Not Super, Not Injunctions

Liam Carr writes:

Superinjuctions are not super and thanks to Twitter they are not injunctions either. The ending of these gagging orders imposed by the rich and famous is probably a good thing, not because what a footballer does with a Big Brother contestant is in the public interest but because it is fair. If someone who is not a premiership footballer has an affair then they cannot get an injunction to stop a rumour or nosey neighbours gossiping about it. Why should footballers be any different? The only differences I can see are:

Nosey neighbours = Followers
Gossip = Tweets
and Rumour = Trend

I don't really object to the coalition MP John Hemming using the footballers name in the houses of parliament. Everyone knew by this point who Giggs was anyway. I do object however to his reasons behind using his parliamentary privilege in this way. I had not heard of John Hemming before yesterday and it is possible that neither had some of his constituents; I know that most of the people reading this blog are acutely aware of their political environment. Many people are not, and it is the politically unaware that this desperate Lib Dem is trying to appeal to by gaining publicity. I have two words of warning to any Lib Dem MP who thinks fame will make you more electable and they are "Lembit Opik". Even if Hemming is on a one-man crusade against superinjunctions, then he is in the right line of work as an MP to legislate against them. Stunts like this are transparent; Labour MP John Cryer accurately describes Hemmings behaviour as "an act of gross opportunism by a politician on an ego trip." That is exactly what it is.

I don't really want to hear anything more about the Lib Dems in the papers. That is, until Clegg leads them through the opposition lobby in a meaningful vote; the NHS bill would be a start...