I agree, they are working back to front, but why? There is something bigger afoot here perhaps, maybe an entirely different kind of army - maybe a withdrawal from the last semblance of empire (to justify perhaps, a reduction in the aid budget in order to fund the NHS). Who knows. But to my mind, we need infantrymen, tankies, sappers, and medics who are tough as nuts. We need airborne artillery and the signals corp who can lend themselves to any environment. None of which is coming with a quiet room or an attached mentor at the end that counts. Whatever happened to the old saying, 'fight hard, train harder'. As for Muslims or any other religious group for that matter, it was never an issue back in the day and I dare say that then, as now in all probability, most of a guys colleagues, after taking the piss, would probably fight pretty hard to facilitate a colleague's right to practice whatever religion he please - I have no idea where they are digging this non issue up from. Black, White, Pink or Yellow, it never mattered. What mattered was the ethos, the regiment and the fact that we had faith in our abilities and faith in our colleagues - whether we liked them or not was never an issue, same unit, same experience and when the chips were down everyone mattered. What is/was wrong with that. Seems to me that the thing ain't broke and does not therefore need fixing.Agreed, it strikes me though that the MOD is starting with the target candidate and working upwards from there though, as opposed to looking at the roles required and working back. It might be politically unpalatable but - do the armed forces need people of such a 'delicate' or temperamental disposition that the current advertising campaign was required to get them to sign on the line?