Actually, for one of those rare occasions, I'm going to say something nice about John Hemming - through fearsomely gritted teeth. He's promised/threatened to use parliamentary privilege to name celebrities who have obtained super-injunctions to protect their love lives from exposure. John, of course, has tremendous form for publicising his own marital wanderings - even nominating himself as love rat of the year - and will doubtless be making some friends among the tabloids for promising more grist to their celebrity grinding mill. Now, I don't really care about celebrity love lives - nor do I care much about John's, entertaining though it undoubtedly is to observers of his complicated personal relationships - but I do care about the courts being used to grant the super-rich a level of personal secrecy that is unavailable to others.
Of course, it would be nice to see John using valuable parliamentary time to deal with other evident injustices - his government's effective silencing of litigants through withdrawal of legal aid is one example and I hope he can be relied upon to support root and branch libel reform, but these protective injunctions are unfair and inherently unjust. We saw how Trafigura attempted to protect their name by indefinitely silencing opponents through use of a similar injunction, only broken by a similar use of parliamentary privilege and it would be a bad day for democracy and freedom when we surrender entirely to the rich and the corporations. We would regret it if an attack on public prurience restricted the public interest.