When I asked why was iMutual established in it's original format the answer came back as:
richard@imutual wrote: ↑Sun May 10 2020 5:21pm
On the basis of advice received, industry precedent and being consistent with the original ambitions of the concept, it seemed necessary at the time.
Well I have sat and pondered and thought about which way to vote and whilst I have residual loyalties to Richard I still believe in the original concept that was sold to me about iMutual and therefore the structure. I find it hard to believe that Richard just did things because it was an "industry precedent" and if it was also on advice given then it should be investigated why that advice is wrong now.
Either way I don't see agreeing to structural changes (even if it reduces expenses) is anything more than agreeing to a drift into a drawn out decline which I see as giving up on the original concept; I would rather the website be sold than agree to that as it is basically putting iMutuals original potential and idea in the bin.
Therefore having thought deeply about just abstaining I have now decided to reject the option put forward completely. This may just end up being a protest vote but I would urge all those who think the same way as myself not to sit on the fence and also vote to reject the proposal put forward. There has been enough time for talking (and I'm disappointed in managements "blind eye" to some aspects of discussion and also the general lack of involvement) so time for a decision and I'm
voting against the proposal.