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.