DS Forums

 
 

Met Office to Katie - You're Fired!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2007, 19:44
carljohnson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 524
She must have done something seriously wrong to have been fired from the Met Office.... As a public sector body they wouldn't just have sacked her. There was something in the papers recently about fiddled expenses? Maybe that was why she was claiming to earn £90k a year.........
Don't all candidates have to quit their existing job in advance of appearing? That being the case & knowing that the bulk of it is recorded in Autumn, I doubt this is the employer she was talking about.

The BBC article states-

The Met Office, where the 31-year-old worked as a brand consultant, said she failed to pass a probationary period.

Reading between the lines I'm assuming she got the Met Office job at some point around the start of this year, didn't live up to expectations or displayed hte personality we saw.
carljohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-06-2007, 19:47
Dollystanford
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,412
I don't understand why you would lie about your salary when it is so easily checked!
Dollystanford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 20:08
PrincessNidor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 669
Don't all candidates have to quit their existing job in advance of appearing? That being the case & knowing that the bulk of it is recorded in Autumn, I doubt this is the employer she was talking about.

The BBC article states-

The Met Office, where the 31-year-old worked as a brand consultant, said she failed to pass a probationary period.

Reading between the lines I'm assuming she got the Met Office job at some point around the start of this year, didn't live up to expectations or displayed hte personality we saw.
The DS article states that Katie joined the Met Office in September 2006 and that after the show she "returned to her £90,000-a-year job as a global brand consultant at the Met Office, but when she went into work yesterday morning her bosses told her that she was being fired."

Although the candidates say they have "quit" their jobs beforehand I bet a number of them take "unpaid leave" or something like that. As a lot of them seem to end up working for their old employer.
PrincessNidor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 20:31
MetalMonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,817
Her spokesperson says he is considering taking them to a tribunal. Now thats one show I would love to see.
MetalMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 20:58
muffin the mule
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 894
The DS article states that Katie joined the Met Office in September 2006 and that after the show she "returned to her £90,000-a-year job as a global brand consultant at the Met Office, but when she went into work yesterday morning her bosses told her that she was being fired."

Although the candidates say they have "quit" their jobs beforehand I bet a number of them take "unpaid leave" or something like that. As a lot of them seem to end up working for their old employer.
I thought she was working for her ex-husband when she was on £90,000? Can't see the civil service paying that much though when it comes to consultants they can't seem to pay them enough!
muffin the mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 21:25
bigbro24
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,761
I don't know what she is planning to do after the Apprentice, but after that Sunday paper article it's not going to be anything credible.
I'm wouldn't be surprised if she lied about her wages, would she really have thrown away a 90K job to be a Zlist celebrity?
bigbro24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 21:51
Tibsy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,980
Glad shes got the sack.

A life of being a, at the very least, media whore awaits imo
Tibsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 21:56
williams96
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 5,992
If she didn't have kids that depended on her income then I'd join the celebrations, but as she has kids to support I won't.
williams96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 22:11
PlasmaPete
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
If she didn't have kids that depended on her income then I'd join the celebrations, but as she has kids to support I won't.
I suspect the kids' rich daddy will be picking up most of that ticket. Come on in, join the celebrations, the water's warm!
PlasmaPete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 22:28
Kookycelt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,700
I thought she was working for her ex-husband when she was on £90,000? Can't see the civil service paying that much though when it comes to consultants they can't seem to pay them enough!
Yes during the programme I'm sure she was still said to be working for her ex husband?
Kookycelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 23:04
Beasley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 16
Glad shes got the sack.

A life of being a, at the very least, media whore awaits imo
Why, out of interest? I mean, what's she's done to you; what's she done to make you 'glad' she got the sack?

She's clearly an undesirable piece of work - & she admits as much, to be fair - but all this vitriol is just all a bit pathetic, really.
Beasley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2007, 23:31
darkpaw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: ♂
Posts: 11,500
For someone so intelligent, Katie certainly seems to be making massive errors of judgement since she left the show. Did she really think that giving such an interview would endear her to her employers? Or to anyone else come to think of it!

It`ll be interesting to see who will employ her now. I think she may even have to take a huge cut in pay as she is now such a hate figure. She`s the architect of her own downfall.
Especially for someone on a probational contract.
darkpaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 06:58
Smufter
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 383
Yep, as the back end of a pantomime horse.....

