DS Forums

 
 

That's gratitude for you! Tim quits.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-03-2007, 20:37
SapphicGrrl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 2,507
Originally Posted by SarahJane
I'm dissapointed in Michelle personally, I wish she would have stuck at it rather than dilly dallied with Syed.
Incredibly, it is possible to have a job and a relationship at the same time - hundreds of people do it every day! I'm sure that Michelle got pregnant totally by accident, she certainly wouldn't have planned that into her new career. But once it hit the headlines, there wasn't a lot else she could do but hide for a bit, particularly as she miscarried anyway. What would anyone else have done in her position? (And how awful to have gone through all that in the glare of the media!)
SapphicGrrl is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-04-2007, 13:13
Campcrusader
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 3,201
Good luck to Tim. He was a likeable chap...

...and didn't use a troubled past to manipulate his way to winning, only to leave the job within a couple of months. Only someone very devious and calculating could do such a thing...
Campcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 13:24
amysmum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wherever I lay my hat.......
Posts: 13,302
Could it be just a coincidence that he has announced his departure just as a new series starts. This wouldn't be for maximum impact and publicity would it? Or am I just cynical?
amysmum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 14:39
Campcrusader
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 3,201
Originally Posted by amysmum
Could it be just a coincidence that he has announced his departure just as a new series starts. This wouldn't be for maximum impact and publicity would it? Or am I just cynical?
This is the world of business, so anything is possible!
Campcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 15:04
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Originally Posted by amysmum
Could it be just a coincidence that he has announced his departure just as a new series starts.
Or it could be because his original contract was for a year and was renewed for a second year and then he quit. Since The Apprentice is broadcast at roughly yearly intervals they stay in sync.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 17:48
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,368
Originally Posted by SapphicGrrl
Incredibly, it is possible to have a job and a relationship at the same time - hundreds of people do it every day! I'm sure that Michelle got pregnant totally by accident, she certainly wouldn't have planned that into her new career. But once it hit the headlines, there wasn't a lot else she could do but hide for a bit, particularly as she miscarried anyway. What would anyone else have done in her position? (And how awful to have gone through all that in the glare of the media!)


Completely disagree. Of course, for any woman to go through what she did is terrible and I am truly sorry for her loss but she had just won a competition in which she beat thousands of people to the title. To get pregnant so soon was simply absurd and will ensure it will be very difficult for a woman to win The Apprentice again. This is all IMHO of course. She made a complete mockery of her position and tenure.

As for going through it all in the glare of the media - well, I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast in a show such as this.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2007, 18:25
amysmum
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wherever I lay my hat.......
Posts: 13,302
Originally Posted by brangdon
Or it could be because his original contract was for a year and was renewed for a second year and then he quit. Since The Apprentice is broadcast at roughly yearly intervals they stay in sync.

Possibly, but the apprentice is not hired until June so he would have another 3 months to run on his second contract if it had been for one year.

I know the show is recorded in advance but the final two do not know which one of them will be successfull until just prior to the final show being broadcast, therefore they are hired in June.

I remember this being revealed in "The Apprentice - Your Fired" last year.
amysmum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 17:44
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Originally Posted by The Prumeister
To get pregnant so soon was simply absurd and will ensure it will be very difficult for a woman to win The Apprentice again. This is all IMHO of course. She made a complete mockery of her position and tenure.
So what are you saying? That she should have avoided penetrative sex for 12 months?

Or do you think any form of contraception is 100% reliable?

Or are you assuming she didn't use contraception? Because that would be a rather unwarranted assumption in my view, and a very poor basis for your harsh criticism.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 19:11
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,368
Originally Posted by brangdon
So what are you saying? That she should have avoided penetrative sex for 12 months?

Or do you think any form of contraception is 100% reliable?

Or are you assuming she didn't use contraception? Because that would be a rather unwarranted assumption in my view, and a very poor basis for your harsh criticism.


I know that no form of contraception is 100% reliable but the ink was hardly dry on her contract before she got pregnant. No-one should have to (or indeed probably can) avoid penetrative sex for 12 months but I still hold by the opinion that to get pregnant so quickly was a bad move. I'm not condemning the woman just saying that I think it gives a bad message.

