Interesting to see the reasons behind that weird clearance mumbo jumbo around the ILS.
1. Glide path signals are only protected to a range of 10 miles outside of this they may be corrupt.
Certainly very interesting, over here the GP is usually protected to 25NM, any reduction is communicated via NOTAMs and/or ATIS. But then, procedures require a GP intercept as far out as 15 NM in the first place.
2 VFR/SVFR or even IFR traffic may be transiting below, through the localiser.
That of course is a question of airspace structure and local procedures, the brits seem to be a bit more liberal in regard to VFR traffic, its way more heavly regulated here and therefore you normally have a bigger safety margin.
3 Descending below the glidepath outside of the protected range may have terrain/ controlled airspace issues.
Yup, but an ILS clearance doesn't allow to descent below the glide, just to descent on the glide and the GP has a protected range, of course we are at point 1 again here.
4 False localiser capture. Just the other week I saw a modern aircraft of a respected Western fleet, twice report established some distance from the actual localiser (over high ground in IMC). The ILS was taken out of service and checked but was found to be operating perfectly. The fault was in the onboard equipment.
Yes, false capture can and does happen, but thats the case everywhere.
That said UK ATC is of course one of the best at least in europe, but i wouldn't single them out as the single best. There are some things we see that work quite well if done differently like the ILS clearance.
The need to issue a QNH for startup has allways struck me as odd but not all that important to be honest, however getting a new ATIS if it is has indeed changed is not that a big issue on the ground in the first place, it is quite different in flight which is probably the reason that most ATCOs worldwide have to give the QNH if they cleare you to an altitude.