Why don't insurance companies recognise the greater security surrounding cars owned by members of HM Forces living in barracks? I am stationed in one of the less salubrious areas of London, where many of my soldiers, especially the younger ones, are penalised very heavily for the postcode of our barracks. The fact that the vehicles in question are kept behind barbed wire with the protection of armed guards at all times seems to warrant little consideration. I accept that they will pay a higher premium for their profession as, statistically, they represent a higher risk, but the postcode lottery is hard to swallow.

If it were possible to influence insurance companies to recognise 'in barracks' as more secure than in the street, rather than simply apply the crime data for the sink estate next door, you'd have some grateful soldiers in East London. An 18-year-old private does not earn a large wage and is already subject to added premiums for his age and profession. It seems perverse to charge him for the shortfalls of the area in which he is forced to live, when the chances of street crime affecting him outside his 'home' are slim to none. Perhaps profits come first?