A JUDGE has described the decision to prosecute a 10-year-old boy involved in an alleged racist playground spat as `crazy' and `political correctness gone mad'.

The Crown Prosecution Service is under pressure to drop the action following an astonishing outburst by District Judge Jonathan Finestein.

He told Salford Youth Court how he had been called `fat' at school. He said that "in the old days, the headmaster would have got them both and given them a good clouting", they would have shaken hands and that would have been an end to it.

He said he was `extremely concerned' that this case had been pursued, especially after hearing that the two boys concerned were now friends. He criticised the police for failing to prosecute major crimes while going after children "falling out".

The 10-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been summonsed, accused of racially abusing a fellow pupil. It was alleged that he made racist comments in the school playground.

'Crazy'

Appearing with his parents, the youngster denied a racially-aggravated public order offence and said he was now friends with the other boy.

He admitted he called the 11-year-old "P***", but said he did not use any other racist terms.

It has emerged that the victim of the alleged abuse was cautioned for saying "white trash" while the other child was prosecuted.

The M.E.N. has learned that police decided to get involved after the mother of the victim phoned them to say she was pleased with the way the school had dealt with the matter internally.

While saying racist comments had to be dealt with "with the utmost severity", Judge Finestein said he thought the decision to prosecute the youngster was "crazy" and urged the CPS to reconsider its decision.

He said: "Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? I was repeatedly called fat at school. Does this amount to a criminal offence? This is political correctness gone mad, it's crazy.

"Nobody is more against racist abuse than me, but these are boys in a playground. I think somebody should consider reversing the decision to prosecute.

"In the old days, the headmaster would have got them both and given them a good clouting. He would have said they had behaved like idiots, given them the slipper or whatever they used to get, and they would have gone away to shake hands."

Conviction

The district judge said it was wrong for children to have racist views but he was "anxious to avoid the criminal conviction of somebody so young". Addressing the boys' parents, he said: "I'm not blaming you. Kids hear these things. But to refer to people as P***s or refer to their race or religion is wrong. This is how stupid the whole system is getting. There are major crimes out there and the police don't bother to prosecute."

Sitting at the back of the court, the 10-year-old's mother said her son and the complainant were now friends, spent time at each other's houses and played football together.

Mr Finestein ordered the boy remain on summons and adjourned the case to April 20 so the CPS can decide whether it is in the public interest to proceed.

Later in court Mr Finestein clarified his views. He said: "I made it plain at the hearing that the use of such language and such comments are wholly unacceptable.

Prosecution

"I'm extremely concerned that the criminal justice system has gone ahead with a prosecution of this, particularly in view of the fact these boys are now the best of friends. I would have assumed that this would have been dealt with by the school, with parents, and possibly with community workers."

The mother of the 10-year-old said in February, after her son had been interviewed at a police station: "All kids have quarrels and squabbles. The school dealt with it fine."

The headmaster of the school said at the time: "We are confident we have thoroughly investigated the matter and have had no further complaints from the parents."

A CPS spokeswoman said the judge's comments would be taken into consideration.

A GMP spokesman said: "We take all reports of crime seriously and remain opposed to racism in any form."

IS the judge right to question this case? Have your say.