No one is going to prison over the Twitter superinjunction leaks

The biggest problem is, oddly, not that you can find out on Twitter or via Google. It's that the lawyers involved didn't seem to think it's necessary to tell Google or Twitter that an injunctions exists.

I went on Sky News a couple of weeks ago to talk about the publishing of Baby Peter's killers' names on the internet - despite the court order banning naming them. Here's the clip.

We need a centralised database of reporting restrictions in general terms (ie not all the detail so it's like an issue of popbitch). Just what is the point of reporting restrictions if no one knows they exist?

ITV.com is breaching a court order forbidding the publication of the DNA test results for alleged 13-year-old dad Alfie Patten.

The case of the leaked DNA test on 13-year-old alleged dad Alfie Patten has revealed a big problem with court-ordered reporting restrictions in the internet age: there is nothing to stop websites repeating the information unless they know about the court order banning this. And under the terms of the order itself, there's no way to find out about the order.

The media are banned from reporting DNA test results for 13-year-old 'dad' Alfie Patten - has anyone told Walt Disney and BrandRepublic/Haymarket?