It is the most de rigeur of popular expletives. What the Hemming has he been up to now? Need I waste my tippy tappy fingertips on typing an explanation? Thought not.
So, I will just point out this excellent post of Carl Gardner's on Head of Legal, and juxtapose it with a tweet from Fathers4Justice that landed in my twitter stream today. Some commentators today have suggested that Hemming is acting in an unprincipled fashion. I think that is right insofar as Carl points out the very important principles he is flouting (rule of law). But those of us who have been following Hemming for a little longer know there is a background to all of this recent fascination with footballers and other celebrity injunctions. Hemming is pursuing another point of principle. An equally serious problem when viewed from the other end of the telescope is that he is so focused on the broad principle that he forgets the harm he may do to the children involved in the individual cases.
I have no doubt Hemming will seek to use this whole fiasco to further his family justice campaigns. as foreshadowed by the F4J tweet.
Hemming may have valid points in individual cases about actual or potential miscarriages of justice. But how do we know he is right and is he really any more likely to be right than the judge who has seen, heard and read all the evidence? The really crucial question to ask about Hemming as self appointed arbiter of all our privacy is - What if his judgment is wrong? If the judges cannot do it, who can protect the vulnerable against the excesses of an MP who simply does not know when to shut up? A judge can be appealed. Hemming is a runaway train.
PS IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THE PRESS DESCRIBE IT AS A SUPERINJUNCTION - THE INJUNCTION IN QUESTION IS STILL NOT A SUPERINJUNCTION. You can tell this because the press were allowed to report it's existence. This is not hard to grasp. This is an indicator of the standard of media coverage.