|
||||||||
Did the interviewers talk of Tre's kids? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Au nord de l'Angleterre
Posts: 23,699
|
Quote:
Of all the things they dragged up ( Simon's tenant, Kristina's job history, Tre's global empire) whether someone is prepared to locate or not was a pretty tame question. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,415
|
Well the amount of thought Katie had given to it indicates how serious she was about wanting the job, which is why they asked.
These interviewers are no fools - they knew what they were asking and why. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,301
|
Quote:
Well the amount of thought Katie had given to it indicates how serious she was about wanting the job, which is why they asked.
These interviewers are no fools - they knew what they were asking and why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,144
|
Quote:
Except Simon's tenant and Tre's global empire were job related. Katie's childcare arrangements had nothing to do with her job abilities.
Quote:
Well the amount of thought Katie had given to it indicates how serious she was about wanting the job, which is why they asked.
These interviewers are no fools - they knew what they were asking and why. I don't understand why people question this. All the candidates were grilled on issues that appeared to weaken their suitablility for the top job - including how they administered tasks in hand (a landlord's responsibilities) or the validity of their CVs, as well as their geographical location. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 23,301
|
Quote:
It's completely relevant and bone fide to question a candidate's ability and willingness to re-locate.
I don't understand why people question this. All the candidates were grilled on issues that appeared to weaken their suitablility for the top job - including how they administered tasks in hand (a landlord's responsibilities) or the validity of their CVs, as well as their geographical location.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,144
|
Quote:
As someone with knowledge of Emplyment law and its practice, I can assure you that asking a candidate whether they would be willing to relocate is fine. Asking them whether having children stops them from relocating is not....
He didn't ask her if her having children would prevent her relocating, he stressed the location of the job, and then asked if her parents were willing to relocate, as she had volunteered the information that they are the primary carers for said children. She then maintained that she hadn't asked them Whichever way you look at it, it proves that she either didn't actually want the job, or she's as dull as ditchwater If she really did want the job, she would have had arrangements in place, and told him that side of her life was purely her own affair (no pun intended) - so any argument over employment law is purely academic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,144
|
Oh and whilst anyone's worrying about employment law, lest not forget this from Katie: Quote:
Katie earns 90K per year and has a gold card from BA. I've got an Oyster card from LU. Go figure. Back to Katie. She's got two kids, is her priority her children? This man may be a Daily Mail reader. Katie says she's "done her children thing, I don't need any maternity leave, any of that bull". Bull? So much for the sisterhood.
quoted from John Plunkett's reality tv blog on the Guardian Media's Organ Grinder (log in required)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,179
|
I really can't take this Katie Hopkins: the standard bearer for lone parents' rights. Give me a break
Of course the interviewers asked outrageous questions- it's tv entertainment. Despite all the spin from Nick Hewer and others, I don't swallow the line that SAS smoked Katie out. I think he was impressed by her and, despite some advice to the contrary, would have given her the job. (I remember Adam saying he felt SAS liked her.) Interesting that posh interview guy Claude saw straight through her, relatively nice Viglen interview guy wasn't fooled , yet seemingly wide-boy interview guy was suckered. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 476
|
Yes but we know Katie is an arse. I had some respect for siralan as someone I'd like to work for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,533
|
Quote:
Maybe because he's a man it's not an issue.
By the time the anti-age laws came in, I'm 48 and there's no way I'll ever catch up on the lost years, so basically I'm a crabby ol' witch with very little sympathy with today's working mum who seems to get everything on a plate (and will continue to be promoted over my head)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,533
|
Quote:
Yes but we know Katie is an arse. I had some respect for siralan as someone I'd like to work for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,144
|
I still believe that if the candidate had been a male single parent, whose primary childcare was family based in an entirely different part of the country from the job on offer, then the same question would've been asked, and I don't see why it shouldn't be.
After all it's the answer that's important, rather than the question. If the answer had been yes I really want the job, and so therefore, have made arrangements for either entire family relocation, or, I will be making alternative arrangments for childcare - then that would be end of the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 476
|
Quote:
and I actually thought you were being ironic when you said "perhaps it's because Simon is a man"! Now I wonder...
And i don't understand your comments....I had respect for Siralan as a firm but fair kind of bloke who didn't see family as a barrier to success but perhaps he is just another industry dinosaur. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 591
|
At the time it was happening, I thought that it was unfair that Katie was getting quizzed about her kids but then when she went back to talk to Kristina i could see why. I'm not saying that single parents shouldnt work or anything silly like that, but it was an important point. And in the end thats what she claimed to have changed her mind on. If SAS hadnt asked her about her children, she wouldnt have thought about it and she would have went into the final and possibly won. Then she would realise "actually, this isnt going to work...."
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Au nord de l'Angleterre
Posts: 23,699
|
Quote:
I still believe that if the candidate had been a male single parent, whose primary childcare was family based in an entirely different part of the country from the job on offer, then the same question would've been asked, and I don't see why it shouldn't be.
After all it's the answer that's important, rather than the question. If the answer had been yes I really want the job, and so therefore, have made arrangements for either entire family relocation, or, I will be making alternative arrangments for childcare - then that would be end of the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 453
|
They did edit three hours worth of interviews down into about 20 minutes; so yeah, it's perfectly conceivable that he was asked about his children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 390
|
Quote:
But how do they know Tre isn't single? The never asked. They asked Katie and Kristina. How do they know Tre's wife doesn't have a job where she's away from home and unable to be the primary carer? How do they know that Simon doesn't look after a disabled parent? It's the assumption that is the problem. I don't mind the question being asked, it should be asked to everyone, not just women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: On the beach
Posts: 1,480
|
Quote:
Tre isnt a single parent and katie and Christina are. End of
The thing about political correctness is that it goes against human nature and reality in lots of cases. People carry on thinking things that are considered politically incorrect regardless. The fact is that Sugar wants someone who will devote their life to the job, and doesn't want to have to worry about them having other commitments, like children. I can't imagine him being happy with "flexible working" to accommodate them. The hard-nosed business world isn't the same as lots of other work environments, and that is a fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a Whittle Wonderland!
Posts: 37,511
|
Quote:
Maybe they didn't have a chance to quiz him on his children, as he couldn't get past the international corporation line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,144
|
Quote:
But how do they know Tre isn't single? The never asked. They asked Katie and Kristina. How do they know Tre's wife doesn't have a job where she's away from home and unable to be the primary carer? How do they know that Simon doesn't look after a disabled parent? It's the assumption that is the problem. I don't mind the question being asked, it should be asked to everyone, not just women.
There's absolutely no proof that the men weren't asked searching questions to justify their commitment should they proceed - and when Kristina was asked questions about her personal life, she answered, and was put forward. Does everyone forget that Katie was the first one to be offered a place in the final, regardless of having two children under the age of what, 4? and yet she claimed not to have considered how taking the job would impact on family life, despite asserting that the children are her top priority and marketing herself as highly intelligent? I can't believe how people who are getting on the PC high horse are so worried for Katie, who was quite clearly just playing a game, not actually a single parent who really wanted a job on offer. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:59.


