"The nonsense of women pretending they can do men's jobs" - Excuse me John, but I believe you've just shown your misogynistic tendencies. It is just this sort of prejudice that the equal opportunity legislation was put in place to protect against. If someone lives 400 miles away from a potential job, you can easily ask if they can relocate (ie "Will you have any problem moving to XX?") without any reference to spouses, children, nannies, etc. The fact that you are unable to come up with a gender neutral question only indicates that you are in fact prejudiced. And where did you get this hogwash about more violent tendencies in children because they supposedly receive no love from their mothers?

Glidwrith, San Diego,

I know the people who complain that "we shouldn't ask women these sorts of questions" mean well, but they are missing the point. If common-sense, honest questions get a hysterical reaction from misguided people, then it will greatly hinder the cause for women (or any other group). If employers become afraid to ask pertinent questions, they may err on the side of caution and assume the worst about female candidates. Just as bad, when a woman is genuinely the most qualified for a position, she may be hindered by perceptions that she "only got the job because she's female".
Replacing one sort of blinkered discrimination with another will ultimately delay the day when people are treated equally, and positions are awarded on merit. Let's not make that mistake.

F McNeill, Southampton, UK

I am a man who has stayed at home to look after my children, My son is 12 , and 11 years ago I applied for a full time job. During the course of the interview the fact that my wife was the main bread winner came up. It became clear that the hours required were incompatible with my childcare arrangements. I had to withdraw. It is hard but companies need to know that staff are always available for the work on offer. That is not discrimination.

Marc, Rickmansworth,

Thank you Kata for that comment about differences. One day people will realise that genuine equal opportunities is not about sameness and fitting everyone into the same shapeless suit. It is actually about the acknowledgement, recognition and acceptance of difference. We cannot give genuine equity if we are going to ignore individual needs. There would be no equality coming from that approach because that person's particular requirement, which would enable them to be equal with his/her peers, would not have been addressed.

The equal opportunities law might be preventing 'sexist' questions from being asked of women, but the absence of such questions relating to their differing circumstances, and which validate them as women, actually discriminates against them too. The law will never provide real equality for women until it stops treating them like men and ignoring the differences in their needs! There is nothing equal about sameness if the real basis for equal treatment is ignored.

Elaine Sihera, Maidenhead, United Kingdom

Do we dare forget that it was precisely because men behaved so badly and discriminated against perfectly capable females that this silly bureaucracy was introduced?
There, surely, would be no need for it if interviewers just gave capable and qualified women a chance and let them take care of their personal lives.
I can't believe people are still sexist in this day and age. I would have thought you would have evolved by now.

Charlie, London,

The government buricracy with regard to employment want humans to treat humans as parts of a machine. Not only is this impracticle and unhealthy it's actually degrading to women. It's saying to women, you can't win a job for yourself so we have to help you. Once you find the right person for the job, in todays cut throat world, you'd be a fool to chose on sexual preference. Your company wouldn't last five minutes, with the rejected but better woman getting a job at your competitors and your company suffering as a whole. Kudos to Mr Sugar for having the guts to go with his intelect rather than a government stature.

Ross, Southampton, UK

Is it only me that is cynical and suspicious or has anyone else considered that Katie's 'sudden' realisation that she had not considered the implications of relocating may actually have been a strategic move on her part in order to avoid losing!?? The way things happened, Kristina nor the other guy (forgotten his name already!) will ever know who the true winner actually was. Katie can now say that she was a finalist (having been chosen to be in the final two) but that SHE took control of the situation in the end by bowing out! She knew she was very high profile in this series due to her caustic personality and will also have realised much of the nation would have wanted her to fail. So how best to avoid this, and yet still be considered a strong contender and with professional status still intact (albeit now in tatters according to latest news reports) than by offering her resignation before she was even offered the job!??

Tracey, Silsden, W Yks

Sir Alan was spot on with this one. It's a shame that corporate companies in the UK can't take such approach when recruiting the cream because they are scared to death of tribunals and bad press. Aside that this is a performance for the cameras, in the real world this is a real problem. Why not grill female candidates, and rip them to pieces in interviews to find the 1 in 1000 that are capable for these top jobs - if you want to work at the top, earn the dollar and reap the rewards - I'm afraid maternity leave, sick kids and long holidays just won't cut it. I could go on all day but I need to attend a senior meeting - with all my male colleagues !

