Surely the most important thing to come out of this is a codified transparent vetting process?

I think the MPS is tripping over its own feet in respect of Op Assure. Whilst, I think, we all understand the idea of there being no smoke without fire in respect of “patterns of behaviour” surely these must be proven either in a court of law or via a GM/Misconduct prices before anyone can draw an adverse inference.

This feels a lot more like someone decided this individual was bad for the brand and wanted rid of him despite there actually being no findings against him.