I was rather waiting for the wailing and nashing to start.
The vast majority of legislation really just applies to the 'law abiding'. With cars - put a 'false' - but valid, number plate on and the world is your oyster. Inspite of all sorts of measures thousand of people have done/or doing this. speed camers - no longer apply, insurance etc no longer relevent.
Those of us who have been around a while remember the justification for the 'new LAMS'. The CAA decided that the engineering companies and engieers that they licenced were not carrying out the maintenance and inspection work correctly. The answer? Not enforcing the rules, but to produce a new LAMS schedule. Of course that was much easier than ensuring the standard they had set were being met.
The CAA have also fought several legal cases to establsih the precedent that it is the owner who is responsible for the maintenance of an aircraft - not just getting it done but also its quality. Inspite of the CAA licencing all involved.
At the end of the day this was an unfortunate incident, but if you look back they are very few like it.
For those arguing for more restrictions, further checks think about it! The more complex the rules, the more likely anyone of us will inadvertently break them. JAR introduced another level of omplexity - for no proveable safety benefit. But those changes have speeded up the 'churn rate' in PPLs dropping out.
Rules need to be proportionate and presently they lean very heavily on the majority of us. The more restrictive they become, the fewer people fly and those left are more likely to infringe them.
The 'administrative' aspects of the case are irrelevent, they might be inficative of the pilot's mindset, but they had no practical input. A botched 'wingover' at low altitude is the cause and probably 'impressing' people the motivation.
We have a hobby / livelihood which can be very unforgiving - is that why so many people here are so judgemental?