I have never really taken to Hayley but I thought she was quite nasty in the boardroom last night so I looked at her profile for the first time.
I was shocked to see this comment: " she passionately disagrees with people claiming benefits when they could be working."
Wow!! I think this is a very telling statement from one so young but it goes along way to explain her attitude. However, when wealthy Daddy provides everything, I suppose it is easy to think this way.

Well mabye a bit of an overeation there OP, the "when they could be working." is the most important bit of that statement.
Due to this phrase the statement could mean one of two things.

A. It suggests those who are unemployed should take any old job just for the sake of working.
Or
B. She is condeming those who choose to not even attempt to get work and instead rely on benifits.

It is most likely B which, to be honest OP, is just common sense.

Considering that she's on a show where it is anticipated that kids on the show have already begun to provide their own money, saying that "Daddy provides everything" is not only extremely patronising, but also factually incorrect. In fact, since she has started her own business, it seems that, atm, "Daddy" doesn't need to provide anything. Also, since she is 17, is juggling A-Levels with a business and actually doing something herself, I think she has a right to feel the way she does about benefit frauds.

Personally, I don't think you should make judgements on people based on their accent. Yes, she made some inappropriate comments to Zara, but compare this to Harry M, who didn't listen at all as PM and was very dictatorial and people are still trying to defend him on this forum!
In my opinion, Harry M is much more deserving of this ridiculous attack on Hayley, which seems to be based more on her voice as far as I can see.

She sells eggs from her father's farm. If you tell me that anyone can do this then I will accept what you say but the fact is she couldn't do it without the facilities that already exist, the farm!
I suspect that it is more of a hobby than an actual business and she will give it all up when she goes on to university.

It's not so much the idea itself (which is hard to argue against) it's more that she's "passionate" about it, so it sounds like she's rather obsessed with it. They're all "passionate" about everything in their profiles of course, but this seems an odd thing to be passionate about.

I think - as said by others - that Hayley just means that there are too many able bodied layabouts claiming taxpayers money and not trying to get work.

And she's right.

"Personally, I don't think you should make judgements on people based on their accent"

This is a funny comment to make considering I didn't mention her accent. She is without doubt a priviledged person. I would expect far more compassion from someone who has had such a good start in life.

Whoah there. Only about 5% of those on benefits are defrauding the system. I agree what people who can work should do so (assuming work is available) but I questioned her "passion" about the issue. It's an odd thing to feel SO strongly about. Or perhaps it's just something she felt would impress Lord Sugar.

Without a doubt? Where did you get that impression from? She lives on a farm, not exactly Daddy's mansion is it?

There has been nothing in the show whatsoever to suggest that she has had a privileged upbringing, unless you start to draw conclusions from her accent, which imo is wrong.

Even so, to go on and say that "Daddy provides everything" is an incredibly patronising and irrelevant comment for someone who clearly works hard juggling her A-Levels and a business. I respect her greatly as I'm only a few years older than her and I know that at her age, I didn't have the ambition or drive to start a business.

Someone on another thread mentioned that they knew her from her private school. ?? I believe that does mean she is priviledged. At least it used to. I also understand that the farm is very substantial from other comments. Most people juggle A levels with some kind of work. That does not make her special in anyway.

I didn't know that she went to a private school or that her farm is very substantial, so I apologise to a certain extent for that. I was just annoyed that people seemed to take her accent and judge her by how she spoke.

Still, the fact that she does work means that she has got the drive to go out and work and means that she doesn't sit in her farm like a pampered princess, with "Daddy" catering to every whim. It means that she goes out and earns money of her own back, disproving your extremely patronising comment "Daddy provides everything", which I take exception to.

Also, you were complaining about her comments in the boardroom. Whilst I don't agree with them, its been the first time all series that she's been like that and I was surprised. However, if you are going to pick up on that, why not pick up on comments by other candidates, in particular Harry M, who treated his team appallingly yesterday.

Finally, you were annoyed with her comment about benefit frauds. I think that as someone who earns some degree of her own money, she deserves to comment on people who could be working, but can't be bothered to. I'm not saying juggling her A-Levels with work make her special. I am saying it makes her qualified to comment on benefit frauds.

She earns money selling eggs from her father's farm. She has not exactly gone out and started a business. She may have utilised the facilities or this may be her contribution to the farm. Most children brought up on farms do actually get responsibility for a part of it. After all they will probably inherit it eventually.
Why does someone who has a part time job get to comment and criticise someone who claims benefits? And why do you suppose she meant benefit frauds? I didn't get that meaning at all.

That was the implication I got off her. I think that the quotes would have been taken out of context if she hadn't meant benefit frauds.

Why is it a part time job? She's using the facilities she has to go and make money herself.