Surely she would be the "front end?"

Think of the money they would save by not having to buy the whole costume
Smufter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 07:18
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
On GMTV this morning she said she is taking the Met Office to appeal for her dismissal as they had given her unpaid leave and permission to go on the programme, they knew she would get publicity and they can't sack her because they don't like the publicity they are getting.
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 08:44
muffin789
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Devon
Posts: 1,608
I think she'll end up on a hiding to nothing IMO. I'm a civil servant and had to pass a probationary period of 12 months. There are a number of things on which you are assessed during this period, including conduct etc, and it is actually quite easy to get dismissed during your probation.

The Met Office have not claimed that it was the adverse publicity that caused her sacking, but her conduct played a part in it. Therefore her response essentially means nothing. I reckon it's just something for her to say so she stays in the headlines a little longer.

The quicker she crawls off back under her slimy stone the better.

Sarah
muffin789 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:19
snoweyowl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Wiltshire
Posts: 1,453
I don't think she actually worked for the Met Office anyway so how can she appeal?

Surely she worked for some consultancy outfit that supplied her to the Met Office on some sort of contract.

Snowey (who used to be a 'consultant')
snoweyowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:22
Tibsy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,980
Why, out of interest? I mean, what's she's done to you; what's she done to make you 'glad' she got the sack?

She's clearly an undesirable piece of work - & she admits as much, to be fair - but all this vitriol is just all a bit pathetic, really.
I would hate for young girls to see her a figure that represents success, and aspire to be like her.
Tibsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:28
Lippincote
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,067
The spokesperson in the Mail article claimed Katie was on a year's probationary period and could be dismissed at any time during that, so I think Katie is just yapping for something to say to keep her mug on the box.
Lippincote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:28
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
I don't think she actually worked for the Met Office anyway so how can she appeal?

Surely she worked for some consultancy outfit that supplied her to the Met Office on some sort of contract.

Snowey (who used to be a 'consultant')
She worked for Met Office Consulting which is part of the Met Office. She was apparently still under her probationary period anyway so I'm not sure how far she will get on an appeal.
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:30
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
I would hate for young girls to see her a figure that represents success, and aspire to be like her.
Young girls have such hard choices when it comes to role models - Katie or Posh, daddy or chips?
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:31
Lippincote
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,067
Young girls have such hard choices when it comes to role models - Katie or Posh, daddy or chips?
And don't forget Charley or Shabnam
Lippincote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:36
PrincessNidor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 669
I also think it is highly unlikely that Katie was dismissed because of the bad publicity. Although Katie has been employed for less than a year and therefore would not be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal she would be able to bring a claim for unlawful discrimination (as this has no time limit on it). The Met Office would therefore make sure of the facts and that they had a good case before they dismissed her.

The role model thing is actually quite frightening – but I doubt if many young girls aspire to be her. My nine year old niece wants to be Hermione (Harry Potter) or Rose (from Doctor Who) or Elizabeth Swann (Pirates of the Caribbean).......I doubt if she knows who Katie is.
PrincessNidor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:39
Tibsy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,980
Young girls have such hard choices when it comes to role models - Katie or Posh, daddy or chips?
Judging by the all the media attention, they're hard choices to make, and often, the wrong role models are chosen. So lets hopre that Katie does not end up being somebody looked up to
Tibsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:39
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
I also think it is highly unlikely that Katie was dismissed because of the bad publicity. Although Katie has been employed for less than a year and therefore would not be able to bring a claim for unfair dismissal she would be able to bring a claim for unlawful discrimination (as this has no time limit on it). The Met Office would therefore make sure of the facts and that they had a good case before they dismissed her.
I think it had more to do with her relationship with another Met Office employee than her appearance on the Apprentice although I could be wrong.
I thought the icing on the cake was when Katie was critical of them for going to the press with it when it was an internal matter - as many more wise have discovered before you, Katie, the press is not always your friend. You may think you are using them but they are always bigger and more powerful than you are.
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-06-2007, 09:41
lucy-lawless
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 75
The media just loves to build someone up only to make the knocking down even better
lucy-lawless is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02.