No.
The idea of moving anyone in an aeroplane which fails to meet international certification requirements is totally unacceptable in this day and age. What gives you the right to move passengers anywhere in an aircraft which doesn't meet JAR 25 requirements? You do know about JARs, don't you?
To draw distinctions between Service personnel and others is also questionable. Whether we liked it or not, we had to change the way we treated homosexuals to come into line with contemporary legislation - and it's time we treated passengers with the same respect that even the cheapest airline is required to.
These penny-pinching bean counters are hiding behind their own definition of 'administrative moves'; 'getting round the rules' was the way it was described at one FSTA briefing by some suit from DTMA when asked why the overwhelming majority of his passenger 'schedules' were flown in his so-called 'intra-theatre' tactical aeroplane rather than in a TriStar or VC10, much to the astonishment of the industry people present. But I preferred the description given by some media personality who, when offered a flight from London to Lyneham in a wretched C130K, declined to do so and described conditions as 'barbaric' in the freight hold......
Now please explain why you think that we should ever move passengers anywhere without passenger oxygen systems - enabling the aircraft to continue to a diversion in the event of either smoke and fumes in the freight bay or decompression, both of which would require flight at much lower levels if we were to avoid killing our passengers?