Of course I'm not saying she didn't use contraception - at no point did I infer that.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 22:22
fightingtalk
Banned User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maximum of 30 characters
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by The Prumeister
Completely disagree. Of course, for any woman to go through what she did is terrible and I am truly sorry for her loss but she had just won a competition in which she beat thousands of people to the title. To get pregnant so soon was simply absurd and will ensure it will be very difficult for a woman to win The Apprentice again. This is all IMHO of course. She made a complete mockery of her position and tenure.
Have you seen Sir Alan Sugar talking about it being difficult for a woman to ever be the apprentice again or are you just making assumptions? If it is just all IYHO then you are doing nothing constructive really. Any old fool can make wild guesses.
fightingtalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2007, 23:46
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Originally Posted by The Prumeister
I know that no form of contraception is 100% reliable but the ink was hardly dry on her contract before she got pregnant. No-one should have to (or indeed probably can) avoid penetrative sex for 12 months but I still hold by the opinion that to get pregnant so quickly was a bad move.
So at what point do you think she had permission to get pregnant? How many months did she have to wait after signing the contract? Do you stop having sex when you get a new job?

Would it have been OK if she had had sex between the filming of the final task and Sir Alan announcing the result? Had she got pregnant then, do you think she should have told Sir Alan, and, if so, would she have defaulted on the prize? Did Michelle getting pregnant mean that Ruth should have won?

Sorry to go on but I really think it is bizarre to blame Michelle for this. And even more bizarre to say that women should not be allowed to win in future in case it happens again.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 07:31
mindyann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: pimple on the bum of back end
Posts: 18,770
Originally Posted by brangdon
So at what point do you think she had permission to get pregnant? How many months did she have to wait after signing the contract? Do you stop having sex when you get a new job?

Would it have been OK if she had had sex between the filming of the final task and Sir Alan announcing the result? Had she got pregnant then, do you think she should have told Sir Alan, and, if so, would she have defaulted on the prize? Did Michelle getting pregnant mean that Ruth should have won?

Sorry to go on but I really think it is bizarre to blame Michelle for this. And even more bizarre to say that women should not be allowed to win in future in case it happens again.
I know these things are changing all the time, but there used to be a minimum period of time you had to work in new employment before you were actually eligable for maternity leave and benefits (I seem to think it was a year, but like I say probably been reduced now).
mindyann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 08:26
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,368
Originally Posted by brangdon
So at what point do you think she had permission to get pregnant? How many months did she have to wait after signing the contract? Do you stop having sex when you get a new job?

Would it have been OK if she had had sex between the filming of the final task and Sir Alan announcing the result? Had she got pregnant then, do you think she should have told Sir Alan, and, if so, would she have defaulted on the prize? Did Michelle getting pregnant mean that Ruth should have won?

Sorry to go on but I really think it is bizarre to blame Michelle for this. And even more bizarre to say that women should not be allowed to win in future in case it happens again.

Erm, unless the sex was non-consensual, then she is 50% to blame.

& I didn't say women shouldn't be allowed to win but that it might make it more difficult - there's a world of difference.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 12:39
the tiny 1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 728
Originally Posted by The Prumeister
Completely disagree. Of course, for any woman to go through what she did is terrible and I am truly sorry for her loss but she had just won a competition in which she beat thousands of people to the title. To get pregnant so soon was simply absurd and will ensure it will be very difficult for a woman to win The Apprentice again. This is all IMHO of course. She made a complete mockery of her position and tenure.

As for going through it all in the glare of the media - well, I'm afraid that's the nature of the beast in a show such as this.
So to fall pregnant is a mockery? How so? Just because she was at the start of a contract doesn't mean that it was planned thus. I imagine, it wasn't planned though. If i had suffered a misscarriage the least of my concerns would be how it would adversely affect other people after me. If it does, in this case or in any other, it would be the fault of people who despite claiming otherwise think women should not be in business and stay at home adressing their womanly duties as a wife and mother and that it is fair game to pay them less due to the time they will take off to have children.

I also don't think that blame needs to be apportioned to anyone, perhaps responsible is a better word.
the tiny 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 14:01
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,368
Originally Posted by the tiny 1
So to fall pregnant is a mockery? How so? Just because she was at the start of a contract doesn't mean that it was planned thus. I imagine, it wasn't planned though. If i had suffered a misscarriage the least of my concerns would be how it would adversely affect other people after me. If it does, in this case or in any other, it would be the fault of people who despite claiming otherwise think women should not be in business and stay at home adressing their womanly duties as a wife and mother and that it is fair game to pay them less due to the time they will take off to have children.

