As a civilian journalist (albeit a specialist one) working in defence/aerospace for nearly 25 years, and as a regular observer of all aspects of RAF flying operations, from brief to debrief (and indeed from Monday Met brief to Friday's Happy Hour), and as an RAF (UAS) trained private pilot, and as the son of an RAF aircrew officer who served from 1942 to 1978, I hope that I can put your mind at rest, if you are who you purport to be.
The authorisation process for every sortie flown today is such that the kind of 'high jinks' and 'licenced hooliganism' with which your father would have been familiar simply does not exist (unless you're lucky enough to get an exchange tour with the Sultan of Oman). There is simply no longer any room for 'pranks', beating up friends' houses, and all of the other irresponsible types of behaviour which may once have been routine. And because authorised, responsible low flying is their raison d'etre (and after incidents with litigation-happy farmers and horseriders), Joint Helicopter Command's authorisation procedures and policies are extremely tight.
Nor is training (particularly in the rotary wing community) anything less than rigorous and excellent, and great care is taken to avoid anything that could cause an accident. Moreover, great care is also taken to avoid causing distress to people and livestock, and indeed to avoid anything that will stir up Nimbies and interfering busybodies.
My criticism would, in fact, be that too much effort and time is expended in avoiding trivial and pretty baseless complaints (as opposed to avoiding damage, distress to livestock). Low flying is needed, and people need to learn to enjoy watching it, or learn to ignore it, or at least to tolerate it.
In my experience, if low flying Pumas found themselves amid 'clouds of birds' (and I'd want photographic evidence that it happened, because it's so improbable) it would be because the birds were not where they were expected to be - and bird sanctuaries, migration routes, etc. are generally known and generally avoided, along with Studs, riding stables, hospitals, etc. The idea that anyone would deliberately fly through flocks of birds (flocks rather than clouds, surely?) and towards bird-watchers' hides is risible.
In an increasingly 'moaning' society, the list of 'avoids' has grown exponentially.
I do have to say that my wife (who is unusually air minded) would not know the designation of particular LFAs and I do not know anybody old enough to be a grandparent (even with the proviso that they are also young enough to have had a father serving in WW2) who would take a cavalier attitude to grammar, apostrophes, etc, and certainly not use all lower case.
Many of those here will be equally sceptical, I suspect, and this will directly affect the amount of banter (and even hostility) that your post will attract, and will lead to a disinclination to provide serious answers.
Please do not assume that this indicates any reluctance to face up to the issue - only a reluctance to feed a troll, or (far worse to many here) a filthy journo.
PS: If ever I'm confined to a rest home when the gout gets too much to bear (probably in about 2051 or so), I hope that the sons of today's PPRuNers will take pity on me, ignore the 'avoid' and come and wire the place to raise my morale.....