Here's a thing. Any number of alleged celebrities have taken out Injunctions against the publication of information about themselves and something they may or may not have done which, if reported, would show them in a less than positive light.
All well and good for the big media who must have some indication from said celebrities that they can't publish the information or, indeed, release the fact that they have a super injunction in place.
What about the rest of us?
We have no idea who the injunctions are about and what information they pertain to. So I as a blogger of the lowest order can quite happily say that I have heard from several sources of unknown reliability that Ryan Giggs is the married footballer that Imogen Thomas claims to have had an affair with. Is that covered under a super injunction? I don't know. And neither do you. Perhaps it is, in which case Giggs has been very foolish in dragging out the process of unmasking and leaving himself open to all sorts of criticisms. Perhaps it isn't and another member of his noble profession(!) is laughing up his sleeve at the abuse that Giggs is suffering for something he didn't do.
Which is a perfectly valid reason for the super injunction to be wiped from the statute and these celebrities be brought to account for their behaviour.
The absurdity of Andrew Marr being able to attack MPs for their discretions whilst using a super injunction to protect him from his shouldn't be lost on even the most obtuse of law makers.