2nd May 2006, 09:55 AM
So, would it be correct to surmise that the unit in question has ?inadvertently? been using stationary which still indicates that they are an RAO to send out job offers ? and Whoops they say ?we are very sorry and we didn?t realise it was still on our stationary and we are sorry in case we have mislead anyone?. ?.oh and we wont do it again ..and are now using the new proper stationary.
But?..we have no idea if this is just an isolated mistake, or if this stationary has been ?inadvertently? used for a while and used for all sorts of other purposes including letters to clients, curators and others, who like Troll could also have been misled by the RAO Kitemark and believed that they were dealing with an IFA RAO.
Call me cynical, but it would appear that there may be a certain amount of deviousness associated with this?..(note lots of caveats with this sentence).
So was it sheer incompetence on their part and they are innocent?
Were they perhaps trying to save money by using old stationary?
Or perhaps they thought no one would notice or even question it?
[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]
But?..we have no idea if this is just an isolated mistake, or if this stationary has been ?inadvertently? used for a while and used for all sorts of other purposes including letters to clients, curators and others, who like Troll could also have been misled by the RAO Kitemark and believed that they were dealing with an IFA RAO.
Call me cynical, but it would appear that there may be a certain amount of deviousness associated with this?..(note lots of caveats with this sentence).
So was it sheer incompetence on their part and they are innocent?
Were they perhaps trying to save money by using old stationary?
Or perhaps they thought no one would notice or even question it?
[:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)][:o)]