We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.
I hope she sues
1 of 4
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
Who?
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
Behave!
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
Are you being ironic? Or just winding people up?
It's a tv show, not a normal situation... it will be written into all the candidate contracts that if they lose it is purely at Sir Alan's discretion, in which case it is time for tubby-bye-bye without recrimination.
Originally Posted by GratingCheese:
“I think he's got more chance of suing you for libel.”
“I think he's got more chance of suing you for libel.”
Why? He wrote an article several months earlier about how he preferred to give a job to a man over a woman and how he disagreed with employment laws in relation to equality.
A little example from the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3621888.ece
This month Sir Alan said that he did not regret having criticised rules that bar employers from asking job applicants if they plan to have children. He said: “I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about stupid EU employment rules. I do what I want in that boardroom and if they [the candidates] don’t like it, they can p*** off.”
Originally Posted by Sez_babe:
“A woman won in series 2?? It was an all-woman final”
“A woman won in series 2?? It was an all-woman final”
yep and he didnt like what happened did he?
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“Why? He wrote an article several months earlier about how he preferred to give a job to a man over a woman and how he disagreed with employment laws in relation to equality.
A little example from the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3621888.ece
This month Sir Alan said that he did not regret having criticised rules that bar employers from asking job applicants if they plan to have children. He said: “I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about stupid EU employment rules. I do what I want in that boardroom and if they [the candidates] don’t like it, they can p*** off.” ”
“Why? He wrote an article several months earlier about how he preferred to give a job to a man over a woman and how he disagreed with employment laws in relation to equality.
A little example from the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3621888.ece
This month Sir Alan said that he did not regret having criticised rules that bar employers from asking job applicants if they plan to have children. He said: “I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about stupid EU employment rules. I do what I want in that boardroom and if they [the candidates] don’t like it, they can p*** off.” ”
His attitude is somewhat stone age, but he was refrring to the tv show in particular.
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“yep and he didnt like what happened did he?”
“yep and he didnt like what happened did he?”
LOL! He was the one who made it happen!
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“yep and he didnt like what happened did he?”
“yep and he didnt like what happened did he?”
A little too cryptic, just expain what you mean.
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“Why? He wrote an article several months earlier about how he preferred to give a job to a man over a woman and how he disagreed with employment laws in relation to equality.
A little example from the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3621888.ece
This month Sir Alan said that he did not regret having criticised rules that bar employers from asking job applicants if they plan to have children. He said: “I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about stupid EU employment rules. I do what I want in that boardroom and if they [the candidates] don’t like it, they can p*** off.” ”
“Why? He wrote an article several months earlier about how he preferred to give a job to a man over a woman and how he disagreed with employment laws in relation to equality.
A little example from the Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3621888.ece
This month Sir Alan said that he did not regret having criticised rules that bar employers from asking job applicants if they plan to have children. He said: “I don’t want to be dragged into a debate about stupid EU employment rules. I do what I want in that boardroom and if they [the candidates] don’t like it, they can p*** off.” ”
From what I gather, children are conceievd by a man and a woman. Therefore women are not being singled out with such views.
Originally Posted by Sara Webb:
“Are you being ironic? Or just winding people up?
It's a tv show, not a normal situation... it will be written into all the candidate contracts that if they lose it is purely at Sir Alan's discretion, in which case it is time for tubby-bye-bye without recrimination.”
“Are you being ironic? Or just winding people up?
It's a tv show, not a normal situation... it will be written into all the candidate contracts that if they lose it is purely at Sir Alan's discretion, in which case it is time for tubby-bye-bye without recrimination.”
Lets hope so, because if not he would be in danger of being sued. He has expressed sexist views before and his decisions seem to follow a certain pattern.
Like I said I hope she sues. No wonder women find it so hard to get anywhere in the workplace. I understood why he choose Simon last night. He had potential and an active mind with imaginative ideas, but this year he chose someone caught out lying, had no skill apart from selling ahead of a woman who had much more skill but was "a bit too mouthy" for him.
Originally Posted by Sara Webb:
“Are you being ironic? Or just winding people up?
It's a tv show, not a normal situation... it will be written into all the candidate contracts that if they lose it is purely at Sir Alan's discretion, in which case it is time for tubby-bye-bye without recrimination.”
“Are you being ironic? Or just winding people up?
It's a tv show, not a normal situation... it will be written into all the candidate contracts that if they lose it is purely at Sir Alan's discretion, in which case it is time for tubby-bye-bye without recrimination.”
Actually you cannot get around sex discrimination legislation by contract.
For many aspects of modern law attempts to circumvent it by contract clause would simply be ignored by the courts.
In some cases (e.g. Sale of Goods Act) it is actually a criminal offence to attempt to evade your responsibilities at law.
Originally Posted by Sara Webb:
“His attitude is somewhat stone age, but he was refrring to the tv show in particular.”
