You are saying that despite having the IMC rating available, a large proportion of accidents involved loss of control in IMC. Unless you expect EASA to require every pilot to hold an IMC rating, you are only proving that having it as an optional addition to the PPL does not improve safety
The fact that the majority of pilots involved had neither an IMCr or IR is significiant. It would sugest if you hold either you are much less likely to be involved in either. It is also interesting that of those pilots with an IR or IMCr more had an IR than IMCr out of a much smaller population or IR holders.
Please also remember that many CFIT accidents are in VMC and were never near any IMC.
Not so.
There were very few CFIT in good VMC. Marginal VMC or cases were the visibility could not be established accounted for the vast majoirty.
Bookwork made no claim was to what was safe.
You are correct.
I think you need to distinguish between what the law permitts, and what may or may not be safe. If you are going to suggest that the procedures followed by IMCr pilots which go beyond what the law requires are unsafe then you are also going to need to provide evidence to support that contention rather than anecdotal account simply because you feel it must be so from a possible perception that private pilots generally are a bunch of cowboys unitl they have a professional rating (which some perceive is the case of an IR)
There are many reasons why pilots not qualified to do so unintentionally enter cloud. Some very interesting studies have been undertaken at Cranfield and elsewhere. However not surprisingly the the process also starts from a perception that TAFs are more accurate than they are.