Life imitating art

There is a bit of me that has no desire to go on and on about The Apprentice - there is enough coverage elsewhere. But this makes interesting reading; surprisingly, Katie Hopkins believes that she has been made a scapegoat in the wake of her dismissal from her job at the Met Office.

Firstly, some people never feel it is their fault; secondly, she accuses the Met Office of not realising that her appearing on a reality show would bring publicity, both good and bad (hello, Mr Pot, have you met Miss Kettle?); thirdly, The Sun reported yesterday that part of the adverse publicity that may have prompted her employer's decision was to do with her lurid revelations over her private life, including the publication of photographs of her in flagrante in a field somewhere.

I have to ask, if that is not misconduct, then what is? How can she argue that her actions on the show, and in the tabloids afterwards, have not created a bad impression that may reflect on her employers?

That is quite apart from the moral issue of her thinking that it is OK to sleep with other people's husbands, which Simon commented on in this article.

Finally, remember that she has not been "fired" from her job at the Met Office - she has failed to pass her probationary period. Frankly, I think that she was lucky to be allowed to participate in The Apprentice when she had only been in post for a number of weeks, and if I was her boss, I would not be keen to keep her on after what she got up to on the show, and her revelations about her stance on life's issues.