The Guardian has the story so I can legitimately discuss Ryan Giggs's affair with some Big Brother sleb called Imogen. The truth is, the details, salacious or otherwise, hold little attraction for me. Nor, I would hazard a guess, for the majority. The interest is in the sanctions.
As I commented this morning, the battle between the courts and modernity has been the most engaging - Twitter is revolting, so to speak.
But the lateral thinkers will have observed the now clear battle between the two legislating bodies, parliament and judges.
Cameron has been particularly lacksidaisacal over this, commenting in a news report by the BBC that 'parliament make the law and it is up to judges to interpret the law'. Translating into 'I'm on the fence here, don't press me too much, I might cry'.
The situation is the very antonym of clearcut, with Justice Tungendhat ruling today that Fred Goodwin could claim damages despite his injunctiom coming into the public arena via correct channels, via fast-getting-a-name-for-it John Hemmings MP.
Now with The Sun's appeal to have the injunction on Ryan Giggs' name lifted being turned down by the High Court, the tale is reaching Dickens-esque proportions of complexity.
Mark Easton has delivered a nice analogy on his blog to technology and media shaping privacy.
But it is clear that there is a private battle to be waged between politicians and judges over privacy, injunctions and the rich man's playground, where, it appears, Giggs can also sue Imogen herself for talking about their affair.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device