The Apprentice (UK) 2007 (contains spoilers)

[nekokate]

Anyone seen this?!!

Sugar stands accused of sexism after apprentice quits
By Ben Russell
Published: 08 June 2007

For millions of television viewers Sir Alan Sugar has become as well known for his outspoken boardroom personality as for his £800m business empire. The no-nonsense entrepreneur has turned reality TV show The Apprentice into compelling viewing, regularly reducing his high-flying candidates to quivering wrecks with his blunt assessments of their failings. But this time, it seems, Sir Alan may have gone just a little too far - even for him.

Yesterday his hit series, the penultimate episode of which went out on Wednesday night to an audience of millions, became the target of vehement criticism after the businessman was accused of breaching sex discrimination laws during a marathon session of gruelling questioning.

The TUC and the Equal Opportunities Commission were among those warning that the show was sending the wrong signal to business after mother of two Katie Hopkins, who has become a controversial cult star of the series, was quizzed about her children during a set of interviews to choose the two finalists to battle it out for a £100,000 job in Sir Alan's empire.

In the dramatic boardroom showdown, Sir Alan asked Ms Hopkins how she would move her children from her home in Devon to London if she won the contest and asked whether relatives who might look after her children would move. "Exeter, Devon, two little kids. How's life going to be if I say to you: 'Katie right, you're down in London. You've got to move your family, move your location." She suggested that her parents might move to be nearby. He replied: "I'm worried here."

Earlier, his associate property developer Paul Kemsley also grilled Ms Hopkins about her family circumstances after she declared that her children were her priority.

In a surprise twist to Wednesday's episode, Ms Hopkins finally bowed out of the show, saying she did not want to uproot her family.

The series, which started with eight women, three of them single mothers, battling eight men for the elusive job with Sir Alan, is now fighting off accusations that the tactics used were unfair on the female candidates.

Fellow contestant Kristina Grimes, who has a son at university, was also asked about her family circumstances and whether she would move to take up a job with Sir Alan. He said she had brought up her 18-year-old son and added: "From what I can understand you say 'that's it, now it's Kristina time'."

The producers of the show denied any discrimination and insisted that Sir Alan put his candidates under pressure to ensure they were committed to the job if they emerged victorious. A spokesman said Sir Alan wanted an apprentice who would could be "available at any time of day or night".

But yesterday there were warnings that grilling women about their children and family during job interviews could breach sex discrimination laws. TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: "The Apprentice is just a show but had last night been a genuine interview, Kristina and Katie could have had real grounds for complaint against Sir Alan.

"Any employer who asks only the female candidates about how their children and personal circumstances may affect their ability to do a job could find themselves in hot water."

Jenny Watson, chair of the EOC, said: "Sir Alan is well aware that women with children can be every bit as successful in business. It might make for great TV, but the programme sends an unfortunate message to other employers that questions about commitment and childcare only apply to women."

The Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the body that represents 7,000 recruitment specialists, said it was "shocked" to see the interview techniques in the programme. Tom Hadley, director of the confederation, said "it simply isn't acceptable to assume that only women have caring responsibilities in the modern world." All those undertaking recruitment should abide by all anti-discrimination rules. "From what was shown on the programme it's doubtful that Sir Alan and his employees were compliant."

Lorely Burt, the Liberal Democrat womens' spokeswoman added: "This is a classic example of the kind of casual discrimination still faced by working women every day."

Last night a spokesperson for the production company Talkback Thames said: "As part of the interview process, Sir Alan and his colleagues interrogated all of the candidates about their commitment to the process and the job. He wanted to put them under pressure to be able to be fully confident that they were serious about the opportunity he was offering them.

"Sir Alan was intent on ensuring that he did not take on an apprentice who later pulled out due to lack of commitment.

"Some of the candidates - including Simon Ambrose - were therefore asked about their living and family arrangements, as it is essential to Sir Alan that his apprentice is close on hand and can be available at any time of day or night if necessary."

