Where does the responsibility lie with The Responsible Pharmacist?

There seems to be more confusion over The Responsible Pharmacist regulations, at least as far as some companies are concerned. I quote what one has sent out to all it's branches and regular locums recently.

" The Responsible Pharmacist will be responsible for the establishment, maintainance and review of a range of Standard Operating Procedures (The Superintendent's Office will be writing these and sending them out from July 2009)."

I know I can be a bit slow on the uptake, but surely this statement alone demonstrates either a lack of understanding by this company (there are others, this is just one example) or reflects the general malaise that has taken root in our half baked rush to a new professional body. If The Resposnible Pharmacist is the person who establishes, maintains and reviews, then the Superintendent can surely not write these, otherwise (by definition) the Superintendent is The Responsible Pharmacist. Assess and advise by all means - two heads are better than one, at least in most cases.

If The Responsibile Pharmacist is unable to excercise their responsibility (because the Superintendent has taken responsibility) how are they responsible?

In other words, when things go wrong, and we all know that things go wrong, who will bear responsibility? If we have a professional body now or in the future worth and credibility, surely now is the time to resolve this looming disaster before it affects a patient and we all look like fools. I can make a fool of myself, without any help from anyone else assisting, but this begs the question "Do these people have a clue about anything?"

I believe I know the answer - WYBMADIITY?

So, what's the question?