Sorry to be pedantic, but an employer would not give you a Gold card - because I think she meant an Executive Club Gold card (which is earned by flying a lot). Which is nice and you get access to all the lounges at the airport, but at the end of the day it's just a posh loyalty card!

You are not being pedantic at all. I am self employed and don't fly anywhere much so I don't know these things but she did seem to put rather a lot of emphasis on the fact that she had one so I took it to be something that mere ordinary people can only dream of having. Now I find it is a glorifed Tesco card for people with a large carbon footprint.

My favourite so far is the inflatable bed which is ideal for gymnasts and bears.[/quote]

friends of ours bought that inflatable bed.. it was the worst nights non sleep of my life. sea sick doesnt begin to describe it. really is only suitable for gymnastic bears.

Perhaps I will then.

I think it's terrible the way katie has been treated by the met office. How can an employer fire someone because of media attention and affairs they have had. This has nothing to do with how she performs her job. And they have lied and said she is being fired because she hasn't reached standards, which is clearly just an excuse to get rid of her! I'm surprised they have been allowed to do this, and hope katie can sue them for a lot!

Absolutely. I got a silver card for flying to Australia, just once.


On a probationary contract, they can do what they like in the first year. If she was employed as a "global brand consultant" her job is to promote the Met Office and let them be seen in the best light possible and be its public face. That cannot happen when you are seen behaving badly and morally reprehensibly. For £90k a year, she would be expected to keep her nose clean.



Yes. It is EXACTLY about how she performs her job. In this case, she failed to reach anywhere near the standard. They can do it because the law allows them to. Katie of course will sue. Its great publicity for her, which lets face it, is all she has now.

D

Crikey! you're privy to all the private information about her progress at work?!!? You're priviledged - the rest of us can only evaluate her from the image she has chosen to portray and the interviews she's given - which, let's face it, isn't really going to enhance her C.V. for the future.

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking she (or any of the others) are great at their jobs, just because they said so!

I heard that the Met Office were denying paying her £90,000 pa..

Your completely missing my point. Katies job was safe before she went on the apprentice. The met office must have been happy with her performance to let her have time off to go on the show. How can you disagree that her firing is due to bad press attention rather than her job performance, and that is clearly wrong in my opinion. It seems clear to me that many are only accepting this as they dislike katie, i hope judges are less prone to such prejudice!

It may also have something to do with the photos of Katie frolicking in a field with another now ex-Met office employee in the News of the World (exclusive) which may have done a bit to bring her company into disrepute. Bad press attention, yes, but not from her performance on the programme.

Katie's behaviour looks like a dodgy sort of adult pantomime to me. I find it all very bizarre - who boasts about shafting married men (pardon the crudeness) on their CV?

Katie strikes me as smarter than that, I think she's out for all the media attention she can get. £40,000 for an interview or two? Hmmm.

As for those pictures, they seem a bit suspicious toi me - could have been anyone! (Yes, I know Katie says it is her.) Who knows, maybe it is all part of her Evil Plan.

Advice to bloke: if you really MUST have it off with your mistress in a field, at least have the decency to take your wedding ring off first. Deary me!

A BA Gold Card is not that special nor difficult to get. I have one and only trudge around Europe for my job in the economy cheap seats!.

You're right, its a loyalty card. If you keep flying BA, you eventually get a silver then a gold card. All it does really is let you in the lounge at the airport.

It did make me laugh (and cringe) when she bragged about it!

Not necessarily. She was employed on a probationary period. This is not "safe". It is a chance for the employer to find out whether the person is right for the job.


Not necessarily. It takes time to set up The Apprentice. Katie (if employed in September) will already have known that she would be going on it. New employers will honour previous committments or leave.


In YOUR opinion. Which counts for nothing to an employer hiring someone to promote that company and show it in the best possible light, then go and get poor press attention (especially when it is job related) Then you have failed at your job.


What judges? It'll not go to court. Although the further press attantion must be doing Katie's ego a power of good.

D

Then logically they should also fire the bloke she was with, since he is equally guilty - in fact more so, because he was married. Then again, I doubt it would be an issue if it hadn't got into the press, and unless one believes she arranged that herself she shouldn't be blamed for it. She's the victim here.

She's not responsible for how the BBC portrayed her in the programme, either, and shouldn't be fired for that. I reckon their main justification is the interview she gave to the Mirror, since that was down to her. However, as I recall almost none of it was about the Met Office, and she surely deserve some opportunity to put her side of the story.

That she was still on probation means they'll probably get away with it, but if they want to avoid bad publicity they might offer an out-of-court settlement.

She was most likely let go because her new 'media career' is a conflict of interest with her job at the MET office.

I don't think it's a coincidence they let her go the very same week the floodgates opened for the offers to come in. When your being paid 90k to do a job you're expected to commit to it 100% and out of all the contestants Katie is the one who the media want a piece of and as we have already seen is getting the offers. She has created for herself a media career or whatever you wanna call it, it might only last two months, it might last twenty years but at the moment it's there and naturally she's gonna make the most of it. However this interest is bound to impact and have an effect on her MET office job and so it wouldn't be very surprising if they let her go because of that.

Sorry but I'm not missing your point at all, I understand what you were saying, I just totally disagree with it ,and don't think it was a valid point of view.

Firstly, I doubt any of us are privy to information about how well she was performing her duties, and secondly read all of the posts above this one, which have already outlined what I might have said myself.

Seems like plenty of people feel the same as I do.

Unless of course you are aware of Katie's employment review, and would care to share? In which case I apologise.

My guess is that she's clever enough and has enough contacts to pick herself up and make a name for herself in the media. She's a good business woman who knows what goes on. I'm no fan, but I have a certain grudging respect for her. I really wouldn't write her off!