Which England footballer has been misbehaving this time?

Raymond Snoddy on the growing use of super-injunctions; privacy v free press; and how the Premier League should deal with footballers… send them on an educational course to take their mind off things perhaps?

Sometimes the internet is seriously disappointing. It was as long ago as Friday that an England footballer went to the High Court and successfully obtained a super-injunction to protect his identity and his presumably disgusting behaviour.

And until now there is no sign of the culprit being identified online.

If the leakers of the internet can manage to get their hands on the entire US Government’s dealings in Afghanistan, you would think they could do better when all we need is a name out of a field of no more than 50 or so. If it’s a famous player, as seems likely, then the field can be narrowed to 15 or 20.

The only person fingered so far online has been Stevie Gerrard of Liverpool. But that is highly unlikely because the source is Redcafe.com, a Manchester United website and anyway Gerrard rumours have been flying around since the Spring and have already been widely publicised.

It can’t be Peter Crouch can it? After News of the World splashes on consecutive weeks, there couldn’t possibly be any more could there?

The good news is that it’s only a matter of time of course. Granting a super-injunction is like issuing a challenge and there will be someone who rises to it – and then we’re off and running.

In the internet age everything is revealed eventually and in the meantime every current England player will come under suspicion from their wives or girlfriends until the truth inevitably comes out.

The growing use of super-injunctions, which are supposed to prevent mention of not just the subject but the subject-matter, and the haphazard nature of which indiscretions get the treatment and which do not, suggests the time has indeed come for a clarification of the law.

John Terry is outed, the Friday Chummie is not. Perhaps we should even be grateful to the errant footballers and their imaginative lawyers for so bringing the law into disrepute that action is finally taken.

The media, and even the miscreants themselves, are at the moment involved in an expensive legal lottery, where success or failure depends on which judge happens to get the case.

Judges such as Justice Eady have in effect been creating their own privacy law using human rights legislation, despite the fact there is no right to privacy under English common law.

As Justice minister Lord McNally put it in an interview with the Daily Telegraph yesterday: “There has been a general consensus that a new piece of legislation that clarifies, consolidates and removes some of the more dangerous aspects of the way case law has grown up is something that is desirable.”

Unfortunately politicians and legislation are a dangerous combination. A new law designed to prevent abuse and limit constraints on freedom of expressions could have the opposite effect.

We are in such a mess now, mainly because of judges who have a very limited grasp on the importance of a free press, that legislation is probably the lesser of two evils.

The fact that most of the pressure for change is coming from the Lib Dem wing of the coalition is an encouraging sign. It would give them something more positive to do instead of collaborating with the Tories in emasculating perfectly respectable social institutions.

The problem, well known for more than a decade is the inevitable tension between Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees a right of privacy with Article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression.

Any new legislation should contain well-defined public interest defences to possible breaches of privacy. And use of super-injunctions should be restricted to areas of legitimate personal concern, such as protection of medical records or the anonymity of children. Such devices were never intended for the protection of super-models, professional sportsmen or industrial polluters.

It might even be worth asking whether there should be a presumption that Article 10 should take priority over Article 8 except in carefully designated areas – for the good of society and freedom of expression.

Whatever the legislators and lawyers decide may however become increasingly irrelevant anyway.  Apart from the generally anarchic nature of the internet, more and more people are voluntarily ceding a traditional right to privacy by publishing increasingly personal information on social networking sites such as Facebook. The very concept of private is changing under our eyes.

As for footballers, what is to be done? They only train for a couple of hours each morning and then there is the danger that drink, gambling and sex fills the void.

The Premier League should insist that each professional player takes an educational course each season to take their mind off things: English Literature for Wayne Rooney? Elocution lessons for Gerrard?  And how about all those earning more than £50,000 a week voluntarily giving up a right of privacy in cases of disreputable behaviour.

Meanwhile, if you happen to know who the Friday Chummie is just send a quick email. Discretion guaranteed.