CQC REPORTS - worth the paper they're written on?

With almost 20 years of service standards inspection experience, albeit it in a different context, it sadly came as no surprise to me when the poor standards, and outright criminal behaviour at CQC, was highlighted this week.
What was truly shocking however, were accounts that Dame Jo Williams, who resigned as Chairman last September, had been accused of trying to discredit a whistleblower by saying she was mentally ill, and yet another senior exec., Cynthia Bower, was promoted after the Stafford scandal.
It couldn’t happen here you might say. Think again. There’s no room for complacency, and I have had cause to question and challenge some of the practices I have observed in the care system in recent months, as a result of complaints.
In the case of CQC, in their role as the regulatory body, their failure shows blatant disregard for ‘ensuring that the 16 essential standards of quality and safety that people who use health and adult social care services have a right to expect’.
Meanwhile, we, the taxpayers, are paying through the nose for failure.
I trawled through a dozen recent reports and found that on average only 5 of the key standards are looked at during any one inspection; there was heavy reliance on process and procedure, and a lack of consistency overall in relation to the quality and breadth of the reporting..
I found the ‘observations’ and ‘interviews’ with residents and staff misleading; the whole thing little more than a ‘tick box’ exercise.
To me this is like asking someone who has been abused if they feel OK, in the presence of their abuser. It would be a brave person in a care home, particularly without the attention and support of caring relatives, that would dare complain.