Email from Stuart McCullagh, page-21

I read as much as I could before literally having to suppress my gag reflex. It would be interesting to ask that the person who write the report answer the following main questions..

1. If this is a shareholder visit on behalf of the shareholders, why was there only 1 shareholder visiting? Why was there not a group of shareholders present that held a representative crosscut of concerned shareholders? Was there a set of questions that this report writer wanted to ask? Or was he/she given alist of answers?
2. Who paid for the flights and or transport of this person? Was he a resident of Mt Isa/Cloncurry and does he have personal ties to the Board/Management/Senior Staff in anyway. Is he/she a previous or current staff member?
3. What discipline of engineering is the engineer? My guess is mechanical.
4. If looking at alleviating concerns regarding shareholder confidence and issues affecting the share price performance, why is there no mention of Board actions, costs associated with legal fees/issues/contractor repayments/financial debts owing, actions that could possibly construe a breach of financial economic responsibility?
5. Mentioning internet forum trolling and "haters" does not really present an unbiased light on this report, as shareholders (past, present and unlikely future) discussing things in an open forum is not trolling...where is the question of rampers and upsellers?
6. Poor attitude in the workplace is being moved on? What about underperforming and unsuitable for position employees? Who is deciding whose attitude is unsuitable and whose is not?? Seems very nazi-like to me tbh.
7. Why does this feel more like a brochure than a shareholder report?
8. Where is the grain of salt that I should be taking this commentary with?

None of that is made clear by the report. And this report only adds to further polarise shareholders IMHO.