|
Police send
four police officers to tackle boy, 11, who called schoolmate 'gay'
UK Daily Mail | April 2, 2007
By Liz Hull
When two policemen turned up
unannounced at Alan Rawlinson's home asking to speak to his young
son, the company director feared something serious had happened.
So he was astounded when the
officers detailed 11-year-old George's apparent crime - calling one
of his schoolfriends 'gay'.
They said primary school pupil,
George, was being investigated for a 'very serious' homophobic crime
after using the comment in an e-mail to a 10-year-old classmate.
But now his parents have hit out at
the police, who they accused of being heavy-handed and pandering to
political correctness.
"It is completely ridiculous," Mr
Rawlinson said.
"I thought the officers were
joking at first, but they told me they considered it a very serious
offence.
"The politically correct brigade
are taking over. This seemed like a huge waste of resources for
something so trivial as a playground spat."
Cheshire police launched the
investigation last month after a complaint from the parents of the
10-year-old younger boy who received George's e-mail.
They said their son had been
called a 'gay boy' and were concerned that there was more to the
comment than playground banter and that their child was being
bullied.
As a consequence, two officers
were sent to the boys' school, Farnworth Primary, in Widnes,
Cheshire, to speak to the headteacher who directed them to the
Rawlinsons' home in nearby St Helens, Merseyside.
George told his parents that the
comment was in no way meant to be homophobic and that he had simply
been using the word gay instead of 'stupid'.
Mr Rawlinson, 41, who runs his own
business, and whose wife, Gaynor, also 41, is a magistrate, said his
son was terrified when the police arrived at their home.
He feared he was going to be
arrested and locked up in a cell because of it, he added. "I feel
very aggrieved about this," Mr Rawlinson, who has lodged a formal
complaint against the police, said.
"We are law-abiding citizens who
have paid taxes all our lives.
"I've constantly contacted police
about break-ins at my business and never get a suitable response.
"George was really upset, he
thought he was going to be locked up. This just seemed like a huge
waste of resources for something so trivial."
Inspector Nick Bailey, of Cheshire
police, said no further action would be taken against George.
However, he said the force had been obliged to record the incident
as a crime and that they had dealt with it in a 'proportionate'
manner.
"The parents of the boy believed
it was more sinister that just a schoolyard prank," Inspector Bailey
said.
"We were obliged to record the
matter as a crime and took a proportionate and maybe old fashioned
view.
"Going to the boy's house was a
reasonable course of action to take. This e-mail message was part of
some behaviour which had been on going.
"The use of the word 'gay' would
imply that it was homophobic, but we would be hard pushed to say it
was a homophobic crime.
"This boy has not been treated as
an offender."
This is a latest in a series of
incidents where police have been accused of heavy handedness for
interviewing or threatening children with prosecution for seemingly
trivial crimes.
Last October the Daily Mail
revealed how 14-year-old Codie Scott was arrested and thrown in a
police cell for almost four hours after she was accused of racism
for refusing to sit next to a group of Asian pupils in her class.
Teachers reported the youngster,
from Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, after
she claimed it was impossible for her to get involved in the class
'discussion' because only one of the Asian pupils spoke English.
She had her fingerprints and DNA
taken but was eventually released without charge.
The incident followed that of a
15-year-old boy from Burnley, Lancashire, who was arrested, thrown
in a police cell, hauled before the courts and landed with a
criminal record simply for throwing a snowball at a car.
The teenager, who cannot be named
for legal reasons, was prosecuted under a little used 160-year-old
law last March, and fined £100 in a case which provoked a public
outcry.
|