[user104658]

Surely we can all agree that it in fact IS more important to make an example of a trained soldier who has given in to bloodlust than pretty much any other incident, though? That's not to downplay other atrocities but we put military grade weaponry in the hands of soldiers and when we do so we trust them not to abuse that power. A soldier who goes rogue and commits any war crime HAS to be made an example of or we're on a very dark path. And this was on British soil which elevates it even beyond that.

So are terrorist attacks just as sickening as these killings? Yes, obviously taken as individual incidents they are, murder is murder. But it has to be accepted that pardoning soldiers has much wider implications than the incident itself. The message HAS to be "When you put on this uniform and pick up these weapons we are trusting you with a huge responsibility, with the reputation of the military and the country, and if you violate that trust there are severe consequences".