King of the Twits

The extra-ordinarily famous, philandering footballer who was exposed by disgruntled Tweeters, has now, incredibly sought to bring a case against a journalist who also mentioned his name. It is rather unlikely the hack in question was the first, as thousands of tweets have included the player's name - that medium seems to talk of little else.

These issues are not just gossip; they touch on Parliamentary sovereignty, privacy law, press freedom. But ultimately it is all about money. The footballer is not a callow youth and should know the game is up on protecting his children about his infidelity. His huge weekly wage, spent on grateful lawyers, cannot resolve it. Not even the most gifted silk can promise his client he can actually reverse time or eradicate the new media.

But this striker must have been somewhat encouraged by Lord Igor Judge who gave an extra-ordinarily assessment of injunctions on Friday, exposing his antiquated knowledge of modern communication. "Are you really going to say," inquired Judge Judge, " that someone who has a true claim for protection, perfctly well made, has to be at the mercy of modern technology?"

The answer to his poser appears to be, emphatically YES - partly because the protection this Welsh player insisted on was only possible given his wealth. It was not instilled against outside forces but deemed necessary given his sexual conquests despite being a family man. When the Judge berated websites "peddling lies" the same could be said for the famous left-winger who seeks to perpetuate the myth of his honesty as a husband and father.

The Judge also took a swipe at Parliamentarians who chose to use absolute Parliamentary privilege to expose the most absurd injunctions such Fred Goodwin's (no doubt his media ban was deemed "a claim for protection perfectly well made".) Without their actions which are fully allowable under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, we might not have learned very much about these Kafka-esque machinations in the High Court.

This player from a big club in the north west of England has, very foolishly, instructed lawyers to act against Twitter itself and threaten a prominent BBC journo with jail. Firstly, British law does not apply in San Francisco and Twitter Execs would be well advised to respond with a bemused, declining response. Second, the journo can just wait. By the time any case came to court, the footballer's identity will be even further in the public domain. Any case would have to be tried anonymously which opposes the guiding principle of open justice. In fact any case brought by the footballer would almost certainly mean he would be compelled to identify himself. We are close to the legal madhouse now.

As you may have noticed, throughout this article, I have scattered enough clues to make a 'jigsaw' indentification of the player. But I am not very fearful. The information is small currency now. It's even on Wikipedia and the front of Scotland's Sunday Herald.

In an ideal world, the connection between him and Ms Imogen Thomas (also being sued) would be made very public through crowd chants at Saturday's Champions League final, which is another clue. Perhaps then he would question whether it was practical to sue 35,000 Barcelona fans for revealing the knoweldge which is now already widespread.

* Apparently his name was reverberating around Old Trafford yesterday thanks to thousands of Blackpool fans. Tough gig.