An audience poll on 'Have I Got News For You' has laid bare how ridiculous an injunction that stops the media reporting on a celebrity threesome couple really is.
During Friday night's show on the BBC, team captain Paul Merton asked for a show of hands of everyone who knew the names of those involved.
The world-famous pair have only been identified as PJS and YMA. PJS allegedly had an extra-marital threesome with another couple.
A political website and Scottish newspaper have already identified the married couple and pressure has mounted on them to ditch anonymity, stoking claims by the press that the legal ruling was descending into farce and could not be sustained.
The blog took aim at the court ruling by printing an picture of the couple in question with black marks over their eyes, despite the fact it was still clear who they are.
On Tuesday, the people behind the blog said they had been contacted by the couple's lawyers, Carter Ruck, threatening to jail the editor for Contempt of Court.
Editors from The Sun on Sunday had applied to lift the gag on newspapers but judges in an open and closed hearing in the Court of Appeal on Friday delayed adjudication on the matter until Monday afternoon.
The terms of the injunction are so strict the blog cannot be named, nor can the Scottish newspaper or US magazine that have also named them be reported.
Their names have also been reported on Twitter and numerous other social media websites.
The blog claimed it was outside the jurisdiction of the injunction, which applies only to England and Wales.
The blogger wrote: “There are no physical assets in the UK, there is no digital equivalent of a printing press, no device that can be seized or smashed."
“Web users point their browsers at a server in the US and fetch the data back, we do not store published content in the UK.”
The political blogger also said proceedings have been threatened in Ireland,
The Court of Appeal judges said it was now too late to stop his client’s children finding out about the affair.
Lord Justice Jackson said the identities of those involved was available to “anyone” as he suggested the claimant’s fears about the impact on their offspring could no longer stand.
Considering the appeal he accepted that “sooner or later” the youngsters “will learn about this” and added: “Those who are interested already know.”