Speeding could depend. Doing 90 in a 30, I would say yes.
But the report only has one mention of speeding that I could see and it was not in isolation but in conjunction with other concerns:
"Case study 4
A police officer applicant was granted vetting clearance. Five years earlier, he had come to police attention for speeding and other driving-related matters.
He also declared that he had been convicted abroad of an attempted theft in that same year. He was fined for this offence. There was also police intelligence, from around the same period, relating to the applicant’s possible link to drug supply.
And in recent intelligence, a man was seen with a firearm and involved in a police pursuit. The vehicle in question was a hire vehicle and the address for
the hire was the home address of the applicant. There was also recent intelligence linking a separate vehicle, registered to the applicant, to an offence of aggravated burglary. In that offence, five offenders had threatened the occupants with a metal bar before stealing jewellery.
When granting vetting clearance, the force didn’t fully assess the risks associated with this applicant. When we expressed our concerns about this decision to the force, it was clear from its response that the force had dismissed both the attempted theft conviction abroad and the intelligence picture. The force put no risk mitigation measures in place at the time of the vetting clearance and appeared not to do so after our vetting file review.
In this case, the mutually corroborative nature of the intelligence and other information caused us substantial concern."
The rest are more like this:
"Case study 5
A police officer applicant was given vetting clearance. The applicant had a conviction for drink-driving and driving with no insurance, 18 years prior to his application. Four years later, he was arrested, but not prosecuted, for intimidating a witness. In the same year, he was also arrested for a domestic-related assault. A woman was left with marks to her neck. There was no evidence on the vetting file to confirm or refute whether these two arrests were linked. Five years before his application, the applicant was again arrested for a domestic-related assault. In this case too, a woman allegedly suffered injury marks to her neck.
The rationale focused on the passing of time, stating that the “traces on applicant are significantly aged”. There was no evidence that the force had considered the full circumstances of the offences, including the reasons for no further action being taken, for any of the arrests. The rationale didn’t make any comment on the fact that two separate domestic-related incidents had occurred, where two women were both allegedly left with marks to their neck.
Case study 6
A police officer applicant was granted vetting clearance. He declared that he had been cautioned for shoplifting as a juvenile, although vetting enquiries could not confirm this. He also declared that 20 years prior to his application, as a teenager, he had been accused of rape. He was charged, but a senior prosecutor subsequently withdrew the charge. The issue was one of consent, as the applicant had claimed that the actions were consensual.
The vetting unit interviewed the applicant about the incident and consulted officers who had been involved in presenting the case to the CPS. The head of the professional standards department (PSD) countersigned the decision to grant clearance. But the recorded rationale for granting clearance didn’t
contain enough detail to explain the decision. The force didn’t introduce any risk mitigation measures.
Case study 7
A police officer applicant was granted vetting clearance. A Police National Database (PND) check revealed that the applicant had been investigated five years earlier for a sexual assault offence at a nightclub. The recorded rationale for granting clearance contained scant detail. There was no reference to the specific circumstances of the alleged offence. There was no apparent consideration of
the relevant factors required in the Vetting APP (which include the severity of
the offence and the likelihood of the alleged offence having taken place).
The applicant was not given a vetting interview. The PND revealed that the victim’s initial account included criminal allegations of non-consensual kissing, and touching of her breasts and vaginal area, while in a nightclub. She later withdrew her criminal allegation and didn’t support any further police action."
www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publications/an-inspection-of-vetting-misconduct-and-misogyny-in-the-police-service/
So it doesn't seem speeding is the issue and parking doesn't seem to be mentioned.