Lorraine is broken

If half of that stuff is true she would have a very good cases for taking legal action against the production company and the people who printed the 'swinger' story.

A few apprentice candidates actually considered taking legal action against the press but decided it was not worth it: (e.g. Simon Smith - theinternetforum):


I don't think the production company can be blamed in this case. The candidates are given a clear picture of what awaits them in the show, the tasks, the schedule, etc. It is completely up to them to take up their place in the show e.g. the 16th candidate this series hours before filming starts. They can even quit: Katie Hopkins from series 3, Adele from series 1, Ifti from series 3.

There always has to be a first.

And if the 'swinger' stories are a complete fabrication then this is a particularly egregious libel.


Fortunately (or unfortunately if you are the production company) health and safety doesn't work like that.

If it did there would be very little health and safety because people are always prepared to do stupid things for money of other considerations.

The problem it is their choice. For example, if the task requires them not to sleep till late because of the rediculous schedule it is their choice to stay awake or sleep. They can sleep, risk losing the task, and have things unfinished. No one is forcing them not to sleep!! I don't think the production company can be held responsible.


They also have a day off per week.

I'm afraid you are absolutely and completely wrong.

Can you not see that if you were correct H&S would be unworkable because employers would simply set unrealistic targets and wave their hands and say it was the employee's fault if they behaved in a manner that was liable to be detrimental to their health and safety?

By your reasoning the only way anyone would ever be guilty of an H&S offence would be if they held a gun to someone's head. Otherwise, after all, it was their choice to use the dangerous machinery, wasn't it?

You may think the law is an ass but it is not that much of an ass.

This was not my point. My point is:

1- It is a limited period of 5 weeks max (most of them are fired before that). The schedule is grueling but they still have a one day off per week.

2- The candidates are not forced by the objectives set not to sleep. The candidates do not sleep because of their own drive to do well in the competition. They themselves set the objectives and the standard of their achievements. The employer in this case is not setting any standards. SAS doesn't require them to achieve a certain profit or sell predefined quantities. For example: they can make 50 soaps and sell them. They can also make 1000 soaps. The candidates themselves try to assess what will win them the task. If an employee chooses to sleep for only 4 hours a day because they want to be promoted, do better than others, etc, no one is going to to sue the employer. They themselves are responsible for this decision.

3- It is a competition. Consider it a competition to determine the one who can sleep for only 4 hours everyday for 5 weeks and still make the most sound business decisions. The rules of the competition are made clear and a psychological assessment is done for each of the candidates. Furthermore, the candidates are allowed to quit the comptition at any point. The production company clearly can't be held responsible. If there is a competition for the one who can go on longer without sleep. Do you think the competition organisers should be sued? Health and safety rules do not apply in this case.

I'm in a job that sometimes requires me to work ridiculous hours in line with the candidates It's written into my contract - but also outlines it is my choice to do so. But of everyone else is doing it and it is the "culture", then you do it. Lorraine would not be able to sue on the hours worked. they would have written clearly into the contracts the hours and told the schedule. They would probably be told to tell the production team etc... if unwell and told they can quit at any time. I sincerely doubt that Lorraine would have a case against the production team. This is the 5th series isn't it? Contracts would have got more stringent as the series have gone on and Lorraine would not be the first candidate to be exhausted from the hours.

She would have a case against the newspaper for libel. Oe thing she would need to be careful of is if there is any element of truth in it. Complete lies are easy enough and she could sue. But I've heard cases of candidates in the past of other shows who have said that if there is an element of truth it is difficult to sue. It's also expensive and takes time. So usually a retraction and payout is offered as a quick alternative. But the damage already done.

None of this is in the slightest bit relevant.

If you induce members of the public to undertake some action that they would not have taken had it not been for your intervention then you have a liability under health and safety legislation. (As well as common law in a lot of instances).

You can not escape those liabilities no matter what you get people to sign.

In this instance the producers have created an environment in which it could be reasonably expected that people to whom the had a duty of care would behave in a way that was inimical to their well being and as such there is a prima facie case against them if any one of those people come to harm, physical or mental.

Exactly, which is why there is no defence in H&S legislation of 'common culture' nor ability to limit liability by terms of contract.


None of what you say here is relevant for the reason mentioned above.

You cannot escape your duty of care by getting people to sign contracts.

If you could H&S legislation would be completely toothless as people who wanted jobs would easily be induced to sign away their protections.

The fact that H&S legislation is far from toothless is testament to the fact that lawyers cannot get around it so easily.

