There is quite a story behind the photo, as one might imagine. ...but I'll stick to the topic about the UK decision -- continued below
Now, I would challenge any Kangal Dog fancier to say, yes, this breeder did it right. She is right on the mark. This is a Kangal! It is correct for such data on "Fawn Black Masked" dogs to be used without question in order to validate splitting the registry into a 'purer' and a 'less pure' set of breeds. The data on the pictured litter was used by the 'splitters' to provide support about the "great numbers' of qualifying "kangal/karabash" dogs that have been registered with the KC.
Also submitted (among many other amusing things) to the KC in the argument to create a 'kangal' register -- In the wording of the documents submitted by the kangal/karabash enthusiasts, "...allow all UK registered Anatolians to be traced to their imported ancestors and allocated to one or other register by pedigree on a percentage basis in some cases (e.g. 90% Karabash/Kangal)."
...so exactly when does a dog under this rating system become 100% pure and gets moved into the Kangal register? What happens if another rough coat is thrown in the register? (See picture)
Both parents have to carry the recessive. So do you move the "kangal" parents back to the ASD register? Thus, it was concluded that there can only be one registry for these dogs in UK. A dog cannot be registered as 90% of one breed at the same KC part of the time, and then 100% of another breed at a different time. Further, if no reversal is permitted for dogs that 'accidently' are labeled purer than they turned out to be, then that means that the accidently labelled dogs need to be removed from the genepool of the breed that doesn't permit reversal and cannot be re-entered into the original genepool.
Think it doesn't happen? This has happened to several ASDs that were let into the Australian Kangal Dog registry. Having shown their lack of purity, the Kangal club doesn't permit them to move back to the ASD genepool. Everyone loses. The KC voted against duplicating that same mistake.
On just the falsified information alone, KC is right to question the concept of creating a independent register and breed standard.
Hopefully this helps to show that the situation in UK is not what some may have been lead to believe.