You're under arrest, Sir Alan

Today we have a guest blog from the novelist Jenny Colgan, whose girl-about-town books cleverly disguise that she's actually a mum of a toddler, with another on the way. Jenny writes about Katie Hopkins turning down Alan Sugar, citing family obligations:

Hang on. For nine weeks, right, we’ve had to listen to Sir Alan Sugar intoning over the credits, ‘This isn’t a game show. This is a job interview’.

Well, so he says. Anyone from the Equal Opportunities Commission watching? Uh, siralun, you’re actually not allowed to allocate jobs based on people’s access to childcare anymore? Since, like, 1976?

Watching the excruciating play-off between Katie, Christina and Simon (who, bless him, looked like he’d turned entirely into water and was draining steadily away into his shoes) on The Apprentice on Wednesday evening was quite extraordinary.

It doesn’t matter if people think Katie’s a snotty hard-nosed bitch (personally I thought she was the series highlight, and that nasty rat fink Tre got off far too lightly).

It doesn’t matter if she says ‘I don’t consider myself a mother’. It doesn’t even matter that she proudly boasted about pulling a married man to have those children. (On her C.V! My God, mine only exaggerates my French 'O' level. Slightly. ), or whether she entered the whole show just to prove she could get to the final. (Surely there are more fun ways to prove yourself, like hand-to-hand tiger fighting, or ritual disembowellment).

But it matters a lot that people could watch that, watch Sir Alan say, ‘So who’s helping you out? Where are your parents? Have you got that sorted out? Will you uproot their lives?” and think that’s an acceptable way to behave in a professional situation.

The only three candidates ever to mention they had children - Ifti, Jadene and Katie - were out straight away. The attitude, personified by Tre, was that kids shouldn’t be getting in the way of business. What a great advertisement for a happy life that is. And as I write, about 110,000 people have already applied to be next year’s Apprentice - well - here's a bit of
advice- DON’T MENTION THE KIDS!!!!

Comments

[Yawn]

What a frigging lot of useless twaddle. Don't you people have anything better to do?

[GoodEnough Mum]

Following Katie's comment that she has 'done the children thing' - wow! just wait until they grow up and are teenagers - don't think she's even remotely began to 'do the children thing'. Anyone with children older than babies will tell you its more than challenging to bring up well balanced, happy and well educated children. Giving birth, employing a nanny - that's obviously all Katie is capable of. Lets ask her the same question in 15 years. Perhaps she will have found a bit of grace by then. Doubt it somehow.

[RF]

Does Alan Sugar get to choose/vet who he gets landed with in the first place?
Posted by: Jane | 15 Jun 2007 16:48:34

No he doesn't. I auditioned for the first series. You would not believe the behaviour of the researchers and the questions we were asked. They wanted scandal, they wanted to know if you'd be underhand and they were delighted if you were, and very disappointed if you were not prepared to do that. Oh, and if you were from the Caribbean and had big breasts you got pushed to the front of every queue, flirted with by the male researchers, and ended up on the show. If you were really serious about business, they weren't interested.

[yummyworkingmummy]

Let's get one thing straight - Katie’s objective in entering the Apprentice was to get publicity and she achieved that. I think Siralun probably got a good idea of what she was like (his guy Nick did) and that's exactly why he did ask her about moving/and childcare. Methinks however that Ms Hopkins might have bitten off more than she can chew though and whilst (for now) she may have made a lot of money, is her notoriety actually worth the humiliation that she has no doubt caused her children and family? I guarantee the press won't let this one go and if her defining moment is that she's appeared in the red-tops with her togs off in a field with someone else's husband, then she's a pretty pathetic person - and certainly not an Alpha Mummy.

[Jane]

Does Alan Sugar get to choose/vet who he gets landed with in the first place? Obviously, the TV people just want blood on the floor etc, so are happy to take on the nutters for the programme, but presumably he actually wants to end up with an employable person, even if for no other reason than not to make himself look stupid associating himself with a 'weirdo' programme. If he does get to vet them, I guess Katie didn't come across too unbalanced to begin with?

[Laura Roberts]

I can't believe some people are still going on about childcare persecution. Katie is not quite there mentally, let's face it. She clearly has some sort of personality disorder, with some serious issues, and as Sir Alan told her in front of everyone else "Sort yourself out". I feel sorry for her children having a mother like that, and as for her employment choices, as Sir Alan said - he doesn't think any company should employ her. Let's hope she seeks the help she so obviously needs and disappears from our screens and UK workplaces.

