It is hard to find sympathy on either side of the super injunction argument with all parties not particularly doing themselves any favours as self interest on their behalf continues to fuel my boredom. Andrew Marr's admission that he took one out himself to hide details of an affair is interesting only for the hypocrisy in him reporting on the topic whilst having one out himself. That he has recognised this himself and come forward is commendable and after the initial prurient sniggering his mistake will be largely forgotten as he joins the ever growing list of cheating public figures.
   The accusations that the use of super injunctions is tantamount to a rich man's privacy law are hard to ignore and can undermine any genuine use they may have when trivialised in this manner and equally worrying is that companies such as Trafigura can try to hide behind them to cover up any illegal behaviour. Claims that these are a hindrance to press freedom are correct but when the press are mainly bothered about reporting on the sex lives of footballers and minor celebrities then it is hard to see if it is worth the hassle especially as the phone tapping case has shown the lengths some journalists will go to for tittle tattle. Stories like Trafigura and Wikileaks show what good journalism can achieve when they are unshackled.
   Ironically as these minor celebrities take out super injunctions then that continues to add fuel to the fire as the public's interest is piqued as they try to guess who may be involved with social networking sites full of rumours concerning guesses as to their identity. If no legal framework had been put in place to prevent reporting on these stories then the papers would have reported it as a major scoop full of self righteous disgust only for the whole saga to have been forgotten about the following week.