I'm not sure why they even bothered checking CV's if what they found had no bearing on SAS's decision.
Why not just judge all candidates by their performance on the show, in that case?

I guess in this world the results of the CV confirmation would only have been used if it facilitated their desired outcome...
(Or am i being cynical?)

Lucinda was not undervalued because she was female, but because by her own admission on camera she was "not interested in money". SAS is interested in money ma'am, the first thing, the last thing, the only thing.

It was nothing to do with her being a female.It was everything to do with her inability to be told what to do, to conform in with anyone-and her self-admitted manipulation

Her beret and nice voice and pretty face have a lot of people fooled.I think it's interesting that whilst a lot of the candidates have been nice about each other since coming out I havent heard anyone be positive about Lucinda

Apart from (off the top of my head) Raef and Sara. And even Jenny C on YF! admitted that she behaved badly towards Lucinda.

Lying is probably the most dishonest of all things you can do. It amazes me that this was allowed to happen and they shrugged it off. In a way they made it look like it wasn't a big issue to lie. WELL NICE WAY TO CONDONE IT WHEN I NEXT WRITE MY CV!

Lee's said this about it:

'I didn't actually lie. If the eagle eyes of you guys actually looked at what the camera showed, I actually stated I hadn't completed the course. It wasn't a lie, it was a complete communication breakdown between myself and the boardroom.'

Well he did lie , as when he was asked about it he said he was there for 2 years , which was a lie.

But bullshitting is are all part of Sales, so I guess this guy is going to go far.

I personally hate people that bullshit and side-step and refuse to aknowledge they have made a mistake. That's why I would not fit in with the marketing environment.

Both of Lee's mistakes may be to Lee's advantage now. He knows he really has to impress SAS. I think he would have been better teamed with Helene though, because she's more deadpan as a foil for him. Also, having let him stay on, SAS is obviously more than impressed with Lee's other qualities to allow the lie to go another week. It may still influence him though. As far as the possible (likely) dyslexia goes, at least he's been "honest" about that, and not tried to cover it up by getting it proof read/go through spell checker/professionally constructed. I think that may work in his favour as well.

My colleague thinks Alex will win. I think Claire might.

They will have checked to make sure there weren't any gaps. He might have spent 18 months in prison, for example. It's not just about qualifications.


He should have come clean as soon as the interviewer mentioned it.


For me it's a bit like claiming you like football when you've only been to a couple of live matches. It's a soft lie rather than a hard lie. Yes, it's done to make a connection with the employer but it's OK to want to make a connection with the employer. It would be wrong to out-and-out lie to do that, but mentioning you are half-Jewish is fine, and just saying Jewish is a stretch but we are dealing here with shades of grey. Putting "good" in front of it, well, he think he's a good boy, and he's (half) Jewish, so it's not really right to put it all together but it's not a black-and-white lie, either.

Where-as Lee's was black-and-white. Nobody can really pretend 20 months is the same as 4 months.

This bothers me even more. He's still not acknowledging he did anything wrong, and still trying to wriggle out of it. It wasn't a mistake or a miscommunication. He wanted us to believe he spent 20 months at a place when he knew the truth was only 4 months. He communicated exactly what he wanted to. It just wasn't true.

The edit made it clear he hadn't completed the course; that's not at issue.

I take it as he put on his CV that his employee sent on a course that should have lasted 2 years but he dropped the course after 4 months - he was still working and thats why there are no gaps on his CV - he didn't actually claim to have a specific qualification

The plot thickens.
As the nation has divided on this issue, it really is worthwhile to make this paragraph of Lee's CV public.

Did he write for instance:
Course Duration : 2 years
"I hadn't completed the course."

"I hadn't completed the course" means he did not stay for 2 years.
And how many years ago was this event? Was it 10 years ago, 1998? Do you remember what you were doing in 1998?


It would not be the first time Lee had communication problems. He made a horlicks presenting the greeting card, and nearly conked out when presenting the perfume.

It would serve the public interest to show one paragraph of his CV, if only to be completely fair, and to reduce the continuing arguments.

What he wrote on his CV was:

1996 - 1998 Thames Valley University (address)
HCIMA - Not Completed

What he told the interviewer was, "I was there for two years. I was actually doing my HCIMA for that period of time." Which is pretty unambiguous.

Lee now seems to have taken the path (or been advised to) of using what he did as an example of what not to do when filling in application forms and compiling CVs.

I suppose on the one hand it could be seen that someone who has falsified his CV and then not come clean about it in the interview has done well but on the other hand he has received such flak for it and made to feel so obviously uncomfortable in front of millions, that it can also be seen as obviously the wrong thing to do and certainly not as something to encouraged.

I think it will make others more aware how easy it is to have a mistruth included on their CV found out and it will stop many from doing the same. Hopefully we can all learn from Lee's very public mistake