[jane]

"There's always the old-fashioned method of work-life balance available to the 100K-a-year earners: boarding school"

Well, I'll say that for the Apprentice woman - at least she hasn't resorted to the above disgraceful choice. Boarding school - the ultimate 'dump' for kids whose parents' precious careers are more important than them.

[L]

There's always the old-fashioned method of work-life balance available to the 100K-a-year earners: boarding school.

[jane]

Again, surely the relocation issue should be dealt with BEFORE even applying for a job, and the first question of an interview if the employer hasn't had the foresight to put it in the damn advert (and I'd be SO cross if they hadn't, and relocation was, indeed, a deal-breaker for me! Wasting my time and the employers as well - idiotic. It would indicate the employer was not a very efficient or sensible organisation to work for, if they couldn't have mentioned the relocation issue up front! ) As for Flora - yes indeed, it's just a margarine. And as disgusting to eat as all margarines are! Jane

[Andy Bartkiw]

£90k for a brand consultant for the Met office. Jeepers how cheap! That's nothing compared to what other gov spending. The revolt agaisnt brands and marketing is long overdue. Flora is margarine - get over it.

[Andy Bartkiw]

Siralun was right to ask. He just asked if re-location would be a problem. I have been asked that many a time. Sometimes I have had to decline. Not because of kids but because I don't want to. I was asked if I would have been willing to relocate to Edinburgh. Having just bought a house and liking summers that last more than a day I declined the charms and huge pay. It is a fair question. Child care or no childcare. You need to look at the whole picture and be flexible as well as really want it enough. In the end she didn't. But then she was probably sacked anyway and it was just a way of bowing out gracefully.

[jane]

I feel so sorry for her poor children. No idea how old they are, but who'd want a mother like that? Is their father (fathers, possibly, from what the woman's said about herself!) any better? What a nightmare person. As for the Met Office, I used to think it was a sensible organisation - not run by idiots who'd fork out £90,000 for, God help us, a brand consultant. Dear Gods, what a colossal and criminal waste of money!

[Kirsty]

My problem with the programme was not with suralun, who was well within his rights to ask Katie as it was clearly a question of practicalities and her commitment to the role, not a question of whether her being a mum caused problems per se. It was clear that the commitment of Kristina and Tre (the other parents in the final 5) wasn't an issue for him but that Katie's was. My biggest issue was actually with the three goons he had interviewing the candidates. They asked both Katie and Kristina about whether them having kids was compatible with a career (i.e. a more general 'philosophical' question rather than one about practicalities of taking the role), but didn't ask Tre the same questions, despite him being a father. If it wasn't just bad editing and they really didn't ask Tre the same questions about whether him having kids was incompatible with career, then that really was discriminatory.

[J]

Bushra, dont get sarky over "them there extremists". We all saw the news tonight. I refuse to believe that you, or your husband, or your ma-in-law, think that so-called "honour" killings are fine and Islamic. But clearly some people do. That's what I meant.

[Chris]

Well, that's it Sugar, I'm definitely not going to use my Amstrad Email Phone Console anymore, however cool it is, you dinosaur.

[PF]

Well, Alan Sugar may claim that it is a job interview, but it is a very specialised type of job interview and cannot be compared with a normal job interview.

With this job interview, being given the job (winning) receives much more publicity than a normal job interview and therefore throwing the job back in the face of the employer is a distinct possibility as you've already "won" and therefore gotten what you came for.

Sir Alan was quite right to delve into Katie's family circumstances to ascertain the true probability of her taking up the position. And of course, only once she realised that to win and then not take the job after promising that she in fact would, would leave her very badly off indeed with regards to future employement, only when she was caught like a rat in a trap, did she show her true game.

Well done Alan.

[Lindsay]

Did you watch the show - everyone went in knowing the commitment Alan Sugar wanted. She decided she couldnt give the commitment, she pulled out. He was willing to give it to her.

[j]

Hands up anybody who thinks "reality" shows are actually real and unplanned.

It would of course be terrible if the producers had noticed how much more publicity you get when you say something offensive.

