Spot the difference in these stories from today's Daily Mail:
Article one: "David Cameron declared war on unelected judges yesterday after they put the human rights of paedophiles and rapists before public safety."
Article two: "Judges yesterday staunchly defended the 'rights of the majority' as they threw out an appeal by a group of Muslims against their conviction for hurling hate-filled abuse at soldiers."
In the first, judges are unelected (because they have ruled in a way that offends the Mail). In the second, there is no mention that they are unelected (because their ruling delights the Mail). The former are bad, the latter are good.
It's a small point, I agree, but interesting all the same. I have noted an increasing number of pejorative references in the Mail, and elsewhere, to "unelected judges" as if this is something to despise.
What do editors want? Elections for judges?
