One thing is certain, the footballer who took out the Super-Injunction to stop his affair being revealed, will be named and shamed. What is also certain is that the media, the tabloids in particular, will slaughter him and his reputation for daring to threaten their main source of material, i.e. women who sleep with footballers and then sell the story of their betrayal to the highest bidder.
There is a cause for concern that rich men can seek and obtain such injunctions, for whatever reason. But, is it really in the public interest for a newspaper to shatter the life of a footballer, because he has had an extra-marital affair? I can understand it if a celebrity has fronted an advertising campaign or given an interview extolling the virtues of fidelity in marriage and then being discovered shagging his housekeeper, as an example. But otherwise, how is such a disclosure in the public interest, other than as juicy gossip for public consumption? And we all love gossip. It sells newspapers and magazines and makes the working hour go quickly by.
Footballers are paid to kick a ball, not be paragons of virtue, which is a good thing considering the slimy behaviour of some of them. Whoever advised the premier footballer to try and gag Twitter, did not do him any favours. It would have been better had he been honest and contrite when his affair was first discovered, as it was always going to become public knowledge.
When it comes to a politician lying or cheating, a banker bonking when he should have been managing, or a priest preaching against sins of the flesh, then sneaking off to fiddle with the choirboy, of course it is then in the public interest for such behaviours to be exposed. The granting of injunctions in such cases would be an abuse of judicial power. But I can't help thinking that the media outrage over the granting of so-called super-injunctions, is more to do with limiting story sources, than a real desire for truth and justice.