[faceless]

What gets me about this story is that all the interviewers already knew each contestant's personal situation beforehand though. I thought the questions asked were reasonable, even if some were pretty harsh - but certainly not sexist.

[Kezza]

Sorry faceless, I agree with you about 99% of the time, but not in this instance. I was shocked when I watched this.

In the U.S., it is 100% illegal to ask the kind of questions the female candidates were asked. It is against the law to ask any candidate, male or female, if they have children or intend to have children. It is also illegal to ask about childcare arrangements. It is also illegal to ask about transportation and how you plan to get to work. It is also illegal to ask about any medical conditions/disabilities you may have, unless you are willing to disclose them.

Furthermore, I would despise working for any company that viewed childcare as "women's work." I suppose all of the men who work for Sir Alan who have children also have wives at home who are always on hand to pick up a sick child from school, take the child to a doctor's appointment, etc.? Or perhaps Sir Alan pays everyone enough money that his employees can all afford nannies? That's a load of crap and insulting to dedicated fathers. Growing up as a member of a family with 4 children (myself included), there were many occasions when my mother was unavailable and my father had to leave work to pick us up from school.

Perhaps Sir Alan should consider providing on-site child-care to working parents, as many successful companies have done. Heck, even the U.S. government provides it at many of its agencies!

Maybe they didn't air this, but I don't recall anyone asking Tre if he would be willing to move his family if he won the job or how he planned to handle his childcare arrangements.

[Lostinthestates]

I didn't like her much anyways but I thought this was quite funny .... haven't read the Sun article yet!

Apprentice contender Katie fired
Katie Hopkins, a contender on BBC One's The Apprentice, has been fired from her real job, her employer has confirmed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6743877.stm

[Kezza]

Well, well, well.... how about Katie? I did wonder whether she was fudging her 90,000 pound salary - apparently she was.

Thanks for the post!!!

[maycm]

Well, the final was interesting from a number of counts. I thought that Simons design looked like three dicks and Kristinas presentation was more professional and included factual benefit statements

On the whole Kristina's was far superior.

So in the end he hired Simon who I thought was a wet blanket and not the right choice.

IMHO, "Siralan" got it wrong

[Kezza]

Yup, I agree with ya, maycm on both counts. Simon's design was awful and Christina should have won. I hope she gets an even better opportunity because of this programme.

[faceless]

BITCH BROTHER
Exclusive by Nicola Methven, TV Editor 15/06/2007
www.mirror.co.uk

APPRENTICE bitch Katie Hopkins makes another horrid show of herself - in an early Big Brother pilot. Katie starred in an unscreened dummy run in 2000 before the series made its TV debut. Even then the snobby blonde was so desperate to grab the limelight and find fame that she stripped and photocopied her private parts.

One housemate revealed: "We had to make wire models of ourselves and include photocopies of our body parts. Katie took her clothes off and lay on the photocopier with no qualms at all. She went straight for the more intimate areas of her anatomy and got down to work."

The ex-Army girl, then 24, is also seen shamelessly baring her backside. In other clips she appears to swig from a giant bottle of cider and grins as she clutches two bottles of wine. Yet on The Apprentice, catty Katie sneered at fellow contestant Adam Hosker: "Your best friends are Mr Pinot and Mr Grigio."

Astonishingly, the fellow Big Brother contestant claimed Katie was likeable seven years ago. They said: "She was popular, sweet and very good fun. There are two sides to Katie - the driven, ambitious side and the side that just wanted to get back to her dogs."

On the film of their two-week pilot, Katie is shown fixing one of the wire effigies, playing in the garden and helping with chores. She is also caught in mundane activities such as brushing her teeth and snoozing. By the time the show hit TV, she had been axed for the likes of scheming Nick Bateman - who, like her, became a national hate figure.

Mum-of-two Katie, 32, of Exeter, has become despised for her snide barbs behind the backs of other Apprentice hopefuls and for boasting about flings with three married men. Tonight she appears on Channel 4 show 8 Out Of 10 Cats.

-------------

The more I hear about the type of people that would go on these shows the more I'm amazed by the effort and time they've put in just to appear.