20. Another matter to which the News of the World appeared to attach significance was the use of a clipboard or notepad described as an “SS-style inspection sheet”. It would appear, so far as one can see, to have nothing to do with the SS. All one can make out is the name “Tim Barnes” at the top. (I hasten to add that this has nothing to do with any real person of that name – it is merely a nom de guerre used by Mr Mosley. By giving a false name, he provided a pretext for punishment.) 21. Again, this is not a matter on which it would be appropriate for me to come to a conclusion at this stage. It is accepted that a quasi-prison environment is part of the “S and M” scenario, but it is said not to be representative of Nazism in particular. Mr Mosley may well be right about all this, but obviously I could not restrain the allegations or verbal descriptions of what took place. If the matter were to come to trial, it may be that the Court will in due course hold that there is nothing in the allegations of Nazi role-play – as opposed merely to examples of dominance, submission and punishment in an “S and M” context. 22. When it comes to privacy, however, Mr Price emphasises that, when balancing his client’s Article 8 rights against the Respondent’s Article 10 rights, the visual display of the edited footage serves no legitimate purpose and that its grossly intrusive nature is unnecessary and disproportionate. 23. I was reminded of a passage in the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] 2 AC 457, 475 at [60], where he referred to a hypothetical case in which there would be a public interest in the disclosure of the existence of a sexual relationship (e.g. because of corrupt favours), but where the addition of salacious details or intimate photographs would be disproportionate to any legitimate purpose and unacceptable. He observed that these would be likely to be intrusive and demeaning – even if accompanying a legitimate disclosure. Mr Price submitted that this would also be true in the present case. 24. I was also invited to have in mind similar observations made by Waller LJ in D v. L [2004] EMLR 1 at [23]: “A court may restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph even if the taker is free to describe the information which the photographer provides or even if the information revealed by the photograph is in the public domain. It is no answer to the claim to restrain the publication of an improperly obtained photograph that the information portrayed by the photograph is already available in the public domain.” 25. There was comment in the same vein in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Douglas v. Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2006] QB 125, 162 at [105]: “In general, however, once information is in the public domain, it will no longer be confidential or entitled to the protection of the law of confidence, though this may not always be true: see Gilbert v. Star Newspaper Co Ltd [1894] 11 TLR 4 and Creation Records Ltd v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444, 456. The same may generally be true of private information of a personal nature. Once intimate personal