On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:57:56 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:26 +0100, Ian Dalziel
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:16:51 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:35:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>bOn Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:30:24 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:07:15 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:08:28 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:00:44 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:25:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:18:08 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:11:57 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:23:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:12:21 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it's not.  It's a job paying a wage/salary not a pecuniary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>advantage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage isn't pecuniary?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage is a "pecuniary advantage"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Any where they pay you rather than you paying them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary" means?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary advantage" in the legal sense means?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What do you think it means?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It has nothing to do with working for a living.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you are not entitled to be doing that job, then yes it has.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it hasn't.  And who's to decide whether you're "entitled" to be
>>>>>doing a particular job?
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Pecuniary advantage" means remuneration, nothing else. 
>>>>>
>>>>>Remuneration for what?
>>>>>
>>>>>>The offence of
>>>>>>obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception involves - or involved -
>>>>>>remuneration to which the recipient is not entitled. Lying to get a
>>>>>>job fits that definition perfectly - it doesn't matter how hard or how
>>>>>>well you work if you are not entitled to be in the job in the first
>>>>>>place.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bollocks.  Total bollocks.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Now, do enlighten us about your, no doubt superior, understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>>First tell us why the winner of this year's "Apprentice" hasn't been
>>>>>charged with the offence when the evidence (and admission of guilt)
>>>>>have been BROADCAST ON TV?
>>>>
>>>>In short, you haven't a fucking clue what it means, have you?
>>>
>>>You've already show everyone that you know jack shit about what it
>>>means.
>>>
>>>>Oh, and the appointment "BROADCAST ON TV" was made in full knowledge
>>>>of the false statement. Completely irrelevant no matter how loud you
>>>>shout.
>>>
>>>Ah, so it's up to the employer's discretion as to which false
>>>statements are acceptable and which are not.   Even though the
>>>'deception' results in 'gaining a pecuniary advantage' in every case.
>>>Thanks for confirming that.
>>>
>>
>>It didn't *result* in gaining a pecuniary advantage since the
>>selection was not based on it.
>
>The selection was based on the overall performance of the candidate
>over 12 weeks - and his CV.  
>

Not on the result of the final at all, then?

-- 

Ian D

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:46:50 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:57:56 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:26 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:16:51 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:35:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>bOn Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:30:24 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:07:15 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:08:28 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:00:44 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:25:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:18:08 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:11:57 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:23:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:12:21 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it's not.  It's a job paying a wage/salary not a pecuniary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>advantage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage isn't pecuniary?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage is a "pecuniary advantage"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Any where they pay you rather than you paying them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary" means?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary advantage" in the legal sense means?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What do you think it means?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It has nothing to do with working for a living.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you are not entitled to be doing that job, then yes it has.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it hasn't.  And who's to decide whether you're "entitled" to be
>>>>>>doing a particular job?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Pecuniary advantage" means remuneration, nothing else. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Remuneration for what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The offence of
>>>>>>>obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception involves - or involved -
>>>>>>>remuneration to which the recipient is not entitled. Lying to get a
>>>>>>>job fits that definition perfectly - it doesn't matter how hard or how
>>>>>>>well you work if you are not entitled to be in the job in the first
>>>>>>>place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bollocks.  Total bollocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Now, do enlighten us about your, no doubt superior, understanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First tell us why the winner of this year's "Apprentice" hasn't been
>>>>>>charged with the offence when the evidence (and admission of guilt)
>>>>>>have been BROADCAST ON TV?
>>>>>
>>>>>In short, you haven't a fucking clue what it means, have you?
>>>>
>>>>You've already show everyone that you know jack shit about what it
>>>>means.
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and the appointment "BROADCAST ON TV" was made in full knowledge
>>>>>of the false statement. Completely irrelevant no matter how loud you
>>>>>shout.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, so it's up to the employer's discretion as to which false
>>>>statements are acceptable and which are not.   Even though the
>>>>'deception' results in 'gaining a pecuniary advantage' in every case.
>>>>Thanks for confirming that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It didn't *result* in gaining a pecuniary advantage since the
>>>selection was not based on it.
>>
>>The selection was based on the overall performance of the candidate
>>over 12 weeks - and his CV.  
>>
>
>Not on the result of the final at all, then?

