That is my point, it is entirely legal to consider such factors if it is reasonable to do so.

It is not illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of their gender or a disibility unless it is unreasonable to do so.

It is not reasonable for someone who runs companies the size of Sir Alan's to discriminate just because a potential employee wishes to start a family.

I see no evidence that he has done so but agree that it would be unfair if he has.

I don't agree with that. She has as much right as any other woman to get pregant regardless of the fact that she is the winner of a tv show.

I don't believe Sir Alan discriminated against her though.

I don't think he discriminated against her

I was only defending the fact that someone said he was miffed and I said he had every right to be!

As far as I was aware she left off her own back after just a few months because of a conflict of interests.

I think we're barking up different trees

You're right.

I heard that she left to progress he interests elsewhere too, for which he had every right to be miffed.

On a legal front, I very much doubt the Apprentice, ultimately an entertainment programme/gameshow, actually qualifies as a standard job interview, and therefore, lots (if not all) normal employment rules don't apply.

The candidates most likely sign away a great deal of their normal rights (eg privacy etc) in their contracts with Talkback Thames. How this relates to statutory anti-discrimination rules and whether they can sign away those rights, I'm not sure. But in relation to the sex discrimination allegations of last year (concerning Katie Hopkins & Kristina and questions about their kids), this was said by the TUC:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...ts-452267.html

If we trust the TUC (I guess we can in such matters), Claire would not have grounds for sex discrimination as the process is not a 'genuine' interview.


I don't think Sir Alan discriminated or based his decision on her sex.

Clare was my favourite. But I knew she wouldnt win for the following reasons :

She was too similar to Badger IMO and he didnt like her
Lee fitted the Apprentice, willing to learn etc mould of the Apprentice whereas Clare was more experienced and knew it all, not much left to teach her
Clare had been in boardroom several times and could have been fired after the task when Simon was task manager
Lee had never been in the boardroom
SAS might not have been convinced of Clare's personality transplant being a permanent thing whereas Lee was consistent
Clare might have been too loud for him as he touched on this a few times
Clare had apparantly been offered a job with Karen Brady so had something to fall back on for sure

So nothing to do with sex in my opinion.

Just to re-iterate, I was rooting for Calre all the way but just knew Lee would win

I doubt Margaret would agree.

Out of the 10 Finalists, 6 Have been Women, last night the Best 2 won and it came down to the Best 2 people for the Job.

Out of those 2 Lee was by far the most consistent and that counts when the camera's go away and the real work begins.

I don't think he ever said he didn't like Ruth Badger - he thought she was very good and had a lot of respect for her but she was just not right for him at that time. She has nothing but good things to say about him, is still in contact with him and he has been a sort of mentor to her.

Just because he doesn't pick one of two finalists doesn't mean he doesn't like them.

Getting pregnant is real life and has nothing to do with a TV programme. The programme had long gone before she was pregnant

fair enough. However by saying what he has in the past has left him very open to the charge

So Alan MUST give a woman the job alternately or its sexist?

Get out of here! This isn't The X-Factor, Alan has to have this person work for him on a daily basis, it has to be the person he personally want.

And for the recond, the one woman he did hire did a runner on him.

Claire was a great candidate, but Lee has definite qualities and it all came together for him in the final.

Lol, I don't know how to say what I'm saying any clearer.

The show had finished but she was still claiming her "prize" (i.e. working for Sir Alan), she then chose to ditch the job. A job which x amount of candidates had busted a gut to get, a job which a television series had been made around, a job so prestigious well educated people are willing to jump through hoops to get it.

Sir Alan didn't sack Michelle Dewberry, she left of her own accord because she wanted to heighten her media profile. Can you honestly not see that her actions question the integrity of the show and therfore Sir Alan too?

I still say he was well within his rights to feel more than a little bit miffed by her actions.

No I don't agree that a woman should be given a job or it is sexist.

Claire was clearly a good candidate but Lee was more consistant throughout the series and that is why he won, no sexist intent there.

SAS said Claire can always come to him for advice so he clearly rated her but felt Lee was better for him. Claire will do really well, she said on breakfast TV she already had job offers and had a meeting planned with Karen Brady next week.

Right result and no way sexist

Agreed. I hope Claire really succeeds. She seems really nice, the whole rottweiller thing is just a persona.

What is "tubby bye bye" ? Is this a bit sizeist ? :yawn:

There was a tedious situation at a firm I worked for when a woman who had been off work for months on maternity leave returned, and was the only woman in her department not made redundant! Since she had been sitting on her backside at home all that time, one would have thought that her name would have been at the top of the list! It seemed ironic that those in the office who had been beavering away (and doing HER job) were sacked.

She was eventually made redundant a couple of years later (she had fallen out of favour, due to having too much time off sick)!! Poetic justice, I thought!

Employers shouldn't pander to women who become pregnant in the same way they shouldn't treat them less favourably because of it.

She should have been made redundant the same as the others.

But fair redundancy is never about the person but the role.As in the best person suited for the role. I know it is galling for staff being made redundant but If the company had followed fair practice then the person on maternity would not have been selected as her role was not at risk.

Of course I am going on very little facts here. Unfortuantely, some companies know very little about employment law and are scared stiff to do anything with a pregnant woman. It doesn't mean they cannot lose their jobs it just means they cannot be selected for redundancy because they are pregnant. Big difference!

It's called "fair comment"

LMAO! Very droll. I presume you're joking.


I very much doubt that any parent with a young child ''sits on their backside all day", and if that's what you believe, you need to wake up to reality.

I agree with your point about the redundancies entirely though - based purely on what you have stated as I obviously odn't know the details of the case.

Where does he mention women?

not at all, he is sexist because of his actions and what he has said in the past.

You are missing the point, he made his comments before she "left" by that famous footballing term, "mutual consent"

if you read the whole article you will see plenty of references