 per cent in recent days, while UK searches for the term "super injunction" have increased 5000 per cent over the last month.

The trouble, of course is that if you're a 'happliy married Premiership footballer' or an actor "who has appeared both on TV and in films," you're under suspicion. The chances are that the missus is getting a bit fidgety. Questions will be raised in the house, probably in the bedroom and there's really no defence.

Not being an old-fangled newspaper, we don't really know who has a super injunction out. So were we to stumble across a story that we think might be of interest how do we know whether we're supposed to be reporting on it or not? Indeed, the fact that a super injunction exists is not supposed to be reported either. We've also read that the Twitter feed that is attempting to spill some of the injuncted beans is also not supposed to be named. That said, there a PR site - no less - here that may or may not have broken that particular rule - if indeed such a rule exists.

Mentioned on the feed are various folk, but some of those allegations are also reportedly incorrect. Certainly, Jemima Khan has denied the allegation there that mentioned Jeremy Clarkson in the same tweet. No, we can't swallow that one either.

In short, the whole thing is a sorry mess and the sooner the daft practice is outlawed, the sooner the innocent will be able to get a decent night's sleep, while the guilty will face the music - as indeed they should.