I respect the rules of the site and will not name names/s. As an ex serving soldier in the British Army, I would like other members to express their views on the following. When I joined up I accepted that no matter where I was sent I would serve to the best of my ability and never, never desert my mates should things get a bit hot. I couldn't see the point or logic in joining if all I wanted to do was sit in Blighty as an "armchair soldier". And yet there has been a lot of coverage in the last year about a privileged person being sent back home because bullets, bombs and shells might actually harm him with the excuse of "attracting fire on to his men"? This Establishment response seems to be saying that one persons life is worth more than any other British soldier serving in a hostile environment, no matter what rank they may be. I am sure that the mothers, wives, children and etcetera. of those maimed or killed in the Middle East for example would think very differently. And yet they were not given the choice of bringing their loved one back home when matters became dangerous and their lives put at risk? Indeed when I signed along the dotted line, I don't recall being given the option to pack my bags if bullets,grenades and rockets were being sent in my direction. And yet my parents always considered my life as equal to all my mates and just as worthy, and their parents thought the same I am sure! Why not the same rule for all serving personnel - or does it mean that the rest of us are considered by the Establishment to be just common cannon fodder and not worth being given the same privileged treatment?Incidentally when I was kitted out in my 'battle gear', not even my mother would have recognised me, so picking out an individual by the enemy would be virtually impossible.