I don't think anyone would disagree with that Andy, its just in this case nothing actually happened.
The MOR system in the UK allows you to report anything outside the mandatory stuff. What happens with them after that is they get classified and then filed. If its just a note something been happening the report is added to the statistics and then forgotten about.
Oban airport has filed hundreds of MOR's since the new operators took over. I haven't heard of a single pilot who has been contacted relating to any of the MOR's.
So quite a lot of people think that naming and shaming is a more effective way than reporting it. In the main nothing is ever heard again when you report things. This might be very different with your CAA. The UK one is only interested in sure fire prosecutions. Where they get to recover there costs. If there is any form of robust defence put up they won't go near it. Glass G VFR is particularly hard to prove anything because so much is in the hands of the PIC and what they can see out the window, which of course there is no way of disproving what they say. And in the absence of any evidence what they say stands. We have had people fly under bridges and claim that they had to avoid birds and get away with it in court.
Ground observations are particularly easy to disprove as the UK currently we don't have the 500ft agl version of rule 5 so even if the aircraft was below 500ft the pilot can say they were 500ft off set laterally. So to be able to get anyone you would need 3 independent witnesses that were deemed able to judge distance. For some strange reason they are deemed to be other pilots and police officers. Radar unless a special approach radar isn't accurate enough to provide evidence down to 500ft distance. So its pretty hard to prove unless they had contact with something and caused damage.