4th June 2006, 02:59 PM
But Troll, you do not say what you think should have happened. Neither you nor I know the exchanges between the IFA and the firm involved, but the outcome is that the offending activity has ceased. Perhaps a repitition would result in an injunction, I don't know, but as David says, hanging might be seen as exceesive. The IFA have not "done nothing", they have demonstrably done something and far from being behind closed doors the outcome and identities are on a public website.
Why should the firm not be permitted to advertise for staff, if they admitted the offence/mistake and rectified it? Is that not the object of the excercise?
As for the level of "policing", this is old ground. I know of know no institute that can, does or would "police" as I understand the word. All will however investigate complaints. Perhaps you are suggesting that some complaints gone uninvestigated? If so it may be that they were found to be unfounded (excuse clumsy grammar!)
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Why should the firm not be permitted to advertise for staff, if they admitted the offence/mistake and rectified it? Is that not the object of the excercise?
As for the level of "policing", this is old ground. I know of know no institute that can, does or would "police" as I understand the word. All will however investigate complaints. Perhaps you are suggesting that some complaints gone uninvestigated? If so it may be that they were found to be unfounded (excuse clumsy grammar!)
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.