Options
How's this then...?
Sara Webb
Posts: 7,885 Forum Member
✭
... for the most tenuous link ever between The Apprentice and a 'real life' case?
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/exposure/2008/06/a_tale_of_two_cheats_1.html
Slight difference, perhaps? :rolleyes:
http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/exposure/2008/06/a_tale_of_two_cheats_1.html
A tale of two cheats
Once upon a time there were two cheats.
They both falsified information about their education to boost their career prospects.
One landed a £100,000-a-year job with a business tycoon, even though his cheating was exposed.
The other is facing 38 years - yes, 38 years - in prison.
The chances are you'll recognise the first cheat as Lee McQueen, the winner of The Apprentice TV show on BBC1.
leemcqueen2.jpg
He was appointed by Sir Alan Sugar, even though he told a big, fat lie on his CV.
He claimed he'd attended university for two years, when in fact he dropped out after just four months.
You probably haven't heard of the second cheat. He's an 18-year-old American student called Omar Khan.
khan.jpg
He hacked into his school's computer and altered his test grades from Fs to As so he could get a place at university.
While he was at it, he changed the grades for a dozen pals. Oh, and the reason he got Fs in the first place was not because he's stupid, it's because he was caught cheating in the exams.
Slight difference, perhaps? :rolleyes:
0
Comments
Lee in this case is the victim of what I think one journalist called "the wash". EVERYONE in journalistic circles seized on the phrase "Lee lied on his CV" - without having seen the CV itself.
It seems clear now, that his CV stated quite correctly that he was doing a 2 year course at TVU and didn't complete the course.
In conversation with Borden Tkachuk he was pulled up (quite correctly), and that's what we saw on the show.
Absurd reporting!
The maximum possible sentence in the American case is there to cover the most egregious cases (such as a conspiracy to fix election results
I doubt the guy will even get a jail sentence - if he does it will be quite short.
Since Lee didn't lie on his CV he could probably retire on his winnings from libel suits given the number of publications that have repeated the falsehood.
If he could bother his a...se!
Can't resist jumping in and saying...you seem to be a very delusional person. Lee said "I was there for two years" (verbally, in the interview) and on his CV you could read that it said 1996-1998.
SO he did lie.
Not that I think that it matters too much that he lied -- even though it was a double lie because it was really to fill a gap rather than because he was ashamed of his education.
Anyway get back on your meds, you're obsessing over Lucinda too.
Lee did not lie in his CV. He wrote the dates of the course and wrote under it "Not Completed". The course itself takes 2 years to be completed. The CV was misleading but he didn't lie. Lee did lie in the interview though.
Regarding his motives, Lee did not lie to fill a gap. According to post-apprentice interviews, Lee said that during this period he started working in the recruitment industry which in fact gives him more years in terms of experience. Therefore, it is more likely that he lied because of his insecurity about his education and to cover his inability to continue the course.
Lee is most probably an undiagnosed dyslexic as suggested in the You're fired show. Lee said that he is going to see an expert about it.
Nope, that's not how CV writing (or common sense) works. It was a pure lie. Incomplete would have referred to something lasting more than two years. Being that it was a University he probably was signed up for a Bachelor of science degree lasting three years, but that is unimportant.
No it wasn't, it was ambiguous.
He DID lie. At the interview the Sugar rep asked him to verify that he had been at Uni for TWO years to which Lee said "YES". He only admitted to quitting after only four months when the interviewer said he had a letter from the Uni stating that he left after four months.
I don't want to get sucked into your world of madness here so I'll just quote from the show:
-"I was there for two years and I was actually doing my HCIMA for that period of time."
-"Are you sure it was two years?"
-"As far as I am aware it was two years.
-"The university has dropped me a line here..."
lawabider: "Nope, that's not how CV writing (or common sense) works. It was a pure lie."
Me: "No it wasn't, it was ambiguous. "
What you two geniuses have failed to notice is that I said he did not lie on his CV.
You have both then replied to that saying he lied to the interviewer.
I don't think anyone is in any doubt that he lied to the interviewer.
However what he wrote on his CV was not a lie it was ambiguous.
If you two want to be taken seriously in a debate you'll need to learn to respond to what is actually said.
As I said the course itself lasts 2 years. he wrote "Not completed" under it. Writing "Not completed" under it directly implies that he spent less than two years. The CV can be described at worst as "misleading".
Yes he did lie in the interviews but he didn't lie in the CV.
Ditto, you will notice that I simply said he did lie. So if you wish to be taken seriously blah blah blah.
BTW thankyou for appreciating my intellectual status.
You just spouted an irrelevant non-sequitur.
Wooooosh!