Privacy law has continued to dominate the headlines, with Prime Minister David Cameron wading into the debate about the sustainability of privacy injunctions as an MP on Monday (23 May) used Parliamentary privilege to name the footballer at the centre of the row.

Speaking on ITV's Daybreak programme on Monday morning (23 May) Cameron called for privacy laws to be reviewed. He described current laws affecting newspapers as "unsustainable" and said Parliament was "going to have to take some time out to really have a think about this".

Events took a dramatic turn later that day when Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, speaking in Parliament, named a well-known footballer as having taken out an injunction, arguing it would be impractical to imprison 75,000 users of Twitter who had already named the player.

Hemming's move was criticised by a number of Parliamentarians – including House of Commons speaker John Bercow – for using privilege to flout a court order.

During the same debate, attorney general Dominic Grieve announced that the Government was setting up a joint committee of peers and MPs to investigate the use of injunctions.

Hemming's move came after a weekend that saw injunctions continue to dominate the attention of newspapers and social networking sites such as Twitter, as debate intensified about the justification for such privacy orders and their applicability in today's era of digital media.

On Sunday (22 May), a Scottish newspaper chose to flout the injunction by publishing a barely concealed picture of the footballer who had taken out an injunction over his alleged affair with former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. It is unclear the extent, if any, to which an injunction issued in England applies to Scotland.

The Sun newspaper on Monday submitted an application to challenge the existing Imogen Thomas injunction on the basis of the publication in Scotland. However, the High Court twice rejected applications to lift the injunction.

There were also newspaper reports that the Attorney General has been asked to consider a prosecution following an alleged breach of an injunction by a journalist on Twitter concerning another footballer in the case known as TSE v News Group Newspapers.

However, Mr Justice Tugendhat today said: "I have not received any request to refer to the Attorney General in this case in which the claimant is referred to as TSE, and I have not referred it to him." Grieve confirmed on Monday that he was not considering a prosecution.

The frenzied debate on social media sites had already been stoked on Friday (20 May) when it emerged that a claimant identified as CTB had launched a High Court action against Twitter and a number of its users in relation to the reporting of an injunction.

The action was an attempt to force the social media site to disclose details of a number of Twitters users thought to be behind the publication of confidential information. The case has further underlined claims that privacy laws are out of step with the realities of social media given the challenge of forcing the California-based company to comply with a disclosure order from an English court.

The latest developments also come after the committee charged with reviewing the use of superinjunctions on Friday (20 May) called for the media to have advance notice of privacy orders and for the Government to monitor the use of injunctions. The committee, chaired by Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, argued that the current regime for granting injunctions is working effectively.

Speaking at a press conference at the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday, Neuberger said: "At the moment the law seems to be that even if the information which is the subject matter of the injunction is on the web, or may go on the web, that is by no means the same degree of intrusion under privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front page of a national newspaper, which people trust more and has far greater circulation than those bloggers and tweeters.

"It is a problem, however, and I can well understand the press's concern that, on the one hand, the print press is prevented from telling a story when it is available on the web. That is a problem and it is one that we shall have to face and deal with as the matter develops."

For more, see Hemming does his worst – the day one MP took the law into his own hands, and click here for the Newsnight debate in the wake of Hemming's disclosures in Parliament.