Welcome home. It was not so much the red carpet as the cold shoulder that greeted some 330 troops returning to Britain on Christmas leave after lengthy and dangerous deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Herald reveals today that more than 200 soldiers who had been serving in Afghanistan were made to change out of their uniforms and into civilian clothing on the tarmac at Birmingham International Airport before they could continue their journeys home. Yesterday, we reported that, on Christmas Eve, the flight carrying 130 Wiltshire-based troops home from Iraq was diverted to Prestwick Airport, where the soldiers were left without travel arrangements having been made to take them home.

Welcome home. It was not so much the red carpet as the cold shoulder that greeted some 330 troops returning to Britain on Christmas leave after lengthy and dangerous deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Herald reveals today that more than 200 soldiers who had been serving in Afghanistan were made to change out of their uniforms and into civilian clothing on the tarmac at Birmingham International Airport before they could continue their journeys home. Yesterday, we reported that, on Christmas Eve, the flight carrying 130 Wiltshire-based troops home from Iraq was diverted to Prestwick Airport, where the soldiers were left without travel arrangements having been made to take them home.

The common factor in the incidents was RAF Brize Norton, the intended destination in both cases, being closed to aircraft because of fog. It is what these events reveal about the treatment of the troops that is troubling and, from their perspective, insulting. Diversions are not a bolt out of the blue, but the failure of authority to handle these incidents in a caring and professional manner will serve to harden feelings among soldiers that they are undervalued and taken for granted. No-one seems to know who was responsible for the instruction passed to the troops that they should change out of uniform.

It is not even clear why, although the order appears to date back to the time when the IRA was an active terrorist organisation and service personnel were advised not to make themselves targets by wearing uniform in public. The advice might have made sense then, but a case cannot be made for it at present, when the threat is of a different nature (the suicide bomber). Armed troops in uniform are more likely to reassure the public when there is a security alert. It is not so long since tanks and troops were out in force at Heathrow Airport when there was such an alert. Also, the advice is out of kilter with pronouncements from the government to the effect that communities should turn out in force when the armed forces return to base after a deployment. The balance has shifted in favour of encouraging the public to show support for troops who are overstretched, poorly accommodated, relatively badly paid, insufficiently compensated for wounds and inadequately cared for if combat-stressed.

Soldiers must expect to fight and risk their lives. In return, the military authorities must carry out their side of the bargain. They have a duty of care that is codified in the military covenant. Both incidents were relatively minor in themselves but the lack of care and attention shown to soldiers when probably they wanted more than at any time of the year to be with their families seems to highlight a deeper problem about the way our armed forces are viewed and treated.