I'm not so sure, Spinney. The armed forces deal with a large number of young men who have anger management issues and the training and discipline that they submit to is geared towards getting soldiers to harness that aggression. It might be that this hot-headed, 20 year old's best chance of avoiding jail in future is to remain in the army and not mix with hardened lags in gaol.
It is also interesting and heartening that the judge makes the point that cyclists have the right to point out to motorists the error of their ways (something I find fruitless 90% of the time) without fear of being assualted. In this regard, and from his other comments, the judge seems both sensible and enlightened where cyclists and motorists are concerned.
Quite.
This fetishisation of the military as 'heroes' and 'our boys', bringing up ideals of past glories and WW2-esque propoganda is absurd, and needs to be more actively questioned in the media.
I have two relatives in the armed forces (and I don't have many relatives) and I get on with them well, and while I respect the risks their jobs place them in I don't think they, nor many of their colleagues would ever see themselves as anything other than what they are in this day and age - poorly paid mercenaries.
The kind of thug this guy is, is exactly the kind of person the army requires for front line service. As long as they can be controlled, they want men who approach violent conflict without hesitation or regret. This man will not be punished, nor will the squaddies who get in bar fights across the world every friday and saturday night often serious injuring local people, because we cannot have the risk that these men will ever consider this kind of behaviour in any way questionable thus lessening their effectiveness in combat.