I recall that for many years class D transits were difficult to obtain. In many cases that has changed since a "name and shame" scheme was introduced.
I'm not sure what effect said name and shame scheme had, but there was never anything pointed in our (ATCs) direction saying we had to change the way we operated.
Some statistics were collected but no directives ever came down from the CAA. A lot of the transit issue is subjective. Those that don't have an issue tend not to say anything, those that do have an issue tend to shout loudest and a picture is painted that perhaps doesn't always reflect reality.
I find myself pondering whether the great unwashed realise we are flying without some form of radar service for most of the time. God forbid, but I also ponder the fallout from a mid air over one of the nice towns in London surbia. I hope GA will not get the blame if the press get to grips with the reluctance of NATS to provide a NATIONAL service and their insistance on charging for the data they collect, when it could be cheaply distributed to those that are willing and able to provide a service, but cannot afford to do so.
What about the reluctance of many, many pilots out there to fitting radios, transponders or making use of the ATC services that are available? Even when operating beside and below this country's busiest airspace.
No point blaming an ATC provider for failing to provide a service to those that might want it when many others don't, it's not mandatory anyway and they are reluctant to fit equipment that would greatly increase the available safety net coverage now for those operating both inside and outside CAS.
Bit of pot/kettle syndrome there.
Oh, the N in NATS doesn't stand for "National" any more by the way. We were rebranded. Maybe that helps explain a little the company/management ethos these days.
Personally, I would also not wish to be the Stansted controller who refused me a service around their zone when I was in IMC had I been unfortunate enough to run into some one else doing the same thing - but that is just my opinion you understand.
The Stansted controller's, like all the approach controllers working the various London airport positions, primary responsibilty is to traffic operating in and out of the airport concerned <full stop>
Personally I'd hate to be the Stansted controller who screwed up inside CAS because he/she was at the time distracted by providing a service to traffic outside CAS.
As for saying Thames is shocking, all I can say is you don't know the issues they have with regards equipment and procedures. They have a hard enough time dealing with what they have inside CAS without going outside their prime operational remit.
Don't jump to conclusions when you don't really know the full story.