You don't have to have very keen bullshit detectors to spot when some Daily Mail headlines are away with the fairies exaggerated cobblers. There's an example on the website today, in 'Teenage muggers to be let off if they say sorry under new plans'. Only the most gullible of readers would spit their toast in indignant rage at this one.
Reading through several paragraphs of information reveals that kids can only get a Youth Restorative Disposal once, on their first offence, that the victim has to consent to this being the best course of action and it can only be used for minor offences like theft and vandalism. The bit about the victim having to consent is buried 21 sentence/paragraphs in.
A couple of things missing from the article that is included in the information about the scheme on the Youth Justice Board website are that 'The victim may talk about the effect it had on them and there is an apology – sometimes with a plan to make good any damage,' and that 'The pilot scheme closes in April 2009, after which there will be an evaluation to determine whether the project should be rolled out nationally.' The first is just left out to make it look like all that has to be done is that the kid says sorry and that's it, and the second would contradict the definite wording of the headline.
The paper can get away with the shouty headline because 'mugging' isn't a crime with a specific definition. It can involve anything from snatch theft right up to something involving serious violence. When we hear that someone has been mugged, most of us will picture a certain amount of violence - maybe being held up with a weapon. But anything involving a weapon will be exempt from this, and any mugging involving violence would be classed as a robbery, which is almost certainly the sort of serious crime that wouldn't be covered.
But adding all that stuff isn't entertaining enough to sell papers.