Except Simon's tenant and Tre's global empire were job related. Katie's childcare arrangements had nothing to do with her job abilities.

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.

Had it been a proper job interview and NOT a competition Katie could have sued for discrimination. What worries me is that some idiot employers will think it is acceptable to ask such sexist and reactionary interview questions, when in fact it is discriminatory and illegal and leads them wide open to legal redress.

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.

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. It is axiomatic that if a job is located at too great a distance to make commuting possible, then it is reasonable to assume that the candidate has taken that into account before applying. It is up to the candidate to determine the logistics, NOT up to the potential employer to decide whether or not to give them the job on that basis.Siralan was just cocking a snoot at Employment law because a dinosaur like him probably thinks he ought not to be bound by it. If you are an employer and act like Siralan in real life, I would expect to see you in the bankruptcy courts anytime soon .

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.

Oh and whilst anyone's worrying about employment law, lest not forget this from Katie:


quoted from John Plunkett's reality tv blog on the Guardian Media's Organ Grinder (log in required)

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.

Yes but we know Katie is an arse. I had some respect for siralan as someone I'd like to work for.

Yes, that's the whole point of the thread. It shouldn't actually make any difference, but it did. Having said that, I am now of an age where my own child is grown up. I brought her up in an age where you did have to choose between your kids and your career and I chose my daughter. I just didn't have a career until I was over 30. then I found myself being pushed aside because I was "too old" and young women who couldn't be discriminated against because they had kids were promoted over me because I didn't have kids and the firm wanted to be PC even though they had much more time off work than me and couldn't do the same hours I could, and of course there were no laws to stop age discrimination then.

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)!

and I actually thought you were being ironic when you said "perhaps it's because Simon is a man"! Now I wonder...

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.

I was actually saying that perhaps it's because TRE is a man that he wasn't asked about childcare in response to an earlier post.
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.

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...."

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.

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.

They didnt want anything to go against Tre's alpha male image obviously, which is why I thought this series was pretty poor.

Also, surely where they live is a factor too, and Tre wouldn't have had to uproot his child in order to work for Amstrad.

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.

Apart from the fact that the interviews were quite obviously severely edited down for the programme that was aired, they had also made a previous programme interviewing contestants, their spouses, friends and families, which was also shown last week - so, they do know all these things - although they would already know from the detailed applications and pre series interviews.

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? (like anyone would ever believe that) and that when she did think about it, apparently no sooner than when she was offered a place in the final, regardless of the fact that she had already been lviing in London for several weeks previous, she thought, actually, no - you know what, no, I don't think we all want to move after all.

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.