The reasons for choosing to read it that way is, as bookworm is aware, the phrase absolute minima has a very clear meaning in the context of landing minima off IAPs. I read this as imposing just such "absolute minima" on IMC-rated pilots, albeit for different reasons. It is inconceivable to me that even the CAA would rely on two different meanings of the phrase "absolute minima" in two such related contexts.
Interesting point I hadn't considered. Nevertheless, I think the two uses of the phrase
do come from very different places, and the one in the AIP predates the other by at least two decades.
The
absolute minima term that you're thinking of is not one that occurs in AD 1.1.2 (even in the Approach Ban section), or the ANO, but rather in MATS Part 1 (SI 02/2001). I'm intrigued that it is surrounded by scare quotes there! However, I would still argue that
absolute is not, even in this context, equivalent to
mandatory. Mandatory minima may be considerably
higher than the absolute minima mentioned there. But it does mean
unconditional or
not relative.
The phrase occurs on another occasion in the AIP AD 1.1.2:
9.1.2 Precision approaches, ILS and PAR, for which the absolute minimum is 200 ft above touchdown elevation, are normally based on a 3 degree glidepath.
Again it's clear that
absolute is not equivalent to
mandatory, as the mandatory minima may be dictated by the OCH/A.
But as you say, it's a conversation for a beer, particularly for anyone with an IR-SPA-ME
.