DS Forums

 
 

Why Is Karren Vilified For Only Doing Her Job - And Claude Is Not ?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 26-10-2016, 18:52
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546

And Alan Sugar come to think of it.

Must be a case of tunnel vision.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 26-10-2016, 20:44
Messaroundabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 473
She is contempuous of, condescending towards and dismissive about other human beings, with a horrible sour face. This does not constitute doing her job, which could be done much more effectively without any of these thoroughly unnecessary characteristics.
Consequently she fully deserves all the criticism she receives for doing a very highly paid job inadequately.

Claude is not.
Messaroundabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2016, 20:48
Maxatoria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
I think its tone of voice, Claude generally doesn't change his tone no matter if he's happy with something or thinks its an absolute shambles aka he keeps it neutral while Karren seems to be more expressive in her views which gives more room to criticize.

LS will know where the borders are and will work right up to them knowing its on TV and a few good insults will make good TV as he gets a debriefing from the crew so has time to work out a plan of attack. He's also able to be able to tackle things that may otherwise be a bit dodgy as the Marrakesh chicken situation he certainly shows he's not going to support someone for being the same as him.
Maxatoria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2016, 21:20
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
She is contempuous of, condescending towards and dismissive about other human beings, with a horrible sour face. This does not constitute doing her job, which could be done much more effectively without any of these thoroughly unnecessary characteristics.
Consequently she fully deserves all the criticism she receives for doing a very highly paid job inadequately.

Claude is not.
I take it you know that for a fact do you ?

Mind, given your obsession of Ms Brady perhaps you do.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2016, 21:31
Eve Elle
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The House of Elle
Posts: 5,396
Given the general level of incompetence shown, Karen's behaviour seems quite restrained to be honest.
Eve Elle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2016, 21:47
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
Given the general level of incompetence shown, Karen's behaviour seems quite restrained to be honest.

I think so too - but tunnel vision is what it says - why many dislike her I have no idea.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2016, 22:16
Messaroundabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 473
If anyone is wondering why Karren gets criticized, it is because:

She is contempuous of, condescending towards and dismissive about other human beings, with a horrible sour face. This does not constitute doing her job, which could be done much more effectively without any of these thoroughly unnecessary characteristics.
Messaroundabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2016, 22:20
mimi123456
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,806
She scowls and pulls a lot of faces but that just makes me laugh.

The thing I don't like is she slaughters some candidates but let's other run scott free regardless of how daft they are.
mimi123456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2016, 22:40
Messaroundabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 473
She scowls and pulls a lot of faces but that just makes me laugh.

The thing I don't like is she slaughters some candidates but let's other run scott free regardless of how daft they are.

To ‘get off scot-free’ means ‘to get away with something without being punished’. Since the familiar English word Scot refers to a native or inhabitant of Scotland, it is tempting to assume that this is a reference to that country. Indeed, that association seems to have existed since at least the 1500s, when the alternative spelling ‘scotchfree’ (based on the adjective scotch, meaning ‘Scottish’) was first attested. However, the scot in scot-free is an entirely different word.

Scot with reference to a Scottish person derives from post-classical Latin Scottus, but the scot of scot-free is related to the noun shot (associated with the verb shoot), influenced by cognate words in Scandinavian languages. The modern Scandinavian equivalents are Swedish and Norwegian skatt, Danish skat, and Icelandic skattur, meaning ‘tax’. Scot is attested from Middle English with reference to various types of taxes, dues, and payments. In modern English, it is used primarily in historical contexts. Ralph Waldo Emerson is cited in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) for his use of the word in describing the ‘personal independence’ of the Saxons: ‘No reliance for bread and games on the government, no clanship, no patriarchal style of living by the revenues of a chief, no marrying-on, no system of clientship suits them; but every man must pay his scot’ (1860 ‘Wealth’ in The Conduct of Life).

Scot-free arose in the 16th century as an alteration of the earlier term shot-free. It probably originated in the sense ‘not required to pay a scot (tax or fee)’ or ‘free of charge’, as in this example from 1792: ‘Scot-free the Poets drank and ate; They paid no taxes to the State!’ (John Wolcot, Odes of Condolence). This meaning is no longer common, but it seems to have been used as late as 1921, in hearings before the US Senate Committee on Finance: ‘The common laborer does not know that that act [on taxation] was passed. He is scot free at 40 cents an hour’.

However, the earliest attested evidence for scot-free in the OED is in the sense that is more common today, in a more generalized meaning of ‘without being punished’, dating from as early as 1528. Thus, in his epistolary novel Pamela (1740), Samuel Richardson wrote ‘She should not, for all the Trouble she has cost you, go away scot-free.’
Messaroundabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 06:57
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,940
She is contempuous of, condescending towards and dismissive about other human beings, with a horrible sour face. This does not constitute doing her job, which could be done much more effectively without any of these thoroughly unnecessary characteristics.
Consequently she fully deserves all the criticism she receives for doing a very highly paid job inadequately.

