FaST...
... NEVER WAS an enforcement agency: it was/is a federation of private sector companies that is funded by, and in support of, private sector profits.
Its primary assumption is that individuals and companies must demonstrate to FaST that they have any software licences necessary, or be presumed to be involved in software piracy - see their "software audit notices" as posted out by the sackful to all and sundry, "requiring" just that.
That's the attitude that Stu Reeves was (quite rightly) referring to, albeit with tongue in cheek, and I didn't know that the assumption of guilt in the absence of proof of innocence was "industry best practice".
I've seen the complete mess that is Microsoft's LAR licence records, and the notion of trying to use these as the basis of a prosecution or civil action is a complete joke. Let them get an Anton Pillar order (civil search warrant), and bear the cost of that and the settlement of a compensation claim when the "piracy" suspicion evaporates like morning dew in the daylight, that should curb FaST enthusiasm. In the meantime, no doubt they will continue to try to bully and intimidate small businesses into buying unnecessary but expensive software audit tools, in the belief that these are "required" to prove legitimacy.