Admittedly, we don't know if its off her own back or not, but because we don't know that piece of information we can't really comment can on it can we? All I'll say is that I don't think she would have got onto a programme about business if she didn't have what is considered to be a business herself.

She is in full time education, therefore she cannot also be in full time work.

I agree. After all, if you were to believe the DWP, almost everyone can apparently work if you follow their criteria. The number of people who have to take their cases to tribunal, and win, would suggest that in many cases, the people concerned aren't well enough to work.

The Daily Heil would have us believe that nobody is too ill or disabled to work and that most benefit claimants are defrauding the system, when in fact it's a small proportion.

Wasn't Sralan quoted a few months ago slating benefit claimants? In which case Hayley probably thought it would impress him.

It came accross to me that she dislikes people who sit around doing nothing whilst living off the state without attempting to get a job or do something.

Which I personally agree with.

I think she ended up being more confrontational in the boardroom, to try and shake the reputation for not putting herself forward enough, which I believe had been the criticism leveled against her previously. While not the best way to componsate for that, it's possible it would save her from a firing should her team have lost, if you're bought into the boardroom for being too quiet two times in a row you're pretty much doomed on the apprentice.

Her comments about people who claim benefits when they could be working I agree with. There are definitely people about who are on benefits and have no intention of looking for work, even though they're capable. I've certainly seen people come in for interview who have no desire to get the job they're interviewing for, and only seem to be coming into the interview to fulfill the criteria of "Actively looking for work"

Though at her age I'd guess she's probably got this point of view from conversation with her parents (Who being farmers are probably very hardworking people)

While this is true to a very small extent it gives the impression that ALL people on benefits are work shy layabouts.
People who are in receipt of benefits would include all people who receive sick pay whilst they recover from cancer. All parents who get working tax credits or child tax credits, even though they work, this is still classed as benefits.
All pensioners on pension credit, yes this is classed as claiming benefits. Perhaps all these people should get on their bikes and go out and find some work.
Of course there are a great many people on benefits at the moment who have lost their jobs due to the recession. Most of these people make every effort to get employment. Are all these people also to be labelled as benefit cheats.
It is very difficult to understand and judge anyone's situation without knowing the details of each case. Comments like Hayley's are even more ridiculous when you see the kind of background she comes from.
It seems that compassion is a bit low on this forum.

Completely agree. I also think that Hayley's point of view as a 16 year old is vastly different than that of someone who worked for 20-odd years and then lost their job, or became too ill or disabled to work. She needs to gain the maturity to develop empathy before making statements like that.

Although a lot of seemingly mature adults also lack the ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes!

I don't think I'd condemn her too harshly over this. Firstly, it isn't clear what she meant; she may simply be condemning those who are capable of work but making no effort to find it, which most people would agree with. Secondly, even if she believes all people on benefits are scroungers, given her age I'd put this down to ignorance rather than lack of compassion.

Yes, I think you're probably right. I do think she should either have been more specific though, or not put a statement about it at all - the way she's phrased it, she's left herself open to criticism.

We have no idea how she phrased it. All we have is a paraphrase written up by someone working for the BBC in the website department. We can't even say for sure that the information was gleaned from her application form, rather than the auditions process, and whether she was asked leading questions to elicit an answer which would they could then twist to fit the character for her they were trying to build.

We have very little real information to go on at all.

I'll think you'll find that virtually everyone who says that they don't like benefit scroungers totally ISN'T saying ALL people on benefits are work shy layabouts. I'm certainly not and I doubt Hayley is either.

The ones I don't like are the work shy layabouts. I know for a fact that these people are about.
But saying that some people who receive benefits are like this, does NOT in any way mean all people who receive benefits are like this.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying that I have no compassion for people who are recovering from cancer, or people who are out of work due to recession who are making a genuine effort to get back into work and that I think people shouldn't get pensions.
If you're saying this, you're wrong about me and are quite frankly putting words into my mouth which I never said.

Short answer – Yes you are reading me wrong.
Hayley’s original statement was
"she passionately disagrees with people claiming benefits when they could be working."
To me, this reads a bit like a Daily Mail headline, eg. All benefit claimants should be working or something like that. It comes across to me as meaning all people who claim benefits do not deserve to be supported by the society they are a part of.
It is always forgotten that most people who claim benefits have also contributed financially through taxes etc. I think a statement like the one Hayley made is inflammatory and misleading
It is also something she feels “passionate” about and was prepared to share with the bbc. As she was under 18 she would have been given adult guidance about going on the show so it is fair to suppose that she knew and understood what she was saying.

Indeed. I've just watched her audition video and she doesn't mention the issue in that.

If she's said this then I think it was a somewhat foolish thing to say, but as you say, IF she said it. I'm assuming the BBC website writer didn't just make it up, but without a direct quote from Hayley it's difficult to interpret what she meant.