The CAA have statistically demonstrated that the plethora of new reglation introduced by JAA (BFRs, 90 day rules, annual MEP tests. etc etc) have done precisely zilch for flight safety
Simply on this point, not on the issue of whether aviation is overregulated ...
Presumably you're referring to
Paper 2007/o5. The CAA has done nothing of the sort. It has demonstrated that there are far too few accidents caused by pilot licensing and training issues to pick up even quite substantial improvements (or deteriorations) by counting accidents and incidents in a single year.
The paper's conclusion that "the changes to revalidation requirements for pilot licences, which JAR-FCL has implemented, have had no significant effect on the number of serious incidents and accidents involving general aviation aircraft in the UK" is a scientifically correct conclusion from the data that has been gathered, but is, IMO, a grossly irresponsible conclusion to place in the executive summary of a document that is to be read by non-scientists. It's a little like go out driving for 10 trips with a seatbelt on, 10 trips without a seatbelt on, finding that you remain uninjured in every case, and concluding that seatbelts have "no significant effect" on road safety.