well done Andrew woodhouse and well done the jury.
Don’t blame the police, blame the CPS for running the case.
Ten out of ten to Mr Woodhouse and the jury. £75 is a joke and an insult to Mr woodhouse.
rambo19:
Don’t blame the police, blame the CPS for running the case.
It was the old bill who decided to charge Mr Woodhouse, thus giving a case for the CPS to take to court. Both the Police and CPS are to blame in my eyes. I bet if Mr Woodhouse rang the police to come out to a burglary then he would still be waiting now 
SteveBarnsleytrucker:
It was the old bill who decided to charge Mr Woodhouse, thus giving a case for the CPS to take to court. Both the Police and CPS are to blame in my eyes. I bet if Mr Woodhouse rang the police to come out to a burglary then he would still be waiting now
Would you want to live in a society where it’s your Police who choose who gets prosecuted?
How about you’re walking home from work one day & stumble innocently across an ongoing & violent protest march, a Policeman pushes you to the ground & you die shortly afterwards from the injuries you sustained from that fall.
Would your Police have any motivation to bring a prosecution?
Chas:
SteveBarnsleytrucker:
It was the old bill who decided to charge Mr Woodhouse, thus giving a case for the CPS to take to court. Both the Police and CPS are to blame in my eyes. I bet if Mr Woodhouse rang the police to come out to a burglary then he would still be waiting nowWould you want to live in a society where it’s your Police who choose who gets prosecuted?
How about you’re walking home from work one day & stumble innocently across an ongoing & violent protest march, a Policeman pushes you to the ground & you die shortly afterwards from the injuries you sustained from that fall.
Would your Police have any motivation to bring a prosecution?
The Police gather the evidence, they submit the evidence to CPS, the cps then decide if the case goes to court based on the evidence gathered
green456:
The Police gather the evidence, they submit the evidence to CPS, the cps then decide if the case goes to court based on the evidence gathered
No ■■■■, Batman.
This case might make a few more judges and juries think twice when someone comes up before them for assault,while protecting their own property.Its about time this country got tough with all these thieving gits. 
Dave the Renegade:
This case might make a few more judges and juries think twice when someone comes up before them for assault,while protecting their own property.Its about time this country got tough with all these thieving gits.
Your teenage son is retrieving a stray football from my property, which borders the local youths popular playing field.
Is it OK with you that I shoot him in the back whilst he’s clambering over & wrecking my fence ?
Or should I just break his scumbag legs with a well placed blow from Mr. Bat?
Chas wrote
Your teenage son is retrieving a stray football from my property, which borders the local youths popular playing field.Is it OK with you that I shoot him in the back whilst he’s clambering over & wrecking my fence ?
Or should I just break his scumbag legs with a well placed blow from Mr. Bat?
Then you deserve porridge for that. He was retrieving a football not trying to rob you.
I know you are talking hypotheticals but your example is just plain ridiculous
I got to be on jury service in the 90’s. Most people don’t realise that it is YOU, the Jury who get to decide if a bloke walks scot-free, or not.
You swear to “try according to the evidence”, and not by something that is not put before you, such as media pressure, family pressure, employer pressure, etc etc.
Even if some defendant chinned someone breaking into his house, and actually killed them (rather than just gave them a good kicking!), then I’m always going to acquit a murder rap because that poor bloke in the dock:-
(1) Didn’t ask for this to happen to him
(2) Didn’t wake up that morning intending to kill anybody, let alone the “victim” toerag who had it coming…
(3) Is a CLEAN CRIMINAL RECORD upstanding citizen before this case in hand… A court is allowed to tell you if the defendant is “of previous good character”. They are NOT allowed to tell you if they have form, but use your heads - if you don’t get told of “previous good character”, then it ain’t true is it?
(4) Toerag families always seem to know PC laws inside and out. Don’t get nobbled, use your commono sense, and make a judgement on balance of probability if you are not sure about anything. “Reasonable doubt” is apparently being “less than 75% sure” and NOT “being less than 100% sure” - which is a totally unrealistic expectation btw, and is never going to happen.
Ignorant Jurors who don’t have a clue often “acquit all” on the basis that they’ll never be 100% convinced of anything put before them in court… Fuel for those who’d like to do away with juries to be sure.
Top marks to the Jury in this case for having enough brains to work all this out for themselves, common sense not withstanding. 
nick2008:
it has also set a president
I think you mean precedent.
