I think this is media skew- in the case posted above at least.
police are all vetted before we can take up a role. That has always been the case. There are some officers who have started training before their vetting comes through, then dismissed. You will also lose your job for failing vetting.
the above case the officer was accused- not found guilty, accused only of a crime. The met used a loophole in the vetting system to sack him without due process by “failing” his vetting based on the accusation only. So in effect they found him guilty with no trial or investigation. That is why he won the case.
what they should have done is suspended him until after the investigation. It’s usually criminal proceedings first, then a police review to decide whether they are dismissed, regardless of the criminal outcome.
we have a legal process for a reason. No one decides guilt without that process being followed.
think about it- you’re a police officer who holds down a violent offender to arrest them. They accuse you of assault. Or you’re a dog handler and let your dog go, for the dog to bite that offender. This then is used to fail your vetting and you get sacked, with no review of whether your actions were proportionate or justified. We’d have no officers left.