I did not suggest there should be an internet court - i suggested we should not be trying PC Hayward in one which basically seems what ahs happened in some of the posts in this thread.

The case hasn't been dealt with by the DPP Redalways - the decision as to whether or not to prosecute has though - and that is the remit of the DPP's office. They decided not to prosecute for manslaughter because there is no real prospect of conviction (which makes perfect sense) and that they can't prosecute for the assault charge because of the statute of limitations (which I personally find a little absurd).

I don't see that the transposition of police officer and member of the public has anything to do with this. If it is assault, it is assault whether it is a police office or a member of the public. That the police officer is acting in his role as a police officer means you can't transpose the two because a member of the public would not be acting in that role as a member of the public. The question really should be did the police officer, acting in his role as a police officer, assault a member of the public (or alternatively, was he acting as a police officer when (and if) he assaulted a member of the public).

Equally, with the exception of the assault charge - which is out of time anyway and therefore not really relevant to a bias or zeal argument, I don't see how the CCTV cameras are relevant here either.