Meikelour, You seem strangely upset. There really is no need for theatrical self-abasement because you misleadingly used incorrect terminology - which is, incidentally, nothing to do with a "typo" at all. "Helping" people on technical matters is far from helpful when incorrect/sloppy terminology is used.
I gather that logical reasoning isn't to your taste but may I gently suggest you avail yourself of a dictionary and look up the meaning of "rant" and "hijack"? Once again you are using incorrect terminology. Further, just because your last post was on a given subject does not mean that the entire thread is now restricted to that matter, nor excuse patronising jibes about your personal lack of interest in matters raised by others (and not me, in this case).
Even a cursory scan would reveal the matter of PICUS had already been raised. Incorrectly, you'll notice, hence the attempt to put it right before any more newbies are mislead by incorrect "facts" being presented here. Or is it somehow not done to address two matters in one post?
Arguing that localised, anecdotal and unpopular conditions two or three generations ago is reason to ignore or misinterpret rules today where such things no longer exist is a false and irrational argument, just as your justification for it at the time is specious. BEA's operating standards have attracted much interest on PPRuNe and rightly so too, I think, though quite how the matters you quoted could affect the then use of PICUS I can't really see. (yet another typo/technical inexactitude here, I'm afraid.) No doubt what you meant to type was P1u/s. It may be pretty much the the same thing but one is derived from modern pan-European ops, the other the historical UK ANO rule, regimens no more interchangeable than the acronyms themselves.
To excuse my clearly inadequate experience in all matters and of P1u/s in particular I can only go by what I have seen from BA, BCAL and TEA, plus a smattering of lesser names. Surprisingly close to your own list, isn't it. However. I certainly never heard of it being interpreted any way other than the way I described until quite recently, in an airline well known for having eradicated the concept of "airmanship". And yes I know the UK CAA turn a blind eye, even collude in the scam. We know how they bend over to the big guns when it suits and it's pretty shameful. It doesn't make it right. When they re-write the definition to make pilot handling the only requirement to award PICUS I'll back down, but until then the current definition stands.
Mikelour, try not to let the injustice of being an FO FEW under those horrid ex-wartime skippers cloud your judgement but technical inaccuracies, false logic and spurious ancient excuses for breaking rules have no place in todays's Professional world, any more than they did then. Any more than does sneering at those who try to maintain correct standards in this industry that relies so much on the adherence to correct standards.
Nice day!