Jon , Manchester, UK

Well said Hannah. Glad to see you've seen the light!

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

In 1971 I applied for a new job within the company for which I had worked 3 years. The job involved the odd trip to France. My work record was excellent, my attendance exceptional and I was more qualified than my male colleagues. I didn't even make it to interview. My manager laughingly said that no company in it's right mind would send a woman abroad and that, as the mother of a young child, my priorty should be my home. I was also refused credit to buy a new 'fridge because I needed a male 'guarantor' . My only male guarantor had no job and lived on state benefits, 'No matter,' said the salesman, 'he's a man and that's what counts.' I retired 5 years ago with a good pension from a top management position in which I travelled the world (alone), with two degrees (gained as a mature student) , my own home and three well-adjusted (and non-violent) children and I can attest to the fact that equal opportunities legislation freed many thousands of women like me from 2nd class citizenship

Jean, St.Ives, United Kingdon

As a recruitment consultant/headhunter I have often found, in discussing a role with a male candidate that will require their family to be relocated, their initial answer is yes to being put forward for it. As the hiring process procedes it is eventually the wife who puts the stops on the offer being accepted as she refuses to relocate herself and the family. As is her perogative for whatever reasons the couple, family unit have and unfortunately for the fact that the man has not (probably) discussed it with her until the 11th hour.
However harsh Sir Alan Sugar sounded, this article is absolutely correct in its opinion that he was being fair not only to his company but also to Katie Hopkins. Hiring 'the wrong' person is exceptionally costly and time consuming. There's barely much honesty in the world today and it is a shame that what little is left, cannot be elicited at interview.
And John from Dundee, I'm not sure if you're aware of the date, but it's 2007.

Tessa, Bristol, UK

I'm a house-husband and proud of it. I give my children as much love as any woman could and everybody comments on how well-behaved and well-mannered they are.

I recently went for a job interview and took it upon myself to explain how child care would be arranged as I would expect any employer to be concerned not just about the company but the welfare of the employee. I cannot see what all the fuss is about SAS asking this question. It is only a sexist issue if women cannot accept that men could be looking after children as well.

eckythump, Salisbury,

I think Alan Sugar's line of questioning was less to do with childcare and more to challenge Katie's commitment to the job in general; a get out clause for Katie finding herself about to win a job that seemed like a demotion from the job she held. To me Katie's concern for her domestic life was at such odds from what we saw during the course of the programme that this sudden change has to be interpreted as a polite and mutual parting of the waves without deeper issues being discussed

Alison, York, North Yorkshire

I find this topic a bit of a bore frankly. I am a working mother simply because I can't afford to stay at home - like most mothers in the workplace, I suspect! And, like an increasing number of women, I earn more money than my husband so I'm technically "the breadwinner". I would feel very uncomfortable indeed about discussing my childcare arrangements in an interview - that's just not part of my CV and it should be taken as a "given" that I have adequate provision in place. If I didn't get a job for which I had the right qualifications and exerience after being asked these sorts of questions, I'd be extremely suspicious of the reasons why I didn't get it. I think interviewers should keep well out of this quagmire - Linklater is suggesting walking a tightrope that most interviewers simply won't be able to manage. As a person responsible for keeping a roof over my family's (including my husband's!) head, I think I deserve the protection the law currently affords.

MC, London,

Have to laugh "Top Job"?? how many of these "apprentices" are still working at this so called top job?

Sugar doesn't make anything, create anything and is just puffing up his monumental ego.

It's a TV show to entertain the masses - it has nothing to do with reality.

eric worsthorne, London, UK

Did I watch the same show? Yes children came into it as Katie undeniably had two. But Sir Alan was concerned about the relocation of all the candidates - he asked Kristina if she could move from Harrogate and Simon about the commute from wherever he lived. Relocation was an issue for all the candidates, but the specific concerns entailed in relocation inevitably varied depending on each particular circumstance. Anybody who has ever though of moving because of their job cannot deny that they have had to take their children into consideration. In the same vein, a single person may find the idea of moving miles away from friends and family and daunting prospect. After all, we work to live and our lives will therefor affect our decisions of how we work.

