Posted by Merk
April 15th, 2010
Categories: Front Pages | 58 Comments
=
Was the case against an immigrant Gypsy gang dropped because it wasn’t in the public interest?
Posted by 5cc
April 14th, 2010
The most read story on the Daily Mail website today is labelled ‘Immigrant gang of eight molest girl, 14, in street – but no one is charged as it’s ‘not in public interest” on the homepage, and in the page title (which also includes a classic tabloid ‘fury as’). Clicking the link will show that the headline has been changed to ‘Eight boys molest girl, 14, in street but not one faces charges‘.
The change of headline could have been made because of a statement issued by the Crown Prosecution Service, reported in Peterborough Today, which says:
The Crown Prosecution Service refuted reports that it decided to drop the case because it was not deemed to be in the public interest. A spokesman said all decisions to press charges are based on two “tests” outlined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
He said: “The first is the evidential test where we have to be satisfied that there is enough admissible evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
“If the evidence satisfies the first test, then we have to consider the second test – the public interest test. A prosecution will usually take place unless the public interest factors against prosecution clearly outweigh those in favour of prosecution.
“In this particular case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence to give rise to a realistic prospect of conviction before a criminal court and so the public interest test was not considered.”
So, the boys did not escape prosecution because it wasn’t in the public interest. It’s a shame, but there just wasn’t enough evidence to get a conviction from. This sort of thing happens, annoying as it might be.
What about the other claim in the original headline, that an ‘immigrant gang of eight’ molested a girl?
Speaking to MailWatch, a spokesperson for the Crown Prosecution Service said that although it would be accurate to say the boys were Slovakian, “some reports have called the boys ‘gypsy migrants’ which would not be accurate language to use,” and not something the CPS would have said. This is because the information the CPS has comes from the question on the police’s arrest form, which is self-reported by the suspect. It doesn’t include information like ‘gypsy’.
As for the ‘migrant’ or ‘immigrant’ – the Mail article has this to say:
The boys, from local Romany migrant families who settled in the city in the late 1990s…
So, since the boys are aged between 8 and 12 and their families arrived in the UK in the late 90s, they’re probably not migrants at all. Since their parents arrived before Slovakia joined the EU and movement between EU countries became easier, they may even be UK citizens.
The removal of the word ‘immigrant’ probably explains the headline change, since the boys aren’t called immigrants in the body of the story. It’s the only thing that has gone though. The story still falsely claims in its opening sentence:
A gang of boys who molested a girl of 14 have escaped prosecution because it is ‘not in the public interest’.
The paper gets around the ‘migrant’ and ‘gypsy’ references by saying:
…the boys, from Slovakian gipsy families…
[and]
The boys, from local Romany migrant families…
Where the idea that their families are gypsies comes from is anyone’s guess.
Although the paper may have been careful only to imply the boys are immigrants in the body of the story, it has been less than careful in moderating the comments, which say:
Good to see the CPS are obeying Government dictat and placing the human rights of immigrants above those of the indigenous population when the law is broken.
And:
We cannot allow bands of immigrant boys who perpetrate this type of crime to go unpunished.
And:
This country now belongs to benefits claimants, criminals and street gangs, bankers, human rights lawyers, and economic immigrants….
And:
I’ll bet the spineless, idiotic, moronic wombles from the CPS would soon be prosecuting if one of the immigrants had made a complaint.
And:
Soon, the UK will have the same problems as France (rape rooms in the ghettos) and the immigrant (youth) gang rapists in Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands etc
And:
The reason is simple. There is not a penny to be made in the form of fines by prosecuting these illegal immigrants.
And:
Eastern European gypsies enjoy a doubly protected status in Britain as immigrants and as gypsies.
And:
In who’s best interest? This lying government, to keep the crimes of immigrants out of the statistics.
And:
Ah, but if the victim had been an immigrant and the offenders indigenous English do you think the CPS would have come to the same decision? Neither do I.
And:
Typical – One rule for immigrants and one for the people of this once great country
And:
Who makes these decisions? Whoever decided that allowing these immigrant thugs to walk free was the righ thing to do, needs to lose their job.
I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture by now. Lots of commenters say the boys are immigrants, as does the homepage link and page title.
Loads more comments also say the prosecution was dropped because it wasn’t in the public interest, but the paper didn’t bother to remove that bit from the article.
Still not true though.
UPDATE- For another look at this story and a possible reason for why it was told in this way, see TabloidWatch for ‘How the anti-immigration agenda works‘.
Categories: Immigration | 12 Comments
