Sorry for the double post, this really wasn't relevant to the...

Sorry for the double post, this really wasn't relevant to the other thread. In response to comments about the votes sending MS a message:
----------------------------------------------------

it's been a quite a while since we realised that sending MS a message was pointless. We have tried on numerous occasions with significant shareholder backing to make him listen to reason.

If everything is above board then there really was a much easier way for him to make this whole shareholder action go away, we suggested it to him. Personally I would have been much happier if he'd taken that option then I could have gotten back to living my normal shadders life two months ago and faded back into the obscurity that I very much enjoy. You would expect that a CEO facing some of suggestions levelled, would be falling all over himself to refute them, especially when it could be so easily done. That fact that he hasn't taken this easy option and entirely avoided addressing any of the issues is what worries me most.

It doesn't seem logical or reasonable to choose a public clash with shareholders over a simple disclosure so there must be a factor at play that is not known to us.

So, it was clear some time ago that there was little point sending a message to MS. It had already been done and flatly ignored. The purpose of this vote now is
1/ to get the numbers in the event that some regulatory intervention can level the playing field. We are working on that though can't promise a result as we won't make that decision.
2/ to send a message to those that need to hear it that the clearly demonstrated will of shareholders is being walked all over by management. Which may or may not strengthen our case in the previous point.

This goes far beyond a simple win or loss at the EGM. We knew the vote wouldn't be fair months ago, if that was the extent of our strategy we simply wouldn't have wasted months of our lives working on this.

It is absolutely VITAL to get your votes in if you are in accord with the objectives of the collective. It doesn't matter how small your holding, it's not just the number of votes that counts but also the number of individuals. We are beyond the realm of technical definitions of law now and into the realm of discretionary interpretations so the impact of those numbers does matter.