The exposure in a popular Spanish newspaper is planned to coincide with an important date for the player, causing maximum personal impact to him and allegedly putting him off his game.

Tabloid daily newspaper El Mundo Deportivo will print the name of the Premier League idol who won a gagging order last month to suppress claims he cheated on his wife in a six-month fling with gorgeous Imogen.

But the injunction only prevents British publications from exposing him.

A Spanish media source said: “The newspaper is happy to print his name because they are published abroad.

“They are determined to print it on a date when they know it is vitally important for the footballer to be able to concentrate only on his game.

“The player will not want any distractions at this time so this will have a huge impact on his ability to focus only on football.

“I am sure he will be angry and upset about this but there’s nothing he can do about it.”

A Spanish website has already named the player alongside a sexy picture of Imogen wearing a see-through bra, G-string and black stockings.

Former Big Brother babe Imogen, 28, who has forged a career as a men’s magazine model, recently spoke about her relationship with the star who is described as a “family man”.

She told ITV1’s This Morning recently that she wished she had enough money to get a super-injunction to protect her name when the scandal broke.

Imogen said: “I had no intention of ever speaking about the man, I just wish that my name was protected.

“I didn’t have £50,000 to get an injunction. I feel like I have been thrown to the lions and told to ‘deal with it’.

“I’m coping with a lot of stress and pressure on my head at the moment.” Imogen said she had been subjected to “horrible abuse” on Twitter, being called a “slag” and a “whore”.

The footballer is already said to have admitted to his wife that he is the person with the super-injunction after she confronted him.

He is the latest in a string of celebrities who have taken legal action to gag people they have had affairs with.

An internet campaign led by Twitter users is defying court gags to identify the stars, including the married footballer who has had an affair with Big ­Brother’s Imogen Thomas.
CHEATING celebrities hiding behind injunctions were left reeling last night after their secrets were exposed by social networkers.
A single tweeter with more than 42,000 followers claims to “out” famous figures using expensive super-injunctions to keep their disgraceful behaviour secret.
Facebook users have also set up a group dedicated to the subject.

Member Dyl Roberts said: “These people are in the public eye and make millions of pounds on the back of their stardom.

“It’s wrong they should be allowed to hide behind the law and it’s awesome that they are now being exposed. The whistleblowers deserve a medal.”

But there were fears some of the information being sent out online is false or riddled with errors.

Several celebs have already been wrongly named as having brought out injunctions.

Sports presenter Gabby Logan is at the centre of a false rumour she had a fling with soccer pundit Alan Shearer. The mum-of-two issued a fresh denial, tweeting: “I am not and never have.”

Jemima Khan has also been wrongly linked to an affair with Jeremy Clarkson. The socialite revealed yesterday she even had a message of support from the Top Gear star’s wife Frances.

She also got a text from Clarkson and wrote of the false rumours: “I hope the people who made this story up realise that my son will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I’m getting vile hate tweets.” The internet campaign comes as a group of MPs were preparing to launch a bid to change injunction laws. One, Lib Dem John Hemming, said: “There is a lot to learn from the USA where freedom of speech is enshrined in their constitution.

“Where the courts are trying to keep state secrets and Twitter is on the other end, Twitter will win.

“The problem with the current situation is that innocent people will suffer because media outlets which try to get things right are stopped from reporting.”

Media lawyer Mark Stephens added: “If you are getting an ­injunction then you are doing nothing much more than painting a target on your back waiting for the Tweeterati and the blogosphere to come and find you.”

A Twitter spokesman said: “On a practical level we simply cannot review 55million-plus tweets ­delivered every day.”

The prostitute who claims she slept with Wayne Rooney said the internet revelations “made a mockery” of the gagging orders.

Helen Wood claimed she knew of one celebrity who has obtained three separate injunctions to keep different affairs secret.

The 24-year-old told Radio 5 Live’s Victoria Derbyshire: “I’m not one of the women involved.

“There’s a list as long as my arm that I know have injunctions against girls right now.”

Helen, from Bolton, is at the centre of a super-injunction herself after an affair with an actor.

A judge ruled she could be named, but not the star.

Claiming the law favours men, she added: “It sets a bad example basically saying a rich man can protect his name. They can behave exactly how they want to behave, provided they have the money.”

There are currently between 30 and 40 people who have used the privacy laws to block reports about alleged extra-marital affairs, sex with vice girls and cross-dressing.

Twitter user has tried to unmask some celebrities who have obtained super-injunctions to prevent publication of details of their private lives, reports BBC News. The Twitter user claimed to "out" a number of public figures, though the tweets appeared to contain errors. Jemima Khan tweeted: "Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of "intimate" photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!"

The Daily Mail says the social networking site has "made a mockery of the celebrity trend for using privacy injunctions to hide their identity". It says the user quickly attracted a following of several thousands. The Mail says the move "exposed the total inadequacy of court rulings which gag the press - but have no effective control over what is published online".

Twitter feeds by reporters and newspapers are expected to brought under the regulation of the Press Complaints Commission, reports the Guardian. It says it's the first time the body has sought to consolidate social media messages under its remit. The PCC believes that some postings on Twitter are, in effect part of a "newspaper's editorial product". It plans to distinguish between journalists' public and private tweets.

