Pprune Radar
Pure speculation on my part: I think it unlikely the "campaign", as you put it is in the direction you suggest. My guess would be that it is directed at the flying school and at the person at the flying school who, according to the AAIB report, persuaded the pilot, who initially refused the flight, to fly the route, in spite of being outside of the 90 day currency requirement. He did so with passengers, on the outbound flight, and one passenger on the fatal return leg. Used as part of this persuasion was the suggestion to fly with a more experienced NPPL holder in the right seat, according to the report. However the report does not go as far as to suggest that the rules were intended to be ignored, or that anyone suggested that they should be, merely that the facts are that they were ingnored, and that during the communication about the flight that it was something which was overlooked. This is not the only fact of course discussed in the report, but it is clear that without the involvement of the person from the school, the pilot had refused the flight.
Ominously the flying school representative is very careful how he described his role in the incident to the AAIB, which is perhaps where the family feel they need to pursue justice.
I make no comment or speculation on the rights or wrongs of what went ultimately wrong, as that is for the court and the AAIB with full knowledge of all facts available. However I would reiterate condolences to the family of those involved in this tragedy.