Shakespeare understood the Human Animal and perhaps as long as we do not learn to laugh at tragedy we will survive.
It would seem this debate as others before it, has evolved to a discussion about "Rules", their derivation, implementation, and effect.
We also see as usual, varying opinions and attitudes towards the needs for "Rules".
Way deep down in the argument there exists a notion that ordinary commonsense and judgement should be the underlying basis for all "Rules".
Just as in Criminal Law, there must be some moral basis to the "Law", or in this case "Rule", or else the People will tend to ignore or violate the "Law" as they see it having no merit or basis for being.
Flying Lawyer echoes my thoughts about the situation at hand.
TeeS has presented us with some contradictions and considerations to consider regarding "Rules" in EASA Land.
The Kool Aid Acid Test for "Rules" should be to determine if there needs to be a "Rule" to begin with, closely followed by a determination of what the "Rule" is supposed to accomplish, and thirdly to determine that the new "Rule" does no harm (Remembering the Law of Un-intended Consequences).
One Man's Opinion is the UK and EASA Land have far two many "Rules", too many that are poorly written, and far too much harm gets done by that situation.
The good side of all that is folks like FL make a very good living sorting out the mess that results.