I very much support Fuji's initiative in raising this issue here. It has been exhaustively discussed in another place, but my perspective is somewhat driven by being present at a recent presentation by one of the CAA actors. This presentation featured an apparent spectacular rise in the rate of infringement in the last year or so, without being calibrated in terms of the reporting rate. When pressed on this point, the presenter was unconvincing and some of the audience, self included, were left to wonder if there is any real rise in infringing behaviour at all.
During the presentation, 5 episodes of what CAA regard as 'successful' prosecutions were presented. It turned out that two of these involved instructors, and not private pilots at all. A third involved a chap who had flown here from America (!) and infringed on a UK leg a Notam'd RAT resulting in an alleged close call with an airliner. The very substantial fine levied was justified because, apparently, he had failed to update his moving map the previous evening. No mention of the fact that someone flying here from the US might have expected to encounter joined up ATC, cohesive airspace design and flight following for a VFR trip in what is said to be a first world country. And certainly no mention of the fact that public officials, supposedly responsible for airspace policy, have presided over an airspace shambles where VFR pilots are supposed to switch from one ATC thiefdom to the next every few miles, give their life history each time and dial in a new squawk code, while being completely unaware of how helpful or otherwise the next controller, whoever that is, is going to be. And get fobbed off with some nonsense called a 'Basic Service' where collision avoidance is discretionary.
In this environment it's hardly surprising that many VFR pilots avoid radio contact, or worse (it's suggested), switch off their transponder altogether because (it seems likely) it is the imposition of Mode 'S' that has facilitated the increase in the reporting rate. Or resort to 'home made' remedies like moving map displays that may or not display Notams and ingenious but incomplete and unofficial collision avoidance systems, rather than talking to controllers. After all, there's even the nonsense of 'listening squawks' because controllers are apparently too busy to talk to pilots anyway.
What's needed here is a genuine recognition from the 'authorities' that UK airspace design, management and operation is of very poor quality and needs radical overhaul closely following the lines of the service provided to VFR pilots by the FAA. Rather than the single minded pursuit of individual pilots who, let's face it, can be any one of us after a moment's lack of concentration in this aerial minefield that we call 'home'.