QAR ASR says it all.
Having migrated from the "flat earth society" the first time I visited JFK it was gusting 25 kts across, 600 feet cloudbase in heavy rain (at night).
We were given clearance to land about 12 miles out with at least two (we were aware of) on the approach ahead of us.
Becoming visual, (the wipers working overtime) with a mass of blurred lights ahead I thought it prudent to ask "has the preceding cleared the runway?"
The response was almost a joke..."of course he's cleared, I expect he's shut down and gone home!"
This chap had no idea, with clearances to land being given when the approach path/ runway is not clear is asking for problems. Why they do it I don't know.
I learnt very quickly.
Some time after, yet again with the wind on the crosswind limit and the preceding carrying out a windshear go-around I suggested "in the event off a go-around we will be carrying out the standard missed approach climbing to 4000!" The response was "Hell no, we have crossing traffic at 4000 and you would only be cleared to 3000"
We too did a windshear go-around and, having held for a while, landed off the second approach.
I took the time to ring ATC after landing to try and make the point that the last thing a pilot wants to do during a windshear go-around (full power, over-riding the electronics which limit the power and Rate of Climb) was to have the cleared height changed from 4000 to 3000... "Negative G during the attempt to acquire 3000 is not comfortable". I wish I had not bothered, he was not listening, he was the controller and he was in control. I didn't suggest that I thought he was not!
I seem to remember an accident where someone ran out of fuel on the approach to JFK. He has made many attempts to suggest his fuel state to ATC without using the magic word. No one listened and the result is history.
I would love for our colleagues "across the pond" to comment on the relative performance of ATC at LHR and JFK. It is obvious who has my vote!