HB, London,

John, Dundee - "Children becoming more violent because they get no love from their mothers "

Yes, clearly allowing women to work has destroyed the fabric of society.

On behalf of my gender, I apologise for our selfish attitude and recklessness - well, I would, but I'm too busy retreating to the kitchen.

Hannah, Leamington,

I wish everybody would stop making such a fuss about so called equal opportunity/sex discrimination etc. One can make all the laws in the word if it doesn't make sense or not taken up, then what's the use? It's high time we learn to appreciate differences. As a woman I felt Sir Alan was fair and clearly had Katie's well being at heart. I agree, he doesn't sugar coat things, but as an employee would I want a boss or a nanny?

Kata, Budapest, Hungary

Surely in the case of Katie Hopkins the problem is, on her side, a lack of foresight? Taking part in the longest job interview in history, she only gave consideration to the move her family would have to make from the South West right at the last instant. Any candidate, male or female, would appear unprepared to think of this so late on.

Jason, London, UK

First of all, the question of whether the mother stays at home or not is not the point of the article. As we are discussing interviewing, the woman has made that choice already.

As a woman, I find questioning regarding the ability to relocate completely fair. If I chose to commute unreasonable distance and cannot work longer hours if neccessary or underperform due to missing the family, that is all relevant to the employer and employee.

Claiming that all society evils are due to working mothers is just ridiculous. My mother is a doctor working 70 hours a week, she did that throughout her career. My father works similar hours, often away from home. Me and my brother are successful and well adjusted people, in fact, I think it made us more responsible and mature.

Overall, it shows work and kids can be successfully managed and balanced, and I do not see why women should not be upfront about these arrangments as it surely shows of wide ranging skills.

Ivana, London,

If a man says he leaves the business of most of his life to the wife then he is a failure - John from Dundee should recognise it was the absence of fathers from the homestead, precipitated by the Industrial Revolution and the separation of home and work, that started the rot; money/power was taken from the home, and both sexes followed - women held up families alone after that because biology and male-written law forced them - both sides are needed. (Rejigging the whole system to reintegrate home/office would fix it; kids should spend time with both parents like they used to, and each should work).

If a man is too weak to be a father then he doesn't know how to face responsibility. If he didn't marry an equal who will hold up her end of earning and parenting, and hold him to his, he is not capable of delegating or teamwork. If he can't parent, he'll be a lousy manager. The only job such a useless man is good for is at the bottom of the food chain, packing bags at the supermarket.

E S, London,

The most annoying thing about this legislation is that because employers can't ask, they assume worst case. Because I'm of "childbearing age", I've been turned down for jobs I was perfectly well suited for because of their concerns over my possible family plans. Despite me not having any because I'm infertile.

Employers can't ask which of the female candidates have life plans which fit with their requirements, so they'll ALWAYS pick the safe option -- which is the male candidate.

It's a rare employer who doesn't want to hire the person who'll make them the most money. There are some who'd rather hire the whites or the blokes even if there's someone else who'd do the job better, But they're not forced to hire the "minority" candidate anyway. There'll have another reason not to hire them.

All it does is mean that a well meaning employer can't minimise their risks by asking questions about life plans. And so they'll minimise their risks other ways.

Katie, Cambridge,

I have to agree. I'm a working single mother to two kids under 5 and my children are my priority but my work is also very important to me as I am highly driven and ambitious.

As such I plan my childcare meticulously and ensure that my children are well cared for and that the time they get with their mum is quality time that we all enjoy. The idea that someone would go for such a high flying job and endure a 13 week interview without ensuring that childcare is in place is ludicrous. Katie Hopkins knew what she was doing and never intended to take the job. If she had, she would have plans in place and ready to go.

Thanks Katie for bringing all professional working mothers into disrepute, we can look forward to awkward interviews from now on as employees gagged by the equal opportunities legislation try to work out if we will use our children as a get out clause at some point down the line.