If people sign away your rights and there are clear limitation of liability clauses in the contract it would be extremely difficult to win a case in court. It's all about how detailed the contracts are and how clear and unambiguous they are. I can't say that I have seen the contracts, but given the number of apprentice series, given the large number of reality shows and given that one of the biggest risks to a show like this are people sueing them, I'd be extremely surprised if they did not have irontight contracts. I review contracts as part as my job. Contracts can contain whatever they like, in theory. It is the signature and witnessing of contract that binds the employer and employee, making those terms and conditions binding.

The BBC is not responsible for third parties selling stories to the newspaper. In this case; Lorraine would need to sue the newspaper who could potentially, in turn, sue the person who gave them the story.

But regarding long hours; they offer the candidate the opportunity to pull out of the competition and they are not forced into staying. This would make any breach of "duty of care" difficult to prove, especially given they are not given tasks dangerous to their health or dangerous due to sleep deprivation. They also have 2 people watching over them at all times and Nick/Margaret would be forced to step in if anything went particularly wrong. There will be doctors, no doubt, on hand and they would have been giving a psychological assessment. Big brother candidates have been warned about potential awful stories and this forms part of their assessment. I imagine these lot will also have a similar briefing.

I think I can say with almost absolute certainty that Lorraine would not be able to sue and win the BBC regarding her time in the Apprentice but could sue the newspaper for printing the NOTW story with a chance of winning if she can prove it false. The problem is having the proof.

What I said is extremely relevant and the evidence is that it happened for 5 series and no one (including contestants who are very familiar with health and safety issues) could take any legal action against them.


The contestants are not surprised by these conditions. They are told beforehand. Many competitions require the contestants to do something againsts the normal health and safety rules. No one can sue the competition organisers. If something happens, the contestants take complete responsibility for their actions.

On Reality TV, Less Sleep Means More Drama

A reality TV contestant:


An executive producer responded:



No one is suing him, and no one seems to consider legal action against him. I don't agree with it. It is highly unethical but the candidates can't do anything about it.

believe you. I have seen enough of what goes into contracts and also heard about what goes in the BB contestants contracts too. It's like with all dangerous sports too, If you go diving, you sign away your rights that you know it is a dangerous sport and you can die. You have to sign a limitation of liability clause before you go under. It will be similar here - at least the context anyway. Lawyers would have looked through this contracts and after years of press stories and horrendous stories similar to lorraine; they'd have covered themselves.

The only thing is that there are pictures with Lorraine's story, which suggests Lorraine would probably need to sue the newspaper, who in turn sue the person who gave the photos. The newspapers, with photos, would have taken the story with an element of fact. Lorraine could need to sue directly.

The quoted posts below continue to make the same mistakes and the same unsupportable assertions.

If someone takes some action that is deemed to be a breach of health and safety legislation then it makes not a shred of difference what they got anyone to sign.

If a complaint is made and the H & S executive investigate and decide to bring a prosecution then the defendants can wave as many contracts as they like but they will be of absolutely no use to them in creating a defence.

For example, someone said: "If you go diving, you sign away your rights that you know it is a dangerous sport and you can die."

That is so completely and utterly incorrect it's hard to belive anyone said it.

Diving schools and operators know very well that no matter what they get their customers to sign if they fail to take all reasonable steps to ensure their safety they will be held liable.

If the H & S executive looked into the conditions of a reality show and determined that they contravened any specific regulations or any general duty of care they would prosecute.

Once such a prosecution had taken place (and assuming the company were found guilty) then it would be extremely easy for a person who had suffred damage to mount and win a civil suite. (In fact it would most likely be settled out of court).

A second objection: That this sort of thing is happening all the time and no one has yet been prosecuted shows a common but nonetheless serious misunderstanding of the law.

Just because no one feels that they have been sufficiently damaged to complain and the H&S executive do not pursue these things proactively (they have enough trouble inspecting building sites!) means absolutely nothing.

It would be the same as a case where a number of companies had been operating a machine with inadequate safeguards for a number of years. Unless one of them happened to undergo an inspection they would not be prosecuted until their failure to ensure a safe environment lead to an actual injury.



You are quite correct. Her case would be against the production company.

Have you actually read anything I wrote?!!!!!!

Yes.

And from it I have ascertained that you are far from up to speed on the realities of H&S legislation and its enforcement.

You continue to bring up irrelevancies to try and counter the simple fact that an entity such as the production company has a duty of care towards those it involves in its activities and that duty cannot:

a) Be diluted by getting people to sign contracts.

b) Be ignored on the grounds of common practice.

If a court found that their activities could reasonably have been expected to cause mental or physical injury then they will be liable to prosecution whatever contracts they may have got people to sign and no matter how many times they may have got away with it in the past.

This is why I asked if you have read my posts. Have I said anywhere that the production company has no duty of care towards the candidates involved?!!!!

