BOAC- you should know better than to suggest that Flight Data Monitoring systems are used to attribute 'misdemeanours' to crews who may be operating entirely safely and appropriately in the circumstances, like the FNC approach you mention! All FDM data has to be taken in context, and used properly is an outstanding tool for highlighting areas where operational procedures may be having an impact on safety. If crews 'fear' it then its credibility suffers and its usefulness is diluted.
As an aside, 1000' RA rather than 1000' aal would be daft - that would imply that BA are happy for crews to be stable at 730' above the R09 at JER but not at 1001' aal at LGW? Surely stability criteria must refer to time to landing, not the distance to the terrain directly underneath the aircraft?
For info 120.4, the 'ground-speed lock' on modern airbusses (airbii?) is usually referred to as 'Ground Speed Mini' - mini meaning minimum rather than little.
What this system does is compare an entered value of the surface W/V as given by ATIS/TWR with the current wind and ensure that the correct groundspeed is flown, so that when the wind changes (i.e. drops) with descent, the total energy of the aircraft is not compromised and high sink rates due to shear are avoided.
Therefore GS Mini, in strong headwind conditions, often demands a higher IAS, to ensure enough knots are left if the current strong wind suddenyl drops away.
Use is very strongly recommended in windy conditions due to the protection it provides against shear, but it should never demand a lower speed than the approach speed, only higher, so using it as an excuse for flying slower than 160 to 4 is nonsense.