This raises a number of interesting questions.

Firstly, was this the right song for the British Legion to choose in the first place? Did they want an anti-war song? I would guess that a fair number of the professional servicemen and women they now mainly aim to support are not entirely opposed to war in principle, and the same may also have been true of many of those who are now remembered. The opposite of war is often not peace but oppression. Certainly many of my parents' generation who were in WW2 had few doubts that war was justified, and the same seems also to have been true for many of those in WW1. This song represents a modern point of view which may not have been recognised by those who it is about.

Secondly, did BL deliberately edit the song to alter its message, or was this a crass decision made during the process of rehearsing and recording? Either way, whether or not it was legal to do this without the consent of the writer was it morally justifiable to do so?

I am astonished that in the accompanying 'behind the scenes' video Joss Stone talks about respecting the integrity of the song. It makes me wonder whether she'd even seen the full lyrics or was just presented with the truncated version.

i'm not quite sure what the edited version is trying to say. The tone seems to me quite inappropriate for what has become a simple requiem for a individual soldier. However I suppose a lot of people will buy it, whether to support the BL or because they like the sound, perhaps without thinking too much about what it is saying.