This is the letter I'm thinking of sending:

<deleted>,

In light of you informing me at my initial consultation that my position had been put at risk
with no input from you or <deleted>, but rather as a board level decision,
there are certain questions I would like to ask. I believe I'm legally
entitled to a response to these, and would appreciate one.

As you know there are four roles and five people that could have been targeted, the roles being
Research and Development, Technical Manager, Technical Architect and Developer.
You'll know too that all roles carry out very similar work, though some
are more experienced.

I would like to know what objective, reasoned and fair procedure the board
followed in evaluating which roles should be put at risk. I would also like
to know what measurable criteria were used in that process to decide that
it would be my role from the initial pool of candidates, and what the results
of the application of those criteria were.

Also I would like confirmation that, in the interests of fairness, the same
procedure was used by the board across all roles considered for redundancy in the company in this round.

On a side note, I find the declining of my request to put back our meeting on the 21st prejudicial.
I am entitled to bring a representative but I feel that having two working days inbetween
the initial consultation and the second did not give me enough time to organise this.
I note that the letter <deleted> gave me, dated the 16th - the day of our initial meeting,
referred to the initial meeting being two days earlier. That would have doubled the time
I had to arrange representation.

I have asked for representation from a member of the board I have worked with previously,
but he declined due to pressures of his workload. I am uncertain who could give me a fair
representation now.

In the absence of true representation from a company I've worked long and hard for, I will
move this matter on myself.

Regards,