Our Lips Are(n't) Sealed... pt 127

Tedious as this is becoming at one level - the identity of a millionaire footballer playing away from home ZZzzzzz - it is becoming something of a lightening rod for the whole issue of the control of information and the rights of the individuals involved.

It's also setting the battle lines for a fight between the judiciary and Parliament as legal experts - such as Vera Baird QC (Solicitor General 2007 - 2010) - queue up to 'deplore the use of Parliament to wreck the properly decided judgment of the court'.

While MPs such as John Hemming point to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights which he says make it clear that the dealings of Parliament cannot be questioned.  In effect, Parliament remains sovereign, which was certainly what I was brought up to understand.   Of course it's not hard to find someone who will take the opposite view, especially where British and European law collide.  But it is a serious point - who has primacy, the those who make law or those who interpret the law?

Our Lips Are Sealed (slight return). Or Superinjunction, on and on and on...

It's the story that won't lie down.  Big Brother 'star' Imogen Thomas has been back in court seeking to get the superinjunction stopping her publishing details of her affair with a footballer, amid counter claims of blackmail demands.

She lost.  The footballer - whose identity is already known to anyone who wants to know - won.  They sound like lovely people.

Meanwhile Lord Stoneham, the Liberal Democrat peer (yes, you know, that Lord Stoneham - er no, me neither) waded into the whole mess naming former Royal Bank of Scotland Chief Executive Fred Goodwin as having taken out a superinjunction to prevent publication of his affair with another high profile banker at the time RBS was collapsing.

The argument used by Lord Stoneham is that Goodwin's affair meant the CEO did not have his mind on his job at the time RBS collapsed and required bailing out with tax payers money.

A very weak arguement in my book. It looks like a case of using Parliamentary privilege to blow a hole in superinjunctions as a whole.  Fine.  A laudable aim and Lord Stoneham picked a good target.  Even if it feels a bit like 'we can't get you for anything else Fred, so let's at least embarrass you in public.'  Still there are lawyers all over the radio complaining about it, so Lord Stoneham must have done something right!

Is this what Nick Clegg means by 'muscular liberalism'?