Sarah, Milton Keynes,

The fact that the candidate had not thought to discuss childcare requirements with her parents who are the secondary carers suggests that despite reaching the last five she had not considered what she would do if she got the job. This may imply that she had no intention of taking it up - which would have been her prerogitive in real life but unfair on the other contestants in what is really a gameshow. The line of questioning was not really about her gender but rather about her commitment to the potential job. (On £100 000 a year she could have hired a nanny) . I don't think this can realy act as any sort of analogy for modern equal opportunities legislation.

James, Taunton, UK

I think to answer "I leave that sort of thing to the wife" shows he may actually be better set up for the next big advertising idea actually. The nonsense of women pretending they can do men's jobs whilst demanding protection that men don't is coming to an end in the whole of the West and only a fool wouldn't be able to see it. Children becoming more violent because they get no love from their mothers for long hours they are in child-care is only the tip of the iceberg and it is what men and women increasingly feel below the waterline that will sink the good ship "Indomitable Working Woman". The industry I work in, engineering, wants 50% of their people to be female within a few short years, the only trouble is that only 5% of engineering graduates are women and 80% of them leave engineering by the time they are 30 never to return. Maybe in journalism as in medicine you can bury your mistakes but in engineering we have to live with ours.

John, Dundee, UK

Many years ago I was interviewing a lady who had appplied for a job in a well known boarding school. The candidates pack had included a copy of the school prospectus which did give details of the school day and school week. She had no previous experience of such schools, which was in no way to her disadvantage. But when it emerged in the course of the interview that the basic working day was 8am to 6pm, and that we taught on Saturday morning, and that we had weekend activities of many kinds, we came to the conclusion that the job, attractive as it was, simply did not make sense in her circumstances as a young mother. This was not about duscrimination or the unwillingness of the school to be flexible. The pupils were largely boarders and they 'needed' that pattern of adult involvement.

The lady involved was grateful that she had not committed herself to something disastrous. We avoided what could have been very difficult for her and her potential colleagues.

enthusiast, Pembrokeshire,

Oh dear Bob Finbow, you do realise it's the 21st century, don't you?

Suggesting that a man who says he "leaves such things to the wife" is showing a good understanding of delegation" - delegating is what you do to your juniors, so in your book "the wife" - significant phrasing in itself though of course not yours - is a junior accepting orders from her boss.
I have yet to see a woman "forcing her way in" to any top job. If they could, why are there so few of them up there?
And as far as I can see, those who assert quite correctly that women are just as good as men in any given job are not just women or equal ops activists, any decent business person says so.
I am glad I don't work in any organisation you have charge of, but I suspect you are retired.

alexandria, Leeds, UK

The equal rights commission is a joke. As a non-EU national, my employer must apply for a Work Permit for me to undertake full time employment with the company. The problem is that for an employer to successfully obtain a Work Permit for me (or any other non-EU individual), they must show that no other UK or EU national could fill that position.

Isnt this discrimination based on nationality?

Consequently, following my graduation from a UK university (where I paid £12,000 a year), I applied to and was offered a job with a certain Japanese automotive company here. I applied to the job on a special visa that allowed me to work in the UK without a Work Permit for a year following graduation. To my utter disgust, when the company discovered that I would require a Work Permit in a years time, they withdrew their offer of employment, stating that it has been and will be almost impossible to obtain Work Permits for graduate level vacancies due to the Home Office regulations!

Chee, Coventry,

Who would expect anyone, male or female, to put their job before their children? People relocate all the time for their jobs, bringing their children with them. This does not mean that the children are not a priority. Many women manage top jobs because they can afford top childcare. This does not mean they do not care about their children. Indeed, increasing numbers of men are taking on domestic responsibility. I would have thought that if Alan Sugar thought she was the best candidate, he would have done everything in his power to help her to relocate and ease the transition for her kids rather than withdraw the offer. He should have been thinking outside the box not remaining a slave to his anachronisitic view of the world. This article showed an inherent and ingrained attitude that women should not manage to work and have a family. Attitudes have not changed, I see that more and more. It is a waste of talent.

sarah , york,

A simple quango cull, Arts council, Fawcett society and the numerous tax payer funded dictatorial fiefdoms whose titles
have the word Concern as a suffix, might be no bad thing.

