What concerns me is that the entire system seems to be designed to generate the maximum possible amount of work for lawyers.
I have been privileged to be at the centre of quite a few research commercialisation deals that always involve quite complex legal agreements. Working with really good lawyers taught me is that the highest form of their art is about finding solutions to problems.
When I went to the big law firms and spoke to their partners, with the exception of the blessed David Wells at Mallesons, all I ever got was a recital about the complexity of my problem and the many issues that it contained, and how these would all require extensive, and of course expensive, study by the firm. I never got a simple answer, except from Wellsy, God rest his soul.
When I look at the way the regulations are written, I don't see the essential clarity that should always be at the heart of good law and regulation. Instead all I see is a mish mash starting with a blanket "Thou shalt not", followed by various clauses providing exceptions to the blanket prohibition. This seems to me to be a stupid way to write regulations, since it implies that the behaviour concerned is regarded as unsafe except for the three or four behaviours specified in the exception clauses.
It seems to me that it would be far better to reverse this technique and put the onus of proof on anyone contravening the rules to demonstrate that the breach did not make anything less safe...but that wouldn't make much work for lawyers would it?