The prospect of Maxine Carr securing an early exit from prison under the electronic tagging scheme gave the tabloids the opportunity to hit out at two of their favourite Aunt Sallys - human rights and legal aid.

The Daily Express was fuming at news that 'scheming Maxine Carr is set to claim that her human rights have been infringed in an audacious bid to get out of jail early', breaking down the 10,000 in legal aid her solicitor, Roy James, could spend to achieve it (16 January).

Mr James argued that if changes to the rules on tagging were introduced to thwart her specific application, a judicial review application - and one for legal aid - may be appropriate.

'The prospect of Carr getting taxpayers' money to back her case has horrified campaigners,' the paper said, although it did not actually quote any of them.

The Legal Services Commission told the paper that it would have to apply its normal tests and could not differentiate between applicants 'on the grounds that a decision to grant funding may be unpopular in a particular case', a view reluctantly backed up by Soham MP James Paice.

'The process of the law must take its course,' he said.

In an editorial, the Express said the case highlighted 'how badly our justice system needs to be reformed'.

It explained: 'Rather than bending over backwards to help criminals escape punishment by providing them with free legal aid, such money would be far better spent helping those who have been the victims of crime or, even better, used to prevent crime in the first place.'

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer found himself in hot water in most of the papers last week after MPs voted to refer his decision to suspend a so-called whistleblower to the Commons' standards and privileges committee.

It is claimed that Judy Weleminsky, a board member of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), was assured she would be protected before she gave evidence about the service's failings to the constitutional affairs select committee.

The entire board was later asked to resign, in part as a result of the committee's report, but Ms Weleminsky refused.

She was then suspended by Lord Falconer because, it is alleged, she was accused of undermining CAFCASS by giving separate evidence - the Lord Chancellor denies this.

The committee then called for an inquiry, saying the suspension 'might be regarded as a prima facie breach of privilege', which protects witnesses who appear before MPs.

But The Guardian cautioned against the instinctive reaction to side with Ms Weleminsky (16 January).

In its leader column, it said the bigger question is whether members of quangos like CAFCASS should behave as she did.

'The need for a more open public culture means that grown-up disagreements on public bodies - whether CAFCASS or the cabinet - ought to be publicly acknowledged and debated,' the paper said.

'But there have to be some limits and rules.'

The government's controversial plan to introduce seller's packs found itself under sustained attack in the Daily Telegraph last week.

First one writer recorded her experience of selling a flat in south London, which took more than three months to complete and cost almost 15,000 in various fees.

Had she had to pay for two seller's packs (the first one would have run out after 90 days), it would have added another 1,200 or so to the cost.

'I am not alone in thinking that the introduction of these packs and yet another cost will make it even harder for people to get on to and climb up the property ladder,' she wrote, before adding: 'I for one will be staying put for a good few years.'

Two days later, another Telegraph columnist attacked the packs as 'a wasteful gimmick, invoked in the name of the consumerist gods, that could prove harmful to a housing market already beginning to look vulnerable'.

For him, it is a case of a petty government interference in everyday life.

'You may well ask what business it is of the state if two people wish to engage in a property deal?' And as these frustrations pile up - he also cited, among other things, high taxes, street crime, late and dirty trains, bloody-minded parking restrictions, 'multi-culturalist busybodies' and six-hour waits at the local accident and emergency centres - 'a shrug and a sigh are no longer enough'.

Mass demonstrations against a change in the conveyancing system? The movement is under way.

Neil Rose