From the beginning I read about it, and thought she was at best foolish and naive and at worst a publicity seeker, trying to get money from the papers for her story. The 'love of my life' comment in particular 
. I did think that it was ridiculous that the privacy order didn't cover her name too, to protect her from the media, as she should be given the benefit of the doubt.
When the judge came out and commented, saying that he gave the injunction because he believed the footballer's claims that she was attempting to blackmail him I couldn't believe what I was reading. I know that we have some moronic judges, but for a judge in a civil matter to label someone of guilty of a criminal offence whilst she was bound by the order from defending herself?????? When any 'evidence' he saw couldn't be subjected to public scrutiny? It goes against all the principles of english law. I still find it hard to believe that it actually happened.
After Trafigura this seemed like a rather sleazy case based more on the tabloid's right to celeb kiss and tells than any public interest argument. The judge's actions raised it to a totally different level. The idea that a person can be branded in this way by a member of the judiciary with no way of defending themselves is repellent. And this is over an affair. What will happen, may already be happening, when women try to tell of being sexually harassed by wealthy businessmen? Or when whistleblowers come forward to expose dangerous work practices or corruption? And there are already hyper injuctions that prevent people from even talking to their MPs, and attempts to stretch super injunctions to stop the media reporting when MPs have used their parliamentary privilege to reveal an injunction.