kala87,
With regard to the usefulness of the IMC for the IR, I agree with you. I suppose it comes down to what area you struggle with. I suggest you are similar to me in that getting to grips with the enroute workload was the primary constraint, the terminal area procedures and instrument flying per se isn't really a problem. Somebody who would otherwise struggle with those terminal procedures, holds, etc could possibly benefit. But how do you know? I think any benefit would be marginal.
The increased minima for an IMCR are indeed advisory. I specifically refer to the the addition of 200' (plus PEC) with a minima of 500' (precision) and 600' (non-precision) respectively.
The guidelines for the IMCR are laid out here:
http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...omes/30101.PDF (para 3.3.2.1)
As it happens, I had a specific issue with the wording as the paragraph seems to infer that the 200'/300' adjustment is optional but the 500'/600' is mandatory by way of the use the words "but" and "absolute". I emailed the CAA for a clarification and the reply went along the lines of: The IMCR increases in minima are all optional, but if you were to come a cropper and live when below those recommendations, we'll probably use it in the ensuing prosecution against you!