“His attitude is somewhat stone age, but he was refrring to the tv show in particular.”
he received plenty of criticism for it at the time, and I dont believe it was just about the show, but business in general
Originally Posted by Sara Webb:
“LOL! He was the one who made it happen!
”
“LOL! He was the one who made it happen!
”
but he didnt know what she was going to do afterwards, thats what I meant.
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“Lets hope so, because if not he would be in danger of being sued. He has expressed sexist views before and his decisions seem to follow a certain pattern.
Like I said I hope she sues. No wonder women find it so hard to get anywhere in the workplace. I understood why he choose Simon last night. He had potential and an active mind with imaginative ideas, but this year he chose someone caught out lying, had no skill apart from selling ahead of a woman who had much more skill but was "a bit too mouthy" for him.”
“Lets hope so, because if not he would be in danger of being sued. He has expressed sexist views before and his decisions seem to follow a certain pattern.
Like I said I hope she sues. No wonder women find it so hard to get anywhere in the workplace. I understood why he choose Simon last night. He had potential and an active mind with imaginative ideas, but this year he chose someone caught out lying, had no skill apart from selling ahead of a woman who had much more skill but was "a bit too mouthy" for him.”
As an employer he can choose who he wants to work for his organisation.
I see no evidence that he unfairly discriminated against any female contestant purely on the basis of their gender.
You're talking crap.
Last edited by The-Apprentice : 12-06-2008 at 00:20
Originally Posted by The-Apprentice:
“A little too cryptic, just expain what you mean.”
“A little too cryptic, just expain what you mean.”
she got pregnant, lost the baby and tried to get more media work. He didnt like the fact that she got pregnant so soon after he gave her the job
Originally Posted by GratingCheese:
“From what I gather, children are conceievd by a man and a woman. Therefore women are not being singled out with such views.”
“From what I gather, children are conceievd by a man and a woman. Therefore women are not being singled out with such views.”
thats the point. He was singling out women, but has no problem with fathers
I'm not sure if tonight's result was sexism, but I'm sure that he is a dinosaur because of some of the inteviewers he listens to - like that one who tore into Lucinda last week (short-necked troglodyte).
And that fact that he didn't care about Ciaire's bullying or Alex's slimeball tactics, or Lee's lying on his CV. Sir Alan is a low life dinosaur, end of. Now, he can sue me for every furball I have
And that fact that he didn't care about Ciaire's bullying or Alex's slimeball tactics, or Lee's lying on his CV. Sir Alan is a low life dinosaur, end of. Now, he can sue me for every furball I have
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
“We know Sir Alan's views on women at work and he is obviously letting his sexist views get in the way of fairness. There are laws against it and I would say she would have a very good case.”
as a person experienced in such matters, I think you are thin ice.
think about it - would Margaret let them broadcast anything that SAS could be sued for?
somehow, I doubt it.
you're closer to trouble than he is, if you publicly defame him. forum admin folk canm be compelled to reveal the identity of posters, once there is a prima facie case against them.
be smart, don't diss SAS without being VERY sure of your evidence.
Originally Posted by The-Apprentice:
“As an employer he can choose who he wants to work for his organisation.
I see no evidence that he unfairly discriminated against any female contestant purely on the basis of their gender.
You're talking crap.”
“As an employer he can choose who he wants to work for his organisation.
I see no evidence that he unfairly discriminated against any female contestant purely on the basis of their gender.
You're talking crap.”
firstly there is no need for personal abuse. Secondly, as an employer he has to follow employment laws. I believe Claire would have a reasonable case, but thats just my opinion. You disagree, but there is no need to get personal.
Originally Posted by richgoss:
“she got pregnant, lost the baby and tried to get more media work. He didnt like the fact that she got pregnant so soon after he gave her the job”
“she got pregnant, lost the baby and tried to get more media work. He didnt like the fact that she got pregnant so soon after he gave her the job”
Are you saying he fired her because she got pregnant and he has gone on the record and said that?
Originally Posted by The Spoon:
“as a person experienced in such matters, I think you are thin ice.
think about it - would Margaret let them broadcast anything that SAS could be sued for?
somehow, I doubt it.
you're closer to trouble than he is, if you publicly defame him. forum admin folk canm be compelled to reveal the identity of posters, once there is a prima facie case against them.
be smart, don't diss SAS without being VERY sure of your evidence.”
“as a person experienced in such matters, I think you are thin ice.
think about it - would Margaret let them broadcast anything that SAS could be sued for?
somehow, I doubt it.
you're closer to trouble than he is, if you publicly defame him. forum admin folk canm be compelled to reveal the identity of posters, once there is a prima facie case against them.
be smart, don't diss SAS without being VERY sure of your evidence.”
ROFLMAO! What tiny world do you live in? Do you really think MILLIONAIRE Sir Alan is going to want to be seen to drag small fry forum posters through the courts? These identity disclosure rules apply for peados, terrorists and the like - you know, REAL problems...
Behave!
1 of 4