This was not my point of argument at all:

The argument is:

1- The candidates were informed that they will be working for long hours for six days a week for a period of 5 weeks max.

2- The candidates agreed to this schedule. A psychological and medical assessment was done and the candidates were considered fit to be involved in this competition.

3- All the legal documents were signed to confirm that the candidates agreed to continue with the competition under the declared conditions.

4- Nick and Margaret are there to make sure that everything is under control.

5- A medical team presumably look after the candidates and assess their conditions. (Sara last year was seen by someone and was asked if she wanted to continue with the competition after the Lee incident)

6- If a candidate feels (or considered to be) unwell at any point during the competition they can walk out (or fired). (Ifti and Jadine were fired when they were homesick).

7- If a candidate doesn't want to stay up till late or not wake up early, it is their choice (Lucinda last year in the cleaning task didn't wake up early and was not fired for it) (They still have to attend the brief and be there when the fired candidate returns)

In this case filming for 20 hours a day, six days a week for 5 weeks does not make the production company liable to prosecution which is the main point of discussion.

It's quite funny that you ask if I've read anything you wrote and then come up with the same set of irrelevancies that you have come up with more than once before.

Let's make this really, really, simple.

If a candidate that took part in this process were to believe that they had suffered as a result of the process and made a complaint under H&S legislation the H&S exacutive would consider three questions:

1) Did the candidate indeed suffer some injury as a result of the process.

2) Could a normal person be expected to suffer an injury of that sort as a result of that process.

3) Could the (prospective) defendant reasonably have foreseen that a normal person could have suffered such injury.

If the answer to those questions is yes then a prosecution is very likely to follow and it is very likely to succeed.

In answering question (2) the experts involved would consider to what extent the potential reward could be expected to induce the candidates to undertake actions that they would not normally undertake.

All your points above are completely irrelevant.

The questions are simple: Did it happen? Was it something that could happen to a normal person? Could the company have foreseen that it could happen?

Thank you both.

But that still doesn't explain the chuffing ironing at 0630!

Again you seem to discuss another point which is not the point I am talking about.

I will say it again:

We are talking about this situation where the candidates are filmed for 20 hours a day, 6 days a week for six weeks, and under the circumstances I listed in my previous posts, is the production company automatically liable to prosecution? We are not talking about an imaginary situation.

In the case of Lorraine, she doesn't have a case against the production company:

1- She agreed to go through the process.

2- She was probably assessed and was considered to be psychologically and physically fit.

3- She was free to sleep whenever she wanted (except during the brief, and the when the candidates came back from the boardroom)

4- She was psychologically monitored during the program.

5- As far as we know, she did not suffer from any physical enjury.

If you think she and others have a case, then you can make a good business out of it. There are hundreds and hundreds of reality TV contestants. Convince them (and a compensation claim lawyer) that they can get some compensation and make good money out of it .

To get back on topic, perhaps there's only one iron and they have a rota when they can use it? And perhaps the guys feel they might be popular if they walk around without their shirts!

Maybe one of them is getting up in the night and screwing up all the shirts so they have to be ironed in the morning....

Exactly.

1) She has suffered no injury from sleep deprivation.

2) Psychological damage is supposedly due to an article i a newspaper which is an independent company to the BBC and something the BBC cannot be held accountablefor.

3) If you sign a contract stating you are fully aware that i signing up you will potentially have towork long hours, have little sleep, you give the BBC full permission to show any scenes they like and that you understand that you can quit at any time you feel uncomfortable. That you have undertaken a psychological assessment and are aware that by entering the program, you are entering the public eye and may be subject to some negative publicity and reactions from the public - you sign away any rights to then complain about averse publicity and sleep deprivation.

Her signature on the contract would overrule common law. She would have to go through a legal process to state she wasn't fully aware of what she was signing and that she was mentally or something, to assume she wasn't of right mind when she signed the contract. But then she would struggle to prove as she had a pyschological assessment and most likely, a full medication examination, to prove she was healthy and mentally stable.

The only possible course she could take would be to sue the newspaper (indirectly the source or directly), not the BBC, as to the false allegations of the story. Even then, due to pictures, it would be her word against the sources. She would need to pay legal fees in advance as well and it could be a lengthy process.

Do you not think if it was as easy as the above that contestants efore Lorraine, in even, say BB, would be earning a fortune? There have been far worse stories and edits about other reality contestants.

I can understand her being upset, but at the end of the day she signed her right away when she signed up to the show. That is why many, including myself, would never go on the show. What has happened to Lorraine unfortunately happens to most contestants, especially those that are controversial characters.

Oh for crying out loud! Guys, will you please just agree to disagree instead of saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again and boring the pants off everyone else?! Besides, you're way off topic and the Mods might well object.