@jno I sympathise with him to some extent over the timing, but you cannot use that as an excuse in such a high profile series of incidents.
Homer Simpson in a cartoon might be excused a lot by stating "its my first day" - but this guy cannot.
For the SoVile report, he was vision editor - the SoVile tribute programmes were under his management. Unyet, when told by head of news that newsnight might be running a report on SoVile, he doesnt ask a single question about why? Don't buy it. As an editor, as a media man, no one can be that incurious.
Then, the opposite happens - a poorly validated report, trailed to other media in the 24 hours before broadcast, and allegedly passed up the editorial chain including the lawyers is broadcast and adds to the fuel of the witch-hunt and effectively outs Lord McAlpine. Victim from the report then retracts his assertion, saying this is not the guy?
And incurious george, as editor in chief of the BBC, does not require any such red flag report on a clearly incendiary topic, with such a high profile alleged abuser doesn't know anything about it until after the broadcast? No, that will not wash- incompetence. lack of interest or lack of managerial grip.
His position had become untenable. He had no option but to go.
And to be frank, were I in his shoes, with the BBC becoming the story, rather than the abuse, facing relentless media intrusion and a select committee grilling in another 2 weeks - Cannot blame him if he felt it was time to step down.