Report comment

So
The Regulator (LSB) of The Real Regulator (SRA) of law firms tells the Real Regulator that they are not doing their job properly.
I have some questions.
1. Apart from its obvious superiority in the hierarchical regulatory structure how is it that the Regulator of the Real Regulator is better qualified to judge how the job is done than the Real Regulator?
2. If The Real Regulator is not doing the job of regulation properly, and bearing in mind that regulation is its sole function, will enforcement action be taken (and heads roll) within the Real Regulator (presumably starting at the top)?
3. If the Regulator of the Real Regulator has not been ensuring that the Real Regulator is doing its job properly is that not evidence of a failure of the Regulator of the Real Regulator in undertaking its regulatory function and if it is will action be taken against the Regulator of The Real Regulator?
4. If not why not? (See 5 for one possible answer)
5. Is the Regulator of the Real Regulator subject to sufficient regulation, and if not isn't it about time that it was since it appears to have allowed this scurrilous state of affairs to develop?
6. If a Regulator is to be appointed to regulate the Regulator of the Real Regulator, can I have the job please? (Though it might be more of a short fixed term contract as I would start by commissioning research and entering "consultation" on the subject of "Effective Regulation vs The Regulation Industry".
Whilst I will give in depth consideration to all data which the research comes up with, and I will will be totally open to hearing all views arising from the consultation process I rather think that:-
A. The Research will prove exactly what I want it to (or will at least support my initial views by the time I have reinterpreted it) and
B. The Consultation Processs will simply confirm that I was right all along and the changes I have in mind will indeed be implemented.
I won't hold my breath.