I need to know - or do I?

Papers while I was away fulminating over these "super-injunctions" (see post of 7th April).  Main argument seems to be that if you are rich enough - and almost certainly male - you can use the law to protect yourself from the media's prying eyes, and that somehow this is not fair - just on whom is not clear, is it those who can't afford it, the public, or the media themselves?  The question that doesn't seem to be being asked is, should the media have the right to destroy someone's life simply because they are famous?  If Mr X of High Street, Nowhere-In-Particular cheats on his wife, the media wouldn't be interested, whereas if Mr X is a famous footballer, actor, TV personality or somesuch they would be falling over themselves to tell us all about it, and crying foul if they are prevented from doing so by an injunction.  I am reminded of that old adage - just because the public are interested, doesn't make it in the public interest.  We are badly in need of a statutory privacy law.