Yes, I'm saying that the screen protector has got scratches on it. One of them is a fairly nasty-looking one, and I would not like to bet on the actual screen being able to resist it without a single mark.
I'm saying that I'd rather a £5 protector got scratched than the less-easy-to-replace actual screen.
I'm saying that when I sell my phone, I want to simply peel off the protector and sell it as "screen in perfect condition, covered since new, not a single scratch or mark anywhere" instead of "the screen has the usual wear and tear you'd expect for an iPhone that's never had a screen protector on it - but it's in really good condition".
What I am also saying is that I look after my phone - yet, despite my best efforts to look after it, somehow it's received a mean-looking scratch to the screen. If someone who takes good care of their phone (kept in a soft-lined belt case, screen facing away from the catch, phone never slung across a table, only docked in a proper dock etc etc) can still manage to end up getting a scratch, then damn right I'm going to put a protector on it.
What I am trying to say over all that is that, despite Apple claiming their product doesn't need protecting, they obviously think it DOES - or they wouldn't exclude scratches from the warranty. Until such time as they do cover scratches to the screen, anyone with an ounce of sense will put a protector on it (and put said protector on PROPERLY). If their screen is supposedly scratchproof, then it should be covered under the warranty.
So yes, obviously the wussy screen protector is going to show more damage than the actual screen, but that's the whole point - the protector gets damaged so the screen doesn't have to. And until Apple say "Scratched screen? No problem!" then the protector stays on. And if Apple don't want to sell me a protector, not a problem - Amazon will.