DS Forums

 
 

Rules of application/Lee is in breach


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-06-2008, 17:16
gilliedew
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,154

You hereby warrant that you have truthfully and accurately completed this application form and acknowledge and agree that the Company may in its sole discretion disqualify you from any interview, auditioning process, competition, event or the Programme at any stage if you supply or have supplied any untruthful, inaccurate or misleading details and/or information and/or have failed to abide by the Rules or are otherwise in breach of any of the terms of this application.


Lee would have had to have signed this before his application was approved.
gilliedew is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 12-06-2008, 17:19
booklover
 
Posts: n/a
Seeing as it's Sir Alan who will be paying Lee, I guess he is entitled to choose who he wants for the job. The company has the right to disqualify him at their discretion - doesn't mean that they will definitely disqualify someone, just that they reserve the right to do so.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 17:20
vidalia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 24,469
That may be so and if they didn't like Lee they may have used it against him but they did like him and decided it wasn't an issue.

However as they knew the situation in August 2007 (the date on the letter from Thames Valley University stating he only attended for four months), they could have got rid of him before he started if it was going to be an issue for them.
vidalia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 17:23
Toxteth O'Grady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,629
You hereby warrant that you have truthfully and accurately completed this application form and acknowledge and agree that the Company may in its sole discretion disqualify you from any interview, auditioning process, competition, event or the Programme at any stage if you supply or have supplied any untruthful, inaccurate or misleading details and/or information and/or have failed to abide by the Rules or are otherwise in breach of any of the terms of this application.


Lee would have had to have signed this before his application was approved.
Probably, and if it had the word 'MAY' in it then it's irrelevant
Toxteth O'Grady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 17:28
soulmate61
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073

However as they knew the situation in August 2007 (the date on the letter from Thames Valley University stating he only attended for four months), they could have got rid of him before he started if it was going to be an issue for them.
If Amstrad was complicit in condoning it from the start,
why the righteous anger? In exposing Lee Amstrad exposed themselves.
soulmate61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 17:36
jjackson42
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London - Gerbilophobe!
Posts: 9,091
If Amstrad was complicit in condoning it from the start,
why the righteous anger? In exposing Lee Amstrad exposed themselves.
I note that nobody here has actually SEEN what was on his CV and exactly how it was expressed. He has stated that he mentioned that he didn't complete the course.
jjackson42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 17:38
peely
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,860
If Amstrad was complicit in condoning it from the start,
why the righteous anger? In exposing Lee Amstrad exposed themselves.
Really, who cares? A lot worse goes on in the real world that gets swept under the carpet, well mostly. I'm far more bothered about the politicians who pay their partners, families and so on out of their expenses, or the highly paid government officials who get huge golden handshakes! Essentially this is a private matter between SAS and Lee, and although it may appear to set a bad example, we shouldn't take much notice of a TV programme. We don't have to watch it, and even if we do, it can spark debate about this common practice. Thankfully I'm old enough now that I don't have to explain what I did until I was 21, and though I like to think of myself as honest, I have been known to stretch a college course I left in Feb 1982 to appear that I'd been there until the summer of 1982. Stretching 4 months to two years was a bit of a gamble.

I'm sure Lee made most of his mistakes because of his insecurity about his educational qualifications and difficulty in explaining periods of his life. I think he will feel more secure now, and just knuckle down and do his job, and get some of the rough edges polished up.
peely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 17:43
diary_room
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,415
The employer can 'let things go' if they choose.

The clauses are there to help the employer get rid of someone they *don't* want. If they *want* someone, all such clauses can be disregarded.
diary_room is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2008, 18:11
marks thespot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,884
The employer can 'let things go' if they choose.

The clauses are there to help the employer get rid of someone they *don't* want. If they *want* someone, all such clauses can be disregarded.
Exactly!

SAS has made it perfectly clear that he looks down on formal qualifications anyway, so he doesn't give two hoots about them. If the job were dependent on a candidate having a specific qualification, it would matter, but this one doesn't, so the "lie" is really irrelevant.

The issue of lying might give an employer pause regarding personal integrity, but I think SAS has considered this too and understands why Lee did it. And it clearly doesn't bother him.
marks thespot is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:53.