Fat chance, but...
While I won't be holding my breath (given every bit of uk.gov so far has made it up as it goes along), the opportunities for proceeding on the grounds of public interest look promising, at least to this layman. From the guidelines 5.9, the following look like they fit:
-e the defendant was in a position of authority or trust
-f the evidence shows that the defendant was a ringleader or an organiser of the offence
-g there is evidence that the offence was premeditated
-h there is evidence that the offence was carried out by a group
-o there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated , for example, by a history of recurring conduct
This would certainly be true:
-q a prosecution would have a significant positive impact on maintaining community confidence.
I wonder if BT's IP ranges count as an "area":
-p the offence, although not serious in itself, is widespread in the area where it was committed
Less seriously, there's the Daily Mail clause:
-j the offence was committed in the presence of, or in close proximity to, a child
BT execs must have a mental age of 3 to have done this, but I'm not sure that's whats meant by:
-l there is a marked difference between the actual or mental ages of the defendant and the victim, or if there is any element of corruption
Sadly, 5.10 would appear to offer plenty of wriggle room for the DPP to engage in the now customary handwashing, and they certainy have a track record.