The launch of the iPad helped Apple topple rival technology company Google in 2010 to become "the world's most powerful brand" reports the Guardian. WPP-owned research company Millward Brown puts Apple at number one in its annual top 100 global brand power list, ending Google's four year run at the top. The fallout of the Deepwater Horizon disaster dogged BP, which fell 30 places to 64th with a 27% drop in its brand value.

Judges at the European Court of Human Rights will this week rule on whether the former world motor sports boss Max Mosley's right to privacy was invaded when he wasn't told about a story containing colourful claims about his sex life before it was published in the News of the World. The Independent on Sunday reports claims that victory for Mr Mosley could spell the death of so-called "kiss and tell" stories and would have a "chilling" effect on freedom of expression. Mr Mosley said the judgment would have a bearing on only a small number of cases.

Writing about the effect it's had on her, she says she fears her 14-year-old son would never speak to her again if he heard about the allegation.

This morning Khan tweeted: 'Got a nice text from Francie Clarkson and also one from Jeremy, "It's odd. I'm sure I'd remember if any photos of us existed.".'


Jemima Khan received a text message off Jeremy Clarkson this morning saying 'I'm sure I'd remember if any photos of us existed'


Jemima Khan today took to Twitter to deny that she had taken out a super-injunction


Earlier this morning after waking up to an escalating situation she tweeted about the nightmare she was having


Anguish: Jemima Khan now fears the effect it will have on her children


Responding to a journalist she expresses her fears over the false allegations

The social networking site today made a mockery of the celebrity trend for using privacy injunctions to hide their identity.

A single user, who quickly attracted a following of 20,000, set up an account claiming to ‘out’ those behind the legal gagging orders – but riddled with errors.

So many Twitter users began exchanging messages supposedly naming high-profile figures who have hidden their secrets that part of the site crashed.

The move exposed the total inadequacy of court rulings which gag the press – but have no effective control over what is published online.

Today Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who is compiling a report on super-injunctions, said: ‘It shows the utter absurdity of what is being done in the courts. It ignores the way that modern communication works.

Gagging law stars 'outed' on Twitter: Thousands see the names of celebrities alleged to have taken out injunctions
‘Normally these things are kept so that only a few people in North London know what is going on. But more recently people have been coming  to my constituency surgery and telling me that they know who these people are.’

The move also made plain how the practice of creating injunctions has spawned its own global rumour mill – much of it untrue.

In the latest apparent outing, Jemima Khan was incorrectly named as having gagged intimate photographs of her with a married TV star.

The socialite immediately struck back, denying the claims. On Twitter, she wrote: ‘This is not true. I have no super injunction.’ 

The user may be some ‘students having a laugh’, she said, but added: ‘Not v funny if you are someone’s wife.’


At the weekend, TV presenter Gabby Logan issued a fresh denial over false rumours that she has had an affair with BBC colleague Alan Shearer. She was again trying to damp down internet speculation sparked by a privacy injunction granted by a judge to a different TV star


This page censored the names of celebrities, but Twitter was not responsible - we can't show pictures of the site that 'outed' the gagging law stars for legal reasons

There also appears to be an earlier version of the page on Twitter, but with all the names of the celebrities redacted.

Twitter said it was not responsible for adding the word 'redacted' to the tweets.

Privacy law written on the hoof has had consequences unforeseen by judges, who developed it on the back of human rights legislation designed to protect an individual’s private life.

No judge has given any indication that they realised giving a gagging order to cover up the sexual misbehaviour of one celebrity could damage the reputations of the innocent.

At the weekend, TV presenter Gabby Logan issued a fresh denial over false rumours that she has had an affair with BBC colleague Alan Shearer.  She was again trying to damp down internet speculation sparked by a privacy injunction granted by a judge to a different TV star.

The mother of two said the gossip was ‘unfair’ and declared of the allegation that she is having an affair: ‘I am not and never have.’

There is growing concern that the use of unregulated and unmonitored privacy injunctions is spiralling out of control.

Conservative MP Louise Bagshawe, who recently had a joke about one injunction case censored on the BBC’s Have I Got News For You, labelled the Twitter messages a ‘grassroots protest’.

‘If you have one of these injunctions you will probably find you are exposed on the internet within hours and the press interest will last much longer,’ she said, adding:‘Another consequence is if anyone has  a super injunction for a good or valid  reason, they are tarred with the same brush. That is something judges ought  to consider.’

Meanwhile, media lawyer Mark Stephens said: ‘Clearly the courts are coming second best here. The reality is if you go for one of these injunctions you paint a cross on your back as a target for every itinerant blogger and user of social media.


Twitter 'trend' tracking: Website trendsmap.com allows users to see what the most popular tweets are and where they're originating from

‘We have always had truth and scuttlebutt, it has been the oil in the wheels of society for centuries. This is just the modern way of doing it.’

Between 30 and 40 privacy injunctions and super-injunctions are in force.

There has been public outrage over  privacy injunctions, some of which, so-called super-injunctions, are so draconian that it is a crime even to mention that they exist.

Premier League club officials are understood to have held a meeting last week to discuss the impact on football’s reputation of the large number of privacy gags given to players.

Last night a spokesman for Twitter added: 'On a practical level, we simply cannot review all one 55million-plus tweets created and subsequently delivered every day. There are tweets that we do remove, such as illegal tweets and spam.

'However, we make efforts to keep these exceptions narrow so they may serve to prove a broader and more important rule - we strive not to remove tweets on the basis of their content.