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.

I don't understand why you would lie about your salary when it is so easily checked!

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.

Her spokesperson says he is considering taking them to a tribunal. Now thats one show I would love to see.

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!

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?

Glad shes got the sack.

A life of being a, at the very least, media whore awaits imo

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!

Yes during the programme I'm sure she was still said to be working for her ex husband?

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.

Especially for someone on a probational contract.

Surely she would be the "front end?"

Think of the money they would save by not having to buy the whole costume

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.

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

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')

I would hate for young girls to see her a figure that represents success, and aspire to be like her.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The media just loves to build someone up only to make the knocking down even better