This appears to be the primary basis for your objections, and you're welcome to them, although I don't share such a strident view. I've found The Sun to be hyperbolic on occasion and I think that most readers are savvy enough to understand that, but I haven't known them to make things up entirely out of wholecloth. Since this is an 'exclusive' article, it's impossible to check it against other sources and so this is the extent of what we have to go on.
However, for these points about him being refused an application due to his race to be untrue, the entire interview with Lance Cpl. Mayer would also have to be fabricated, as he states quite clearly that he understands his refusal of hire is due to race. A direct quotation of his:
“To get back and learn that I am the wrong colour or sex to even be considered for the police has left me speechless.
"I feel discriminated against.”
I think that many here, including myself, find the points made in this article to be entirely believable and plausible in the context of what has been going on in both the USA and the UK for decades.....passing over white men in particular while favoring women and minorities is, unfortunately, so very commonplace that it's entirely humdrum and unremarkable. What makes this article compelling is that it's happening to such a heroic and superbly qualified soldier. If any of the points made in the article were in any way outlandish then I would be the among first to question it, but sadly most all of us have seen similar stories play out time and time again.
Why would they have to fabricate his quotes? He is either mistaken or, more likely, happy to play along with The Sun to generate manufactured outrage (as The Sun does best) at a complete non-issue. "Man wants to apply for job, told there are no vacancies" wouldn't really capture the reader, would it?
The guy has a letter from the MPS telling him why he cannot currently apply. The Sun has a picture of him holding it. The Sun quotes from the letter. But they don't quote the part of the letter that gives the reason why he cannot apply! Why not? That's what the whole story is supposed to be about! Why quote a bit of meaningless equal opportunities blurb from the end of the letter and not quote the part that actually says 'sorry we're not currently accepting applications because....'? The obvious answer is that quoting the whole letter would prove their story completely manufactured.
They do of course, attempted to maintain the sham of journalistic good form by giving the Met right of reply and sneaking in the real reason why this guy is currently unable to apply with as little fanfare as possible right near the end of the article:
"The Met confirmed Ben had been refused a recruitment pack — but said that the force was not recruiting right now."