Jesus Christ! It's a bit frigging rich when PIRA starts coming the humanitarian. Having seen first-hand some the the beatings that the Provos dished out where the victim was allowed to live (let alone the sorry messes they made of people who weren't given that luxury), I don't think any Provo apologist has got a leg to stand on in this argument.
Sure, British soldiers have slapped people around. They're not supposed to; in fact they most definitely should not do it, but they do.
They do it because the British Army knows that punishment beatings are a very effective tactical weapon if used against the ringleaders of a rioting crowd. I agree that the Light Infantry guys were wrong, at least in the wider context of their representation of this country, but how can they be expected to employ restraint when their country has sent them to do the job they have, against the wishes of such a large proportion of the Iraqi population? They are after all on the receiving end of their objections on a daily basis.
Also, in the absence of any other effective restraint or deterrent (witness the current rules of engagement and dress advice to British troops) then they had little or no choice in my opinion. Their error was in getting caught on video. No-one was killed and a handful of stone throwing youths got a severe going over. This is a classic tree falling in forest scenario.
The unpleasant fact is that this kind of thing is standard procedure. It is also very different from malicious, unprovoked street beatings and in no way is it worse.
Before you rush to judgement, close your eyes and imagine being there. If the rules say you cannot fire even rounds of tear gas at rioters (and the rioters know this) your base or patrol is going to be attacked by stone throwing youths with increasing regularity. Your reaction will at first be measured and designed to reflect that your role is as support for the largely ineffective and absent Iraqi forces.
The ferocity of the attacks will increase on a daily basis until a sniper or two - operating from cover at a safe distance - eventually use the rioters as cover to hit a couple of exposed troops. This means you. You are the target, one of a patrol of six, for the snipers. What are the odds you will be hit? Do you really want to play that game? No. You want to load the odds in your favour. This isn't an episode of 'Deal Or No Deal'. It's 'Die Or Not Die'.
The way to show them who's boss is to strike back first using a language they understand, in the hope that the ringleaders come across as a little less brave and swaggering when recruiting fellow rioters the next day, resulting in fewer recruits who engage with less tenacity, meaning that the snipers won't come to your sector, because the ringleaders are not brave enough.
That, in a nutshell, is why they do it. They shouldn't do it, but given the constraints, they do.
That it happens is also indicative of piss-poor leadership from both NCOs and commissioned officers, but sadly no worse than one often sees in ordinary line infantry regiments. The army is losing good NCOs at a faster rate than it can replace them, and given the raw material with which it works (and the PC way it now has to train them), it's little wonder that leadership down in the line is somewhat lacking. The better regiments don't have that problem, but Princess Popsy's Own Craphats or whatever are never going to attract the right sort of recruits.