Ah - having now read in detail the most recent AAIB Special Bulletin, I retract part at least of the thrust of my previous post.
It is now clear that there is a strong case to be made for the CAA to have significant indirect responsibility for the events which led up to this accident.
It appears there were plenty of holes in the processes and procedures on which they relied and it seems quite clear that some of the underlying assumptions were quite simply wrong, or overly simplistic. It looks strongly as though the CAA were not in fact doing the job which they are supposed to do. They thought they were... Oops.
It also seems that rather too much leeway was being given to what is best described as an 'old boy' network within at least part of the display community. There is no harm in that, per se; at these levels personal knowledge of the people involved is important, as is mutual trust. The snag with this is that personal acquaintanceship and friendship may inhibit or dilute the delivery of useful criticism. It shouldn't, but we are all human !
I still fear we may end up with overly pedantic nit-picking regulation in some areas, however for that we may have ourselves, as the flying community, largely to blame. Rats.