If everyone does it everyone is equal again and nobody gets an advantage.

In readiness for it sweeping the nation, a 21st century word is needed to describe this ancient practice. Your suggestions please.

MCVeening

deCVing

CVflation

CVplusVAT

deCVing is clever!

Lee was wrong - is it the crime of the century, probably not. Was it foolish and somewhat unintelligent - probably.
Did it reek of insecurity - yes, definitely.

He got the job - hope it helps to deal with confidence issues.

I agree but thats why I was more disgusted with his spelling than the lie he told (although his pathetic explanation on Radio5 Live this morning made it worse). How on earth in this day and age would someone be taken seriously if they hadnt even bothered to use the spell checker, especially as in Lee's case he has problems with spelling. To me that shows how little effort he made.

No offence intended but this is a really stupid post.

Not everyone lies on their CV. There's talking up the truth and there's outright lies - the latter should be discouraged.

Lee did lie. Exaggerating the truth could have included talking up what he DID do at uni to make it sound better than it was. However, saying you're there for two years when it was only four months is a lie - it's not bending the truth in any respect.

As for the 99.9% unemployment, whoever said that is a moron.

What did he say about it on Five Live?

But is he that 0.1 % in employment?

He said,
"I ncuodlnt eb obthrde iwth pllesphckcre"

Lol - htansk!

This is a non-topic. The guy lied about his educational achievements, not mildly but blatantly. For almost any job you apply for, your educational background will count for a lot - as Lee himself knows.

FTR, I like Lee, and I don't begrudge him success in the future. But lying is bad, and if the interview were what I was going on to hire the geezer, he'd be out of the door. "Simple as"...

Its not even only that. How could anyone with much intelligence think that he could go on national TV for a three month long job interview without someone finding out that he had made up his educational qualifications ? The candidates would have been vetted at all stages, the final detailed questions about his Cv were inevitable and the media would be looking closely at him and paying anyone with a story about him. It shows terrible judgement.

not once you go past a certain age it doesn't and Lee is 30 and has been at work for what 12/14 years

Doing what? Anything useful to Sugar's business?

I just turned 30 and am the youngest in my office. Some of my colleagues have 40 years of experience - I have only been able to get in through my qualifications and recent experience.

30 is young in the business world compared to the tough veterans with decades of experience.

30 is not much older than 24, and look how that angle was sold!

To say once you hit 30, no-one is going to care what qualifications you have is absurd. If he was in his late forties then I could see his experience carrying some heft.

well I've spoken to several work colleagues about when they were last asked about their schooling and it's only the most junior of staff who are in their teens or very early 20's who have been asked recently - in fact one of my work mates who's 29 recently went to a recruitment agency and mentioned that his exam result weren't that good & the agency told them that's ok a company is more interested in what you've been doing for the last 5 years than how you did in exams 11 years ago - if you go to University and don't enter the job market until you're in your 20's it may be different but Lee seems to have been working since he was 16 so how relevant would this particular course be to his new job it wouldn't - I don't agree with anyone embellishing their CV with qualifications they didn't get or positions they have held but he only states that he has 8 GCSE’s & B-Tec Diploma in IT none of which is relevant to a career as a Recruitment Sales Manager (his previous job) or his new job what is relevant is his working experience

The qualification which Lee lied about (apparently on his CV, he did put that the course was not completed), was not relevant to Sir Alan's business though. Sir Alan is well known for not putting much faith in qualifications.

Admittedly, in certain jobs, qualifications are necessary, but I would not think that academic qualifications are what Alan Sugar was looking for.

If Lee had said that he had a specific qualification which he needed to get the job, then fair enough, he should have been fired. As it was, the qualification was irrelevant to the job. I am NOT condoning lying on a CV, and I have never done that myself. However, what he did was not a sackable offence as far as I'm concerned. Clearly he was not trying to obtain a pecuniary advantage by doing so, and it was just to cover his embarrassment about his lack of academic qualifications. As I say, I'm not condoning it, but I would not have fired him, under the circumstances.

Saira lied on her CV. She came second.

She was also percieved by many as the best for the job and cited as a 'reason' why the journo's are attacking Sir Alan for being sexist in his choice of 'winner'.

Lee lied and won, despite some perceiving Claire as by far and away the better candidate. A 'fact' that is cited as a reason for journo's attacking Sir Alan for being sexist!!

Claire and Saira, along with Ruth, are the type of characters someone like SAS is unlikely to employ, regardless of theit gender.

You could at least have put one male name in there!! Just in the interest of making you look less bias than you do now!

My point, to be honest, was less about the sexism angle (though I've heard and read so much of it the last couple of days it bores me) but more from the point of view that this isn't even a new aspect of the show, just one that has been picked up on and used in a particular way.

How about Tre?!!!

What about next years canadates? do they do the same & try to get away with it?
Also SAS did not give a good explanantion as to why he employed Lee on his false or mislead CV.

FTR, I wasn't commenting on Lee's particular situation, more on the general experience of entering the job market - which usually happens before the age of 30, and when educational qualifications will almost certainly matter.

But the main point was that I really don't understand why so many seem to want to excuse such a blatant example of lying. I wouldn't want to hire people who blatantly lie - and that seems to me common sense, not naivety.

Agreed, you would not like colleagues or subordinates to mislead you, or you would have to double check everything they say.

But are double standards accepted in company sales departments? Do customers not already have builtin scepticism and immunity prepared against salespeople, known by convention to inflate the good points and keep silent on the bad points?

If Lee had stayed for 4 months and 2 days then claimed for 5 months I would have no issues with it. Had he claimed the round number of 6 months I still would not mind. Apparently Lee put in black and white on his CV that "He did not complete his (2-year) course." When given a chance at the interview he did not volunteer the info that incompletion occurred at the 4-months stage.

Do sales companies have a tacit or even explicit rulebook inhouse -- it is ok to bullsh*t customers, but not ok to bullsh*t the boss?

Yes!!!

He wasn't there to volunteer info; the agenda was clearly set by Bordan T.

Lee said after winning, that camera shots actually showed his non-completion declaration on the CV.

The interviewer said something like, "Do you have anything you want to tell me about being at uni for 2 years?"

When Lee volunteered no contradiction the interviewer did not go on to ask the even-handed question: "Do you have anything you want to tell me about your statement you did not complete your course?"

If the interview were a court procedure, Lee's counsel could have objected that a leading question was asked -- leading Lee into a trap. The literal wording on his CV would be decisive. Does anyone have video they can replay with freeze-frame?

The relevant shot of the CV just shows the dates and place of the course on one line, and "HCIMA - Not completed" on the second line.

I don't have a big problem with what he put on his CV. I do have a problem with what he told the interviewer.


In the version sitting on my TiVo, it didn't happen like that at all. The interviewer asks if Lee has a degree. Lee explains not, then talks about what he did for a bit, ending by volunteering, "I was there for two years and I was actually doing my HCIMA for that period of time."

Then the interviewer asks, "Are you sure it was two years?" Lee confirms it. Then the interview gets out the letter showing it wasn't.

I don't like it that he lied on his CV. It sets a bad example that he is rewarded for his dishonesty