I think a high profile campaign from the airshow fraternity that started with 'Airshows make an absolute fortune for the local economy so the CAA charging to recover the cost of the work they do to regulate them is clearly unfair' - clearly made no sense when you deconstructed it. Then they followed it up with 'And anyway, we regulate ourselves and we know best/have done an exemplary job, this incident notwithstanding...', which is now shown up by this report to be ignorant hubris of the worst kind, thus neatly proving the opposite point to the one they were trying to make.
If small airshows can't do a reasonable job of not permitting old military jets with questionable maintenance histories to pull unplanned low level high energy manoeuvres over the local village on their own, then the CAA is going to have to do it for them, and I really don't see why the taxpayer or anybody else should subsidise the cost of that oversight.