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!)

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

That's exactly right - see below.

Why should he get any longer?

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

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'.

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.