So, the Guardian says he was sacked and then, in the same piece, says he resigned. Which is it? It cannot be both.
Right, so they're two different things with two different sets of ramifications.
No need for this semantical diversion...ORAC has explained perfectly (and provided references).
Bottom line, he was sacked.
As for the "principle" of the thing...these are investigations into alledged serious crimes.
There used to be a popular "sticky" in this forum...for many years.
Here is a headline quote from it:
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook.
Or is it one rule for us; one rule for them?
Personally, there is a bit of devils advocate in my words above...my sympathy naturally resides with the soldiers involved. But mainly because they are not (IMO) the true culprits even if crimes where committed. It is the politicians and senior officers that propagated the whole *****ed mess that I would like to see held accountable.