I WOULD like to state here and now that I have not being having an affair with either a former Miss Wales or Jeremy Clarkson and that I have not taken out a super injunction to protect my privacy.

Jemima Khan and Gabby Logan have both felt pressured to make statements after they were named on the internet so I thought I’d make my position clear, as well. Solidarity with the Sisters, so to speak. Even though I haven’t been named.

I am not one of those who have gone to law to stop my wife discovering I had a hot steamy fling with a beauty queen that might attract national headlines proclaiming: ‘What a Night! What a Stud!’

“You?” my wife would have said. “Hot? Steamy? Beauty queen? Stud?”

And then I would have had to wait half an hour until she stopped laughing.

Mind you, the furore about super injunctions is a bit worrying.

When I heard on the BBC the other night, that all was being revealed on Twitter, I pursed my lips at the arrogant way in which the internet was ignoring the British legal system – and then went online to find out the goss.

And really, gossip is all it is, which is why Jemima and Gabby have both issued denials after being named while totally innocent. And there’s the rub.

There are those who righteously spread unconfirmed hearsay, whether it be true or not, about this footballer or that actor from the apparent security of an anonymous account on Twitter and many others who gleefully accept it as fact.

The specious argument used to defend this behaviour is that Twitter has become the torchbearer of free speech. But it’s not freedom of speech – it’s freedom of abuse.

Years ago, the affair being conducted by the Prince of Wales with Mrs Simpson never made headlines. The British Press wouldn’t touch such a scandal. Neither were the many affairs of President Jack Kennedy given publicity until long after his death.

Did Clark Kent need an injunction to keep secret his identity as Superman? Did Mary Poppins go to law to stop an expose about her past life as a lap dancer?

It wasn’t necessary. No-one needed an injunction.

But times change and these days anything goes and nothing is private. Ask Max Mosley. Which is why the rich and famous take refuge in the law.

We may not like the idea of super injunctions but I like even less the idea that someone can go online anonymously and tell lies or threaten lives and relationships by innuendo and speculation. Challenge the law, by all means, and get it changed, but do it properly.

There is now talk about legal moves to force Twitter to reveal the identity of the main culprit who is spreading the rumours so that action can be taken against them. Fat chance. I have heard that the person is still one step ahead. They have taken out a super injunction to protect their identity.