I also don't think that blame needs to be apportioned to anyone, perhaps responsible is a better word.


Yes, responsibility is a better term. I think brangdon originally brought 'blame' into the equation; I meant it in more of a 'responsible' context.

Look, of course we don't live in the dark ages and women are perfectly entitled to have children whenever they like etc.. etc.. The fact remains that in this instance, she had won a new job and to me, then getting pregnant, was perhaps something that would have been better had it have happened at a later stage of her job - that's all I'm saying. The miscarriage is a totally seperate and more emotive issue and I don't wish to comment on that for that reason.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 14:18
Sweet FA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In my Opinion
Posts: 10,057
It also takes 2 to bring a child into this world - why all the focus on Michelle and Michelle alone?
Sweet FA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 14:39
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,368
Originally Posted by Sweet FA
It also takes 2 to bring a child into this world - why all the focus on Michelle and Michelle alone?


Didn't Michelle win The Apprentice?
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 14:56
Sweet FA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In my Opinion
Posts: 10,057
Originally Posted by The Prumeister
Didn't Michelle win The Apprentice?
In a roundabout way I think you've made my point for me. Had a man won making his wife/girlfriend pregnant shortly afterwards, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Last edited by Sweet FA : 10-04-2007 at 15:06.
Sweet FA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 15:14
mindyann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: pimple on the bum of back end
Posts: 18,770
Originally Posted by Sweet FA
In a roundabout way I think you've kind of made my point for me. Had a man won making his wife/girlfriend pregnant shortly afterwards, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Because a chap wouldn't be taking the same amount of time off work. I don't know paternity leave entitlements in the private sector, but here in the public sector a guy has 2 weeks' paternity leave.
mindyann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 15:22
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,368
Originally Posted by mindyann
Because a chap wouldn't be taking the same amount of time off work. I don't know paternity leave entitlements in the private sector, but here in the public sector a guy has 2 weeks' paternity leave.


Thank you - you've summed up what I've been trying to say.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 15:23
The Prumeister
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oxford
Posts: 18,368
Originally Posted by Sweet FA
In a roundabout way I think you've made my point for me. Had a man won making his wife/girlfriend pregnant shortly afterwards, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

That's exactly right - see below.
The Prumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 15:23
the tiny 1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 728
Originally Posted by mindyann
Because a chap wouldn't be taking the same amount of time off work. I don't know paternity leave entitlements in the private sector, but here in the public sector a guy has 2 weeks' paternity leave.
Why should he get any longer?
the tiny 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 15:25
Sweet FA
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In my Opinion
Posts: 10,057
Originally Posted by mindyann
Because a chap wouldn't be taking the same amount of time off work. I don't know paternity leave entitlements in the private sector, but here in the public sector a guy has 2 weeks' paternity leave.
Women shouldn't have to feel bad because they're entitled to longer maternity leave - I think you'll find it's for a very good reason. There's never going to be a good time if it's seen as some kind of huge favour or given begrudgingly.

Like I said, it takes 2 and it's time society moved on.

Last edited by Sweet FA : 10-04-2007 at 15:35.
Sweet FA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 15:59
mindyann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: pimple on the bum of back end
Posts: 18,770
Originally Posted by the tiny 1
Why should he get any longer?
I didn't say he should!

The only point I was making was that a male winner of the show would - regardless of when or if his partner fell pregnant - be able to work out his 'prize year'. I can only speak for entitlements in the public sector, and the paternity leave with us is 2 weeks' which can be taken in a block or as 2 seperate weeks'.
mindyann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 16:04
mindyann
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: pimple on the bum of back end
Posts: 18,770
Originally Posted by Sweet FA
Women shouldn't have to feel bad because they're entitled to longer maternity leave - I think you'll find it's for a very good reason. There's never going to be a good time if it's seen as some kind of huge favour or given begrudgingly.

Like I said, it takes 2 and it's time society moved on.
I haven't said it isn't for a good reason. As of now (begining of April) in the public sector you are entitlted to, I think 52 (?) weeks maternity leave. Which would make a prize of a year a bit redundant.
mindyann is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:29.