I quite agree - none of these systems would be a problem if the CAA didn't decide they were. This is was amazes me (and others) about the way things are. Who decides what is complex and what isn't? Based on what critera? Patently, it's an arbitary decision and in other countreis (particularly S Africa and the USA) they obviously reach different conclusions.
Pity that someone in the Government does't ask the CAA to have a re-think about their ludicrously over-blown safetly rules and their ridiculously over-cautious certification criteria. Okay, we know that if there was an accident the CAA would be rolling their collective eyes and saying "told you so" but it's a ridiculous (and typically British, or at least European) attitude to adopt. Everything carries a risk and if we have to be obsessively over-cautious about a handful of jet aircraft, we might as well start prohibiting cars on the roads and trains on tracks - as we're much more likely to be killed by them.
It's just another dose of Fun Police tactics, combined with typical British stoicism; the CAA has spoken so we must sit-back and accept their position. Personally, after years of airshow over-regulation, the B-17 saga last year, the sheer absurdity of not even certifying a Shackleton (although it seems a DC-6 is perfectly okay?!) and the continual dislike of high-performance jets, I think someone really should be asking the government to take a long, hard look at the CAA.