I know that there's no comparison, and I know that this guy has not yet been charged of anything, and I know too, that he might be guilty. Or he might not.
But. Compare the choices taken when potentially valid and justified criticism is levelled against one, when one holds public office and when the danger is that that public office is in jeapordy of being bought into disrepute. I'm not saying that resignation should be automatic (far from it) but there have been far greater and far more intense and sustained levels raised against the military hierarchy than this man who, by all accounts, has slashed the crime rate in his region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/7102473.stm
I think of people like John Profumo, who I held such absolute respect for, because of how he conducted himself when he knew he was in the wrong. But better still, because of how he tried in the most humblest of manners to make good the harm he caused by, for instance, cleaning the charitable toilets at Toynbee Hall, and even the likes of Laurence Dallaglio, who stepped back and who grafted hard and has become now of the greatest loved and respected of English sportsmen.
Its all a matter of honour, and doing what's best for the greater good. If those at the top are convinced the g'ment is doing a great job, fine. They serve no one's interest though, least of all the countries (those they are charged to protect), by keeping quiet when they know things are wrong, and by referring to an implicit code of subservient conduct. Yes, I applaud their commitment to 'the system', but commitment is a 2 way street. Where is the commitment to the troops?