The Sunday Herald’s naming of a footballer who allededly had an affair with a model is a non-event in my book and has nothing to do with any high level principle other than making dosh from tosh.

The furore over super injunctions curbing the ‘freedom of the press’ is so obviously fake. The mainstream media have been struggling with revenue streams since many advertisers stopped taking out print adverts, in favour of much cheaper online solutions.

Newspapers have clearly looked at Twitter and thought if only we could print all of these voyeuristic stories to titillate our readers, and err, sell loads of papers.

The ‘principle’ at stake is that newspapers used to break, and make, a lot of dosh from so called ‘scandals’, but the internet has muscled in, along with the Human Rights Act, and the concept of a right to privacy.

What’s the real principle at stake here? If Mrs McGinty from Drumchapel cheats on her hubby would the newspapers have a legitimate public interest to splash it all over their front page? No, that would be a breach of Mrs McGinty’s right of privacy. And it doesn't happen because it doesn't sell.

But if someone famous does the same thing, suddenly there is a public interest? Of course not, its nonsense, because such ‘news’ is pure drivel designed to sell papers. Sadly the human condition is such that many people like to read about celebrity 'scandals'. However, that is no justification to print such stuff.

The only principle at stake here is the ability of newspapers to financially exploit the private lives of famous people. And that ain’t no principle to get excited about unless there is a legitimate public interest.

As regards super injunctions, the Sunday Herald’s legal advisor’s Paul McBride Q.C. has said “We can’t have unelected judges making these decisions in private”.

Is Mr McBride suggesting matters would be better if we elected our judges? Seriously, we have a constitutional separation of powers and an independent, unelected, judiciary for good reason.

Likewise, judges hear a lot of cases in camera for a whole host of legitimate reasons. And the last time I checked, it was the job of unelected judges to apply the ‘rule of law’, which they appear to have done in this case. Perhaps we can turn our attention to serious issues, that are in the public interest.

Mike