Mark Lyndon, London, UK

I seem to recall he asked Simon whether he was willing to re-locate too... Even to Hong Kong and he replied yes. OK he has no children but if you serious about the job you prepare for all eventualities. All the contestants were made fully aware that if they win they would be working in Brentwood. Hopkins got trapped playing her own fame game.

Rajesh, Chadwell-St-Mary, England

Surely the point is that you can't treat female candidates any differently from male candidates - either it's legit to ask BOTH genders what they're going to do about any family implications of the job, or it's legit to ask NEITHER. Secondly, surely an employer can 'take it as read' that anyone applying for a job that requires relocation has ALREADY planned what they will do about family implications! Why apply for the job otherwise for heaven's sake! The whole issue is a NON-issue in that case.

jane , London, UK

I think Sir Alan dealt with the situation with Katie admirably and sensitively.

Penny, St Helier,

I used to work for a self made millionairre and he took it upon himself to impart random pieces of business advise to me.
One of them was 'never employ women of childbearing age'
he hasnt, and it has served him well
I wonder how many others like him there are out there?

Mark Thompson, Cambridge,

Of course the question was relevant and appropriate. If someone promises you one-hundred percent commitment, you'd be stupid not to ask how they would manage with their children living at the other end of the country. One would ask the same question of a man. It is time that we retrenched a little on some of the mad positions of the eighties and nineties where equal opportunities legislation and multiculturalism applied to the letter, simply defied common sense. Of course woman and men should have equal opportunity in life, but why should that be equated with not asking a candidate a pertinent question? Who would deny new Britons the right to treasure their heritage, but why exactly is it wrong to ask them to be British too?

Tony Volpe, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

I think it's fair to ask such questions to women... and men. If a relocation is required, then the needs of the other partner and/or children should be known about by the employer to make sure the prospective employee has thought about this.

As far as childcare is concerned, this is not only an issue for mothers, but for fathers too. If the interviewer only asks female candidates, then yes, he should be hauled in front of a tribunal. Childcare is an issue of 50-50% importance to the mother and father.

Richard, Zaventem, Belgium

It is imperative that an employer ask any and all relevant questions during the interview stage to determine if a candidate is suitable for the position on offer not just from their professional and vocational qualifications and experience but also that their commitment, attitude and manner fits in with the company culture and management style. That said, Sir Alan Sugar is something of a dinosaur from the early 1980's and his forthright, bordering on aggressive and rude, negative and bullying style is not one that a majority of intelligent people would seriously accept. Basically the weak link is Sugar in that his management style has not evolved and that might explain why his company is nowhere near as successful as he was in the early 1980's. It is time he learned to communicate and motivate people rather than humiliate them and begin to understand that people want a better life/work balance. The company is the be all and end all but only for the owner.

Kenneth Armitage, Suffolk, England

This gets to the very centre of what is wrong with the very principle of the equal opportunities commission. Why is it that those who are providing employment are not allowed to decide who is best fitted for the job? It is this ‘equal opportunites’ foolishness that has made women believe that their ‘right’ to a top job is so certain that they do not have to even consider how they will manage to be effective in it. The law is such that they can force their way in and then demand that the company changes its operation (often expensively) too suit them. Those who constantly reiterate that women are as good or better than men in any given job are (surprise, surprise) women and equal opportunites activists.
Finally, why does “Well, I leave that kind of thing to the wife,” suggest a man is unsuitable for the job? I seems to me he is demonstating a good understanding of delegation and division of labour – surely important attributes of a senior manager.

Bob Finbow, Haverhill, England

Absolutely. As an employer I have every right to ask about family plans and the child-care situation. Why should other team members have to take up the slack all the time? The fact that nanny state says one is not supposed to ask such questions merely underlines the stupidity of the legislation and those who drafted it.

Ivor Duarte, shepperton, uk/middx

In a recent interview I brought up the subject of my son's ill health, and child care arrangements. The interviewers did not question me on this subject further, but they didn't have to, they were left in no doubt as to the situation. They offered me the job.

Kate, Shrewsbury, UK