There has been a lot of focus on establishing exactly what happened in Basra; the sequence of events, individual culpability and command failures etc. There has been very little speculation as to why 1QLR had a unit sub culture that allowed these events to happen. A significant number of soldiers readily participated in serious violence towards bound and hooded prisoners; many more were aware that this violence was taking place. Nobody appeared to consider it in any way remarkable or worthy of intervention; holders of the Queens Commission failed to put a stop to the evil. Much anecdotal evidence emerged during the Inquiry to suggest that that 1QLR was generally a thuggish and violent battalion with a high crime rate; that certainly matches what I know of them. The soldiers who were originally Court Martialed were not afraid to close ranks and blatantly defy the military judicial system. If they felt any shame or remorse at battering an innocent man to death, they hid it well. All members of 1QLR went through exactly the same training as the rest of the army, yet some of them casually indulged in behaviour that most soldiers would have instantly recognised as both illegal and repulsive. Too many took part in (or ignored) the brutality for it to be dismissed as the work of a few bad apples. It seems that a significant number of 1QLR soldiers had a value system that had diverged from the rest of the army (and the society from which they were recruited). I strongly doubt if this abuse would have taken place if a different unit had been performing 1QLRs role. There was a time when the QLR had quite a good reputation, but they seem to have become the sick man of the infantry. So when and how did the rot set in, and how does a battalion go bad? Were there other units that could have behaved just as appallingly? It seems that there are some important lessons to be learned here.