My g***** s*** is b***** than t*** and other legal rulings

If you've ever stood on the terraces of a football ground (although sitting is now the default position at many grounds) you will have heard a variety of chants.

• Some question the marital status of the official in the middle's parent on the occassion of his conception
• Some question the sexual preferences, or orientation of certain players, their WAGs or BAH*s
• Some question the ability of players to perform at a standard greater than an elderly female relative
• Some question the real estate value of stadium fans are visiting and believe larger accomadation could be found at the nearby garden centre
• Some also question the visual health or mental health of any of the officials

If you've ever been to a game you will quickly work out just which chants go with just which of the comments above.

All of these are of course a fiction, at least they are intended to be.

It is possible that some of the officials were born out of wedlock. Some of the players with their WAGs and certainly with their BAHs may engage in anal sex. Somebody's granny may well be an international standard player and better than some poor guy on display that day. Your garden shed may well be bigger than the stadium your Lordship. Maybe the ref should have checked out the 2 for 1 offer at a well known optometrist, or read the rule changes for this season in some greater detail.

However, never once have I heard of a footballer or an official suing a fan because of announcing these fictions to the world. Strange then that a player is suing Twitter and other persons unnamed for breaking the super injunction(s) that was(ere) set up to protect the names of player(s) that may have had an affair with Imogen Thomas (and or other misdemeanours).

Since when has having an affair been such a matter of national security that the press should be stopped reporting it. When has cheating on your wife or partner with someone else meant that you could hide behind a judges gown (propably another super injunction there). If even John Perfumo can't get away with it nor should anyone else, it is not a matter of national security merely a wealthy person being able to stop his wife/partner from finding out he is a cheating scum.

If the wife/partner takes scissors to the players wardrobe, or throw his clothes out unto the street for his infidelities a judge is likely to say, "You had it coming, didn't you?". So is the case for trying to hide his miscreants behind a super injunction. I'm hoping the judge ruling on this case will notice the impossibility of stopping anyone hiding something this quasi public from everyone with a computer. That super injuctions even prevent the other party on occassion from even talking about what they are up to with trusted friends.

* This relies on the sexual orientation being proven correct and there actually being a gay player on the pitch with a Boyfriend and Husband on the pitch. This may be subject to a super injunction for all I know. For all the non-outness of the top leagues it may well be.