Married star, single mum gagging order

Feel compelled to tell you this little story given I've just been writing about branding and benefits.
A married TV star has won a gagging order 'barring a single mum from revealing they had phone sex." (The Sun)
The star and his wife, it says, feared the 11 month virtual relationship could "wreck their lives".
The mum "wanted to reveal details to protect her reputation after rumours on websites."

They met while the man had 'briefly separated from his wife' but carried on exchanging messages after the couple got back together.
According to the paper the mum is on 'disability benefit and had mental health needs'. Why do we need to know that about her?
Apparantly it was her who conducted the relationship with the guy, according to the judge.
It was her who was 'not only willing but enthusiastic'
It was her who "enjoyed sexually explicit and provocative exchanges with him and others on the internet"
It was her, all her, nothing to do with him at all.
We are told therefore, that she is some kind of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction character (aren't we all though, aren't we all?) and must be gagged.

Meanwhile the famous star is shitting his proverbial pants enough to get a gagging order on her but no inuendo or insinuation is made about him at all. Is he scared they'll all come out the woodwork?

I read it while I was at the clinic yesterday so afterwards bought the Mirror to see how they'd written it up. The story wasn't in there. To the Sun's credit they did quote the single mum saying she meant no harm to the superstar, she wanted only to protect herself. She didn't think anyone should "crucify him" (in the same way the judge crucified her....)

It's not an interesting story, not the kind I'm particularly interested in but it simply demonstrates how facts can be manipulated, hidden or exposed, to benefit one person over another.