Claude is not.
Absolute nonsense. Claude is terrifying to the contestants.
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 09:18
Aetius_Maralas
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 719
Because she's a woman.

Being female attracts a special type of bile and double standard amognst internet types.

Two people do the same thing, one male and one female. Critisism of the women will almost certainly be harsher and include more personal insults (especially on physical appearance) than that of the man.
Aetius_Maralas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 09:30
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
Oh dear, the misogyny card has been played needlessly again.

Then how come her predecessor, Margaret, never received a bad word and was considered great in her role? If anything she was preferred by male and female viewers as better for the show than Nick Hewer - and was sorely missed when she departed.

So how does any complaints over Karen automatically mean it's misogyny? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You know, it's okay to genuinely think she's not great in the role without it being a sexist thing. The mind boggles....
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 09:37
Aetius_Maralas
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 719
Oh dear, the misogyny card has been played needlessly again.

Then how come her predecessor, Margaret, never received a bad word and was considered great in her role? If anything she was preferred by male and female viewers as better for the show than Nick Hewer - and was sorely missed when she departed.

So how does any complaints over Karen automatically mean it's misogyny? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You know, it's okay to genuinely think she's not great in the role without it being a sexist thing. The mind boggles....
Oh dear, none are as blind as those who will not see.

Go and read any of the threads here discussing Karen and then stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA until all the nastiness goes away. I mean you won't becuae you don't see a problem.

Just because you refuse accept something does not mean it's untrue, especially your strawman about "any" complaints.
Aetius_Maralas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 10:24
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,411
Are you on a wind-up mission here?
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 13:06
Bless You
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 🕳
Posts: 1,852
Gender.
Bless You is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 15:36
Super_Furry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 633
Two people do the same thing, one male and one female. Critisism of the women will almost certainly be harsher and include more personal insults (especially on physical appearance) than that of the man.
Evidence?
Of what you've just said, I mean - not your paranoia.
Super_Furry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 18:57
sofakat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 12,110
Margaret was one in a million - a clever, witty, class act.

Claude is much the same, in a wonderfully cool and elegant way.

Pretty hard to follow/match either one of them!
sofakat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 19:40
Messaroundabit
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 473
Yes, a very strong consensus that Claude oozes class and makes measured contributions in a calm way. If Karren has any class, she fails to show it with her brattish and hostile interventions.
Messaroundabit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 22:02
ritchie2yk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,075
Claude does have a charm and a lot of the time seems to be fairly cheery, Karen does look permanently miserable
ritchie2yk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 22:04
BelfastGuy125
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,693
Cause she robbed the taxpayer to help West Ham get their dodgy stadium on the cheap.
BelfastGuy125 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2016, 22:56
Super_Furry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 633
Cause she robbed the taxpayer to help West Ham get their dodgy stadium on the cheap.
And the official Birmingham City funeral!
Super_Furry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 00:14
Dix
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LFLF Research Div
Posts: 49,393
And Alan Sugar come to think of it.

Must be a case of tunnel vision.
Karren used to be ok when she first started, but since she's taken Margaret's place she's become very harsh in how she speaks of the Candidates and to them as well. There's absolutely no need for that sort of thing, yet she can't move away from her ways. Margaret was strict but fair, and well liked by everyone. Karren isn't like her at all and never will be. Karren also comes over as very bitter.
Dix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 00:48
ShotDownInFlame
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
Absolutely sick to death of people playing the misogyny and gender card to poopoo all of Karen's criticism.

There are many reasons why people dislike Karen which don't include her gender, for example:

- Her blatant attempts to mimic Nick and Margaret's faces and sneers.
- Her expectations for "women in business" specifically, and subsequent intense treatment towards some female candidates opposed to male candidates (whether positive or negative).
- She often snipes at many contestants, including those she wasn't even watching over on a given task.
- Occasional overly-harsh and quite personal attacks towards certain candidates in the boardroom (Claude does this in interview stage but it's quite clear this is simply a "role")

Meanwhile Claude rarely actually says anything (excluding the interview task) unless it's highlighting something a specific candidate has done really well or really poorly, which, at the end of the day is all he really needs to do.

I should say for the record over the last 2-3 years I haven't liked Karen much but feel that over the last couple of weeks at least she's made some fair comments and isn't bothering me nearly as much as she used to (yet), so I'm pleased to see that for me at least she's improving.

If people were seriously misogynistic here you'd see comments praising the lads week in week out and trashing the girls, and even bad-mouthing Margaret. Fact of the matter is there's some fair reasons to not be overly-fond of Karen which is too easily being masked as "misogyny".
ShotDownInFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 09:59
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
Cause she robbed the taxpayer to help West Ham get their dodgy stadium on the cheap.
As far as spouting rubbish goes that takes some beating.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2016, 11:21
Super_Furry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 633
As far as spouting rubbish goes that takes some beating.
Really?
She certainly takes credit for doing just that.

Even though the West Ham fans didn't want it...
Super_Furry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:56.