[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16825874Looks like one rule for some...[/url

Imagine if you were up on a similar charge and the trial was moved to, effectively, the middle of your holiday. Why not next week, or March?

Isn't that the way justice usually works? You plead not guilty and a trial date is set for a few months after. Is it not just coincidence that it's landed after the finals?

In reality they could have it after the semi final.

Seems an inordinate delay for a non-custodial offence. Will discuss with the Mrs later as she'll know.

I like your optimism.

If he had submitted a guilty plea, it would have been dealt with on the day.

As he's not done so, there needs to be time for both the prosecution and defence to prepare their cases for the trial itself. Five months might seem a little excessive for what is effectively a "your word against mine" case on the face of it, but I suppose the court needs to consider the availability of witnesses during the football season etc.

Certainly being famous and involved in football didn't mean Harry Redknapp got any leeway in having his trial date set during the season itself, so it's presumably just down to the individual magistrate to determine how long to adjourn for?

Just reminded me of a quote I read about how it's not nice knowing your current account will never be as rich as Harry Redknapp's dog.

Not lookin so fookin Rosie now, is it, though?



But I reckon Harry will get off. I hope he does, as he's a star. He's playing a 4-5-Ken Dodd formation, whch is very effective for a fixture against the taxman, and the jury may be his extra man.

My cynical friend has suggested that the case is being heard at a court that has a huge backlog of cases, and of course that means the case will be delayed. I find that hard to believe as I know that everyone is equal in front of the beak.

6 months or so at any London Magistrates court is a fairly typical delay after entering a not guilty plea.

redknapp doesnt play for england. HTH.

if anyone thinks a deal hasnt been done are IMO naive. look at the hypocritical FA appealing shreks 3 game ban.........

So the FA now have the power to nobble the legal system? That's an impressive leap of lunacy right there.

ok andy.

I fear I may be naïve. Could you tell me what deal you think has been done, between what parties, and why these parties would want to do a deal, so I can consider my potential naiveté?

So, about this deal? I see the FA have understandably stripped Terry of the England captaincy, as having the case hanging over him during the championships it would be inappropriate for him to be the captain. Is this part of the "deal" too?