[Laura Roberts]

Why why has not one of the other supposedly decent, non-fundamentalist, liberal, educated posters on this blog pointed out that the only person whose job was considered dependent on childcare was a woman? - Delilah, USA

Very simple. Because SHE CHOSE TO MAKE IT ABOUT IT. Get this once and for all (have people been watching the same programme as me I wonder?): if she were a man and had not sorted out his childcare arrangements/dog keeping arrangements if the job was abroad/boat mooring rights if he lived on a boat/general allergy to London life BEFORE he applied for a long interview process like this, I'd think he was as much as a useless jerk as I do Katie.

The other woman in the final had no problem sorting our her childcare BEFORE she came in. How can Katie be taken seriously in business if she can't plan ahead? It's ridiculous.

The job was not dependant on her childcare. It was dependant on her intelligence and ability, remember she hadn't won. By her own admittance that she hadn't sorted any of it out shows, along with her appalling behaviour throughout the series, that she lacked both intelligence and ability.

I'd have kicked her out weeks ago.

[supermother]

..why? Because women are the architects of their own misfortune from that very first day when they assume she not he will apply for flexible working; when they change a nappy he could change; when they "take over", "don't let him in my kitchen", talk about him "helping" rather than playing his 50% share of dross domestic jobs.

(Bushra, this is London and it's hard to generalise but the loca Christian group, the Muslims and Hindus don't always assume men and women will both work, both share house cleaning and both care for children yet. Hopefully we can ensure thay change and indeed many professional women escape some countries abroad in order to forge careers here. I certanily wasn't generalising although most women are veiled at our local state school than not on many an afternoon when I go by and it is women not men collecting from school - we have a long way to go before more men request flexible working than women and 50% of the Cabinet and boards are female)

[Mike Corbett]

It was my understanding that Sir Alan asked each of the final three if they were prepared to move should the need arise. It was Katie that raised the point about her support network. Sir Alan did not discount her on the grounds of her childcare arrangements; he merely questioned her commitment to the role, as he did with both Christina and Simon. Surely he is entitled to do so when offering an individual a 100k salary?

[Watcher]

Sir Alan knew, and Katie knew, it was his way of letting her save face and exit, after having been shown that she indeed would be chosen, if she really wanted to work for him and not just pretend.

[bushra]

sigh. supermother, the muslim and even indian culture you speak of is so set in the dark ages, i'm surprised you were let through the front door of these neighbours' houses to see all this.

i live in manningham, bradford, apparently home to riots, general inner city decline and those there muslim extremists. i moved here two years ago following an arranged marriage. the culture i see every day is one where families have realised the error of showing their sons too much favouritism, and recognising the potential of their daughters. within the extended family i live with around here, i know of many women who have continued to work after having children, with the support of their families. parents are encouraging their daughters to study, work, learn to drive, get some independence! the only disappointment i've found is some girls actually choose to mess up their studies, stay at home and watch TV all day. they kill time, waiting for the day they get married off to yes, stay at home, have babies and watch tv all day.

i'm sure there are still muslim families who suppress their daughters, but please don't expect that this applies to everyone. obviously all those documentaries about bradford need an update...

as for the actual debate here, i think siralun was wrong to interrogate katie about childcare, he hadn't even hired her yet (or had he?)! knowing she was in the final three would have given katie a chance for some serious thought about her childcare options if she *was* hired. the fact that people considered her a bit of a bitch is irrelevant; no one deserves lesser rights on that basis.

[Mike]

I'm no apologists for Alan Sugar but lets get some of the facts right. He may be a millionaire but does not have a large organization like for example Panasonic in S. Wales which has a very large manufacturing unit which can and may for my knowlege have a creche. Having worked for a company supplying semi-conductors for his electronics division I visited his modest office block in Braintree many times and its small and not the sort of place that could accommodate a creche easily. His organisation if you want to describe it, is based on off shore manufacturing and in house design. Secondly when hiring someone its not unreasonable to ensure they are suitable, based on their family commitments. Having kids 200 miles down the road doesn't sound very sensible to me and will certainly cause problems. Womans rights in the work place are all very well but not at the expense of the company or preferential treatment thats against co-workers of both sex's.

[Delilah, USA]

I am at one with Supermummy on this. Why why has not one of the other supposedly decent, non-fundamentalist, liberal, educated posters on this blog pointed out that the only person whose job was considered dependent on childcare was a woman? The real scandal is that there were no male contestants in a similar position.