No, everything else is taken into consideration during the final.
The final is not decided on the best performance on a task, unlike
earlier episodes.  That's why nobody knows who the winner is going to
be until Sugar makes his pronouncement.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:59:53 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:46:50 +0100, Ian Dalziel
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:57:56 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:26 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:16:51 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:35:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>bOn Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:30:24 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:07:15 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:08:28 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:00:44 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:25:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:18:08 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:11:57 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:23:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:12:21 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it's not.  It's a job paying a wage/salary not a pecuniary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>advantage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage isn't pecuniary?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage is a "pecuniary advantage"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Any where they pay you rather than you paying them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary" means?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary advantage" in the legal sense means?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes. 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What do you think it means?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It has nothing to do with working for a living.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you are not entitled to be doing that job, then yes it has.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it hasn't.  And who's to decide whether you're "entitled" to be
>>>>>>>doing a particular job?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Pecuniary advantage" means remuneration, nothing else. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Remuneration for what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The offence of
>>>>>>>>obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception involves - or involved -
>>>>>>>>remuneration to which the recipient is not entitled. Lying to get a
>>>>>>>>job fits that definition perfectly - it doesn't matter how hard or how
>>>>>>>>well you work if you are not entitled to be in the job in the first
>>>>>>>>place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bollocks.  Total bollocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now, do enlighten us about your, no doubt superior, understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First tell us why the winner of this year's "Apprentice" hasn't been
>>>>>>>charged with the offence when the evidence (and admission of guilt)
>>>>>>>have been BROADCAST ON TV?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In short, you haven't a fucking clue what it means, have you?
>>>>>
>>>>>You've already show everyone that you know jack shit about what it
>>>>>means.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, and the appointment "BROADCAST ON TV" was made in full knowledge
>>>>>>of the false statement. Completely irrelevant no matter how loud you
>>>>>>shout.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, so it's up to the employer's discretion as to which false
>>>>>statements are acceptable and which are not.   Even though the
>>>>>'deception' results in 'gaining a pecuniary advantage' in every case.
>>>>>Thanks for confirming that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It didn't *result* in gaining a pecuniary advantage since the
>>>>selection was not based on it.
>>>
>>>The selection was based on the overall performance of the candidate
>>>over 12 weeks - and his CV.  
>>>
>>
>>Not on the result of the final at all, then?
>
>No, everything else is taken into consideration during the final.
>The final is not decided on the best performance on a task, unlike
>earlier episodes.  That's why nobody knows who the winner is going to
>be until Sugar makes his pronouncement.

And where did the deception come in, at that stage?

-- 

Ian D

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:42:17 +0100, Ian Dalziel
 wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:59:53 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:46:50 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:57:56 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:46:26 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:16:51 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:35:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>bOn Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:30:24 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:07:15 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:08:28 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:00:44 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:25:32 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:18:08 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:11:57 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:23:11 +0100, Ian Dalziel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:12:21 GMT, graz@gmail.com (Graz) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it's not.  It's a job paying a wage/salary not a pecuniary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>advantage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage isn't pecuniary?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What kind of wage is a "pecuniary advantage"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Any where they pay you rather than you paying them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary" means?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you know what "pecuniary advantage" in the legal sense means?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes. 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What do you think it means?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It has nothing to do with working for a living.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you are not entitled to be doing that job, then yes it has.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it hasn't.  And who's to decide whether you're "entitled" to be
>>>>>>>>doing a particular job?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Pecuniary advantage" means remuneration, nothing else. 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Remuneration for what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The offence of
>>>>>>>>>obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception involves - or involved -
>>>>>>>>>remuneration to which the recipient is not entitled. Lying to get a
>>>>>>>>>job fits that definition perfectly - it doesn't matter how hard or how
>>>>>>>>>well you work if you are not entitled to be in the job in the first
>>>>>>>>>place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bollocks.  Total bollocks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Now, do enlighten us about your, no doubt superior, understanding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>First tell us why the winner of this year's "Apprentice" hasn't been
>>>>>>>>charged with the offence when the evidence (and admission of guilt)
>>>>>>>>have been BROADCAST ON TV?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In short, you haven't a fucking clue what it means, have you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You've already show everyone that you know jack shit about what it
>>>>>>means.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, and the appointment "BROADCAST ON TV" was made in full knowledge
>>>>>>>of the false statement. Completely irrelevant no matter how loud you
>>>>>>>shout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, so it's up to the employer's discretion as to which false
>>>>>>statements are acceptable and which are not.   Even though the
>>>>>>'deception' results in 'gaining a pecuniary advantage' in every case.
>>>>>>Thanks for confirming that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It didn't *result* in gaining a pecuniary advantage since the
>>>>>selection was not based on it.
>>>>
>>>>The selection was based on the overall performance of the candidate
>>>>over 12 weeks - and his CV.  
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not on the result of the final at all, then?
>>
>>No, everything else is taken into consideration during the final.
>>The final is not decided on the best performance on a task, unlike
>>earlier episodes.  That's