29th November 2011, 09:47 PM
Indeed - one = who will remain nameless for now - when called up after an email request for clarification said the following. " Oh dear, our hearts sank when we read the email - I knew you would call. We will give you a reply as soon as I can discuss this more" - that was over a week ago
I have emailed again asking for further clarification - and yes, the IfA and the Curators are reading this - I know this again from talks with curators.
Let me be absolutely clear. I have no issue with RO status being seen as a kitemark and something a client can take into consideration when choosing who to carry out their work. I have no issue with a method for policing and utilisation of IfA Standards I also think ther should be a way to ensure quality. WHat I did mind was what was essentially an attempt to snuff out those who are not ROs - NOT on quality but on membership THats the bottom line for me.
Can you do the job? If the answer is yes, then don't be barred.:face-huh:
I have emailed again asking for further clarification - and yes, the IfA and the Curators are reading this - I know this again from talks with curators.
Let me be absolutely clear. I have no issue with RO status being seen as a kitemark and something a client can take into consideration when choosing who to carry out their work. I have no issue with a method for policing and utilisation of IfA Standards I also think ther should be a way to ensure quality. WHat I did mind was what was essentially an attempt to snuff out those who are not ROs - NOT on quality but on membership THats the bottom line for me.
Can you do the job? If the answer is yes, then don't be barred.:face-huh: