Hmmm seems I caused some confusion...
I work for a company that functions under JAROPS and British CAA approvals
No, you really don't. EU-OPS and EASA look after European aviation, have done for a while now. Your airline may function under British approvals (which is essentially meaningless as EU-OPS now looks after all that), but it isn't certified under EASA, is it? As in has an AOC issued by an EASA member state?
its not the quality of the radiated LOC/GS signal as much as the protected zones that stop signal bending.
... and the flat planes that exist at either end to ensure radalt accuracy, and the different integrity checks, different shutdown delays etc.
Has it occurred to you that it just may be your company that has different, not better or worse, SOPs rather than a statutory European wide practice - or have you worked for every airline in Europe?
No, but I have worked for eight different European airlines over 25 years (as opposed to one that is simply allowed to operate there), and they all had the same SOP, which is hardly surprising. I'm not surprised that BA has a different procedure though, as they tend to be a law unto themselves - their version of a Monitored Approach is pretty unique.
Almost departed the runway - were they sitting there with their hands in their laps? I have seen the odd case of LOC bending/interference too - I just disconnected and landed.
Hard to understand how you achieve recency or re-certification without using the system with all the protections and procedures in place - certainly for re-certitication, without the protections you have no idea whether a deviation was caused by aircraft systems or ground interference with the ILS signal.
There are also issues of aircraft type involved here, but that's another story...