By LIZ HULL

Last updated at 10:44 02 April 2007

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.

Scroll down for more...

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.