Why a spanner? If he was acquitted of a separate offence that could have prejudiced this trial, had it been reported, it was right that it wasn't mentioned. Or would you prefer that this trial collapsed and had to be re-started, doubling the alleged costs?

I don't like Redknapp based on what I've seen of him, but at least he's had a fair trial and can't moan about that.

Sorry I don't understand. You want England to fail because you don't like Harry Redknapp.

The mind boggles!

England will fail with the best manager in the world at the helm, its just the quality of the 'fail' that is the question....



Don't forget, Capello was rated one of Europe's best club managers prior to him getting the job and even he has struggled.

There are several managers I could name who would do a better job than Redknapp, but the laughable media love-in with him means he is almost guaranteed the job.

From reading press reports and discussions on internet forums, people seem to think that Harry proved his innocence.

The Defendant does not have to prove anything, all he has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution case.

I'd love to see his CV.
Presumably written by a ghost writer?

''I see here Mr Redknapp that you can't read or write very well, you don't know how to use a computer and claim an appalling level of ignorance in most business matters!''

''You would like the job of the next England manager after Capello?''

''So what salary would tempt you to come and work for us?''
Etc.................

Arry for England, yess!

It doesn't matter who takes over - we are rubbish at soccer - we will never win anything. Until our players can do the basics competently then I fail see why anyone expects them to win a major tournament - delusional. The standard of the premier league is equally dire.

The accountability is to us as tax payers, why shouldn't they persue the wealthy who seem to think it's above them to pay their share of tax. We as PAYE slaves do not have the chance to get away with anything, in fact only two years ago I got billed an extra £270 because my company had provided 'incorrect' information about my company car. When I rang up and pleaded that it wasn't my fault I was told ' it is your fault, its your tax so pay up'. I had my tax code adjusted to recover the money.

This made me chuckle when i saw it

Oh don't worry I've been there, I'm there at the moment arguing the toss with HRMC over a tax credit that they steadfastly refuse to take any responsibility for, even though it was they who made the decision, I've currently got my MP involved but they are not budging at all - there's more than one way to skin a cat though

My apologies - credit where it's due and my memory isn't what it was.

That's what 'Arry said.

Latest betting on the new recipient of the England manager's salary:

Rosie - 4/7

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-10m-home-a-business-empire--how-bad-with-money-can-he-be-6676533.htmlMakes you think what he'd be worth if he did have some business acumen[/url

Or maybe he's not quite as daft as he'd like to make us believe?

Of course they love him.
Its always 'London is the centre of the world' in the media and what says London more than a Cockney(He may not be an official Cockney as I dont know where he was born but you get the point)?
Now the fact that he can neither write or possibly read is just the icing on their cake.

Part of HMRC's reasoning in deciding which cases to settle by civil means and which to take to criminal prosecution is what message a successful conviction will send out to those currently committing the same offence that they haven't caught up with yet.

Given the current political hot potato that is offshore tax evasion (Vodafone, Phillip Green etc), a conviction of someone high profile like Redknapp would have been manna from heaven for HMRC to use for these purposes.

Sadly, they've fallen into the same trap they did with Ken Dodd of believing that a jury will find a likeable, cheeky high profile "personality" guilty of anything. On the facts of the case as reported, it's clear as the nose on your face that Redknapp had this money paid to an offshore account to avoid UK tax - in much the same way that Dodd admitted being paid in cash and having suitcases full of the stuff under his bed for the same means.

I've absolutely no issues with the decision to take the case to court, which would have needed to be supported by the CPS. Unfortunately, the problem you have to live with if you want a jury system is that sometimes it will let you down.

I don't see it as a jury letting me down.

Whether you believe him or not, commenting on the jury system in general as opposed to redknapp's case in particular, the fact is that the jury has functions in our society that extend beyone the specific duty they are given by the court, and always has had. The jury has (for example) a useful power against perceived oppression. Neither the state nor the judge can tell them what to do. ATEOTD it is up to them so, for example, even if they thought a defendant was technically guilty as sin, they can still vote to acquit if say they believed that the prosecution was purely politically motivated, or was oppressive, or some other reason which legally was no reason at all to acquit.

They do not have to give their reasons for acquittal, and so do have this great power.

Who knows what happened in the jury room at Redknapp's trial, but if for example a jury perceived what they regarded as a basically good bloke, who does indisputably pay millions in taxes, being scapegoated or oppressed over a (comparatively) modest amount of tax, when they see bankers stealing billions, and companies like Vodafone getting unjustifiable sweetheart deals, then I personally would understand that. Redknapp should be a long way down the list for prosecution. The likes of Vodafone, Goodwin et al , some jurors might argue, surely get their collars felt first and examined as to whether what they or their companies have been up to is or is not criminal conduct.

This morning the Spurs board have informed Harry Redknapp that he is free to leave. All he has to do is write his own resignation letter

You know, the trouble with some people is that they can't lay low even if they tried - rather than buying a huge house on one of the most expensive pieces of land in the world which will require a small fortune to keep in that location he could have bought a more modest but still very nice four or five bed house in a decent neighbourhood and stuffed his mattresses with ten pound notes and then stuck two fingers up at everyone for the rest of his life.

I am coming to learn that my old dad was right in all of these matters all along.

Well said. I'd also add that if what they're doing isn't criminal conduct, the law ought to be changed so that it becomes criminal conduct.

You are aware that right now, there'll be some wonk in the Justice Department, beavering away on new legislation to make it a criminal offence for jurors to acquit

And about time too, they should be charged with wasting police time if they acquit. These layabouts on juries should get themselves a proper job. A spell in the army would do them good.