Regulatory Bodies: Control, Overreach, and Revenue Schemes
Is it time for freedom seekers to look outside regulated health and legal fields, when they need help?
Regulatory bodies are sold as guardians of professional standards, but if you are reading this then you surely know that they have become another layer of control, creeping into the personal lives of those working in regulated fields and stifling the free expression of the same, particularly those working in medicine and law.
Bodies like the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) for lawyers, and the General Medical Council (GMC) for doctors, should exist only to ensure their professionals meet educational, ethical, and competency standards—like lawyers holding a law degree, passing a practising exam, or keeping up with training. However, the role of regulators, particularly in the medical and legal fields, has morphed into policing conduct, even personal behaviour, under the guise of “protecting the public” or “professional integrity”.
Over the last few years we’ve seen lawyers disciplined for social media posts, particularly anti lockdown or anti vaccine posts, as well as for private non-criminal acts labelled “unprofessional”. Such regulatory overreach continues to blur the line between professional accountability and intrusion into private lives, (with ensuing serious professional consequences), largely for the noncrime of political incorrectness. It is why so many in regulated professions—lawyers, doctors, nurses—stay silent about wrongs in their field, as well as wrongs in the wider world. Speak out, and you risk a regulator’s wrath.
Regulatory overreach stems from vague regulatory rules, like “bringing the profession into disrepute,” which give bodies like the SRA broad discretion to interpret and enforce. It’s eerily similar to legislation such as The Public Order Act 1986, where causing “harassment, alarm, or distress” is enough to get you in trouble. Vague terminology in both regulation and legislation, of course, exists for one reason: it hands enforcers massive latitude, leads to inconsistent, sometimes overzealous, application, and fuels both regulatory and legislative excess intrusion. Regulators consistently justify prying into the personal lives of professionals, by claiming conduct reflects on professional credibility or public trust. But this leads to subjective, disproportionate interventions, especially when the behaviour doesn’t affect professional duties. Curiously, politicians dodge similar scrutiny under the Nolan Principles—because, of course, they seem to think they’re above the rules they impose on us.
Lawyers, doctors, nurses etc, know they may face regulatory scrutiny over their political opinions or private social media posts, and they are for the most part, terrified of this. Daily, professionals risk disciplinary action for non-criminal acts, like “offensive” speech, curtailing their free expression and personal autonomy, and creating a chilling effect throughout the medical and legal fields. It’s unfair, lacks proportionality, and isn’t necessary to protect clients or the public.
Regulatory bodies should, of course, just stick to ensuring qualifications and tackling gross misconduct—like criminal offences (excluding minor ones like speeding tickets). This would:
Limit oversight to clear criteria (degrees, certifications, exams).
Restrict disciplinary action to serious crimes relevant to professional duties (fraud, theft, violence).
Prevent overreach into personal lives, preserving autonomy unless conduct clearly undermines competence or safety.
This narrower scope would curb arbitrary enforcement, let professionals express views without fear, allow them to properly serve the public regardless of the political climate of the day, and it would also refocus regulators on competency, not morality policing. Who knows, regulation may even become less expensive as a result, (see below).
But power creep seems to be the aim, given that regulators such as the SRA have accrued more authority over time, through vague mandates. This, in fact, perfectly mirrors the position of loosely worded laws - twisted to fit the political flavour of the day - or framework bills that let ministers write regulations later with minimal oversight. It’s all mission creep, stripping away our rights bit by bit.
The final nail in the coffin for regulators though, is financial - they are massive revenue schemes paying their top employees large salaries. The SRA rake in millions in regulatory fees, (these fees go towards funding the majority of the SRA’s operations - £85m budget in 2025/26) , whilst delivering questionable value beyond a compliance tick. Yearly practising fees for legal firms and individuals are astronomical. Practising certificates, firm fees, compensation fund contributions, indemnity insurance —depending on the profession and setup - can be tens of thousands of pounds. The GMC may have similar numbers - I don’t know as I haven’t looked. But what is all this money for? A piece of paper, printed by a computer, to convince someone you’re qualified to offer expert advice! When did we decide as a society that a bit of paper proves someone’s legitimacy and ability? True legitimacy comes from experience, results, and client trust—not a regulatory stamp rooted in gatekeeping and risk aversion.
Replacing regulation in the system as is, will of course never happen for the reasons set out above, especially in law and medicine. However, I suggest it’s high time we embrace the opportunity ourselves by looking to retain unregulated professionals who’ve sacrificed their regulatory roles and careers for truth over the last few years or more: doctors who now offer alternative care modalities or even just advocacy and signposting - lawyers who now provide unregulated advice or acting as McKenzie friends. These services, in fact, empower people to tackle their own issues with a bit of guidance. Much better than wholly relying on a failing system, in my humble opinion.
It’s up to us. We need to ditch the obsession with paper credentials issued by controlling regulators that are policing professionals. We should instead commit to choosing someone to work for us in the legal and medical fields, based on recommendations, gut instinct, shared values, and a mutual desire to exit this corrupt system. Not on a piece of paper issued by a mission creep control system. I suspect that this is the only way we’ll build the parallel systems we need and deserve.
Anyone know any good unregulated lawyers and doctors to kick this new system off then? 😉
yes I agree change will not come from within the system.Our hope was that it might enable people to see how we do not live in a democracy and that more and more refuse to comply with the political charade.On reflection and when trying to promote I think I should refer people to our little website for more detailed info about FPTP.https://sites.google.com/view/vetocracy?usp=sharing Yes you would need to drag me kicking and screaming lol but if I can help in some little way let me know. I follow you on telegram and its great work that you do.
Such supervisory bodies must be staffed by at least 50% people from outside professions. Lawyers must cease to be a law unto themselves; medicine is too important for the oversight to be entrusted to senior medics with agendas. Let logicians, architects, translators, vets, mathematicians and the like be a check and a balance against group think and vested interested.