Unfortunately, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that this business of entirely manufacturing news out of nothing is something that The Sun does, and I've been reading them, and comparing them against other papers, for a number of years. I've actually found more inaccuracies in the UK Times than I have in The Sun over the past couple years at least, and far more spin in The Guardian.. If I had something more than your seething, visceral dislike for The Sun to go by I would find your arguments more compelling. They do have a 'certain style' that a lot of people are going to find polarizing, and that's to be expected in a tabloid. I factor all of that in as I read it, and I do believe that the vast majority of readers here at Free Republic are sophisticated and discerning enough to spot a hyperbolic style when they see one.
The Met's reply is the only truly substantive thing that can be pointed to in the article to counter anything that was said previously, and I'm afraid that taking the word of a Government bureaucrat over that of a heroic soldier is not something that I will readily do. In my experience with 'affirmative action' hiring here in the USA, I'm accustomed to those overseeing such policies to lie endlessly about their existence, their implementation and their scope, to keep as much of it secret as is possible and to cover it up if necessary. Of course they will not admit to the press that they turned down a heroic soldier because of his color, that wouldn't be a good career move.
At any rate, hopefully other articles on this matter will eventually appear to either confirm or deny The Sun's treatment of it, but once again I simply don't find the notion of a white male being refused a position because of his color to be out of the ordinary at all; there's nothing even remotely odd about it, as it happens all the time, unfortunately.
“Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that this business of entirely manufacturing news out of nothing is something that The Sun does”
Lol, really? Maybe you should go to Liverpool, where the Sun is still widely boycotted over their treatment of victims of the Hillsborough Disaster.
Manufacturing scandal from nothing is the raison d’etre of The Sun. If they had anything to back up this story, they’d print it. They have the letter. If it said what they claim it says, why do they not print the actual section of it that deals with the reasons why applications are not being accepted?
If the Met Police are lying, that would be very easy to prove. Go to the recruitment section of their website, no vacancies listed for probationary officers.
“I’m afraid that taking the word of a Government bureaucrat over that of a heroic soldier is not something that I will readily do”
I’d quite happily take his word. Just show me the whole letter that he’s holding in his hand in the photo. Why would there be any reason to hide the substantive part of it?