Low flying does have tactical benefit. The US helos in Iraq get shot at more because of the height they fly at. The principle applies over all terrain types, not just the desert, therefore we should train over all terrain types, including Lincolnshire and Norfolk (Sun Tzu - He who aspires for peace should prepare for war). Banning low flying is therefore not an option.
Low flying is not easy - if it was, everyone would do it. Just because something isn't easy doesn't mean we should stop doing it though; it merely means we should train better and more for it.
Low flying is an annoyance. People who live near airfields (I know, they should have looked before they bought) will be annoyed by a consant stream of low flying helicopters leaving the area.
Given then, that this is a difficult skill but is a requirement then I can see no reason not to keep on training it in a sensible manner which spreads the annoyance. I, for one, have been authorising to 100'/30' for transit to a sector of my route from which point I will be authorised to 50'/30' until the transit back to base. A part of the sortie is therefore dedicated to that particular skill set within a realistic tactical scenario. Another option is an IF transit to a low-level let-down point for a sector which is to be flown at low level, thereby combining skill sets and helping to expand capacity and improve cockpit organisation.
Those who would have us transit to northern Scotland every time we want to low fly should be prepared to foot the bill for the extra aircraft hours required with minimal training benefit. "It's too far away" seems like a fairly reasonable rebuttal.
Not convinced about the illegality of LF with pax - I'll need to check the 550 for that - but I do know that the JHCFOB allows it under certain circumstances. I realise that the 550 would take precedence, but it seems like a fairly huge error on someone's part to have such a contradiction.