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.