I actually agree with a lot of what you say Redalways. But the opinion of the DPP is not a finding of fact by independent and impartial tribunal. The DPP may be convinced that there was a case to answer and a reasonable prospect of success - but we all know why, in all probability, that statement was made. As nice as it is the DPP formed an opinion on the resonable prospects of success (which is always pretty much 50/50 anyway) in obtaining an assault conviction against PC Hayward - the fact remains they were not convinced enough to press charges against him. So I do have do have to disagree that there is little doubt as the legality or illegality of PC Hayward's actions. For the record though purely on what I have seen and read - I tend towards the assault argument - but I'm not about to hang a man's reputation on my own personal leanings nor drag him through the internet court on a charge of murder based on Keir Starmer's opinion - as compelling as it may be.

My point about Mr Tomlinson's alcoholism (it's not alleged - he was an acloholic) was nothing like an attempt to smear a dead man but to illustrate that there are a lot more factors to the case to consider than simply what appears on a 5 second youtube clip. It goes to other points too, but I think it better to leave those alone.

I'm not an apologist for the police, nor am I unsympathetic that a man died - but I do feel quite strongly when we act as judge, jury and executioner with no evidence. It's becoming a daily thing - every time someone trips these days we first look to which police force or government agency we can blame instead of asking "well were they watching where they were going?" the JCD case is a case in point - where the inaccurate accounts of independent eyewitnesses were somehow skewed into being some sort of conspiracy theory by the police to cover everything up! That's really the point I am trying to make -and I really didn't mean to start a huge heated debate on it or to offend anyone.