I really don't particularly mind which variant of F-35 the UK chooses to buy as they're both fantastic. But I'm assuming that some clever people will have done some exhaustive studies into which model is better for our particular requirements. If the decision they've come to is that the -B is the one, do you really think the best thing to do is to sit around whining that it hasn't got xxx of fuel, when it has more than enough to fulfil its intended roles?
I think the decision was more based on cost than capability - fitting cats (and all the support stuff) is pretty expensive and quite risky as they were looking at some fancy electromag thing, iirc.
You may well be able to think of a particular scenario where the -C has an advantage over the -B, but if it's not a scenario that the UK has a requirement to be able to fulfil then it's a bit irrelevant
I can think of a scenario - pretty much every mission in current theatres. Harriers are desperately short on endurance (persistence if you must). As are many others such as F16. I would suggest that being able to support troops on the ground for much longer should be a key requirement. Don't know if it is, though.
I just think that it is a pity that we will be in a second class of F35 users. Although it will look cool at airshows!