This story is based on figures provided by the House of Commons Library, taken from the Office for National Statistics (here and here) and Eurostat (here). (They’re also mentioned in an answer to a parliamentary question in July, supplied by the ONS). They show that England’s population density in 2010 was projected to be 401 people per square kilometre by the ONS.

The Mail reports this as being 402.1 per square km, just under 4 people higher than the Netherlands, which it reports as being 398.5 people per square km.

The parliamentary answer says:

Eurostat publishes estimates of population densities for all EU countries up to 2007 (see table tps00003 under main demographic indicators at [this link]

Table tps00003 – the table that the Office for National Statistics suggests we use to find out the population density of European countries – shows that in 2007, the Netherlands’ density was 485.3 people per square km.  The Mail said that in 2010 it was 398.5.

Official stats from the Dutch equivalent of the ONS show that the Netherlands’ projected population density for 2010 is 491 people per square km. Over 90 people higher than the Daily Mail reports.

According to the ONS figures, England won’t reach that level until some time between 2031 and 2056. So how has the Mail been suggesting for years that England is the most overcrowded country in Europe?

Nearly a fifth of the Netherlands is covered by water. The Dutch government takes account of that by measuring population density by land area only. Eurostat includes this measurement in its own figures, and the ONS advises we use Eurostat figures to measure population density. But for some reason, the Mail ignores this.

This needn’t be deliberate. It could be that the Mail or whoever provided the paper with these figures never actually noticed the Eurostat numbers, and made their own calculations that didn’t take account of water in the Netherlands.

Whatever the reason for the omission, it’s clear that England is only the most overcrowded country in Europe if you ignore official Dutch figures, ignore the figures the ONS suggest and decide that Dutch people can live underwater.

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‘.