<<snipped>> Article 27 gives two forms of proxy, the form sent to members and another type which allows for members to instruct their proxy how to act i.e. for whom to vote for. ... Why wasn't this form used in this case, as it is in every other charity, building society and company in which I have shares, when electing the trustees/board? <<snipped>> To some degree, despite disliking proxies of the form "Vote as you like", I have been telling myself that's how all companies, etc, work. I am, however, definitely concerned by the form of Article 27.2 point (3) which says "Where it is desired to afford members an opportunity of instructing the proxy how to act". Where it is desired? Desired by who? Surely that option is the very least that needs to be removed and the chance of instruction be always given. I am convinced that every company I have shares or whatever in, always allows the member to instruct the proxy how to vote. Whether it's mandated so to happen by their rules or not. If everyone got a chance to instruct their proxy how to vote, then half of me says - "On your own head be it and don't complain if you don't instruct and your proxy votes differently to how you want." But - looking at the form of proxy for the AGM in June 2011, then people were not given the option to instruct. That is very unusual based on what I've always seen. Who made the decision not to invoke Article 27.2 point (3) and why? (What are the codes of practice for corporate governance on this score? If there are any?) Adrian B