I have flown that approach into AP, and sure it looks interesting, but you have to be a long way off track to be in danger.
What you really need to quantify is WHY you consider these approaches dangerous, and then whether or not you can actually infringe a clearance whilst having an indication that you are on the approach profile.
If they were as dangerous as you suggest, any self-respecting airline or charter operator would refuse to carry out that approach.
What you are actually saying is that the CAA, whilst knowing that these approaches are actually dangerous (via calibration information), wilfully refuses to either insist they are fixed, or withdraw them. I don't believe that for a minute, and I challenge you to repeat that accusation to the media using your real name.
Why would the CAA open themselves up to some serious litigation?
All the CAA have to do is issue a NOTAM and those approaches are history. There is no real cost to the CAA, and no reason NOT to do it.
I have carried out thousands of approaches far more difficult than AP - have a look at Innsbruck, Calvi, Sumburgh or for that matter London City if you want to see approaches that get very close to terrain.
Just out of interest, how often do you guys get EGPWS warnings going into AP?