I'm very much surprised no comments regarding the reduction in staff, coming off the earlier audits.
Very understandable and the way any one of us would run a business.
However, it still confuses me a little in why two adjacent audits ?
In doing so, when stacking up the justification for the voluntary redundancies, were they looking for a rosier vs gloomier report in making their cuts. And which one were they electing to use.
Given the reported (but not actually numbered) less than what I would have expected quantity, it seems to have been a fairly overly cost wise method. That may well mean they chose the rosier one. I would really like to think so.

Just to make it clear, I am not in any way belittling the effect on any of those unfortunates in finding themselves involved. Hopefully the the voluntary approach will at least save many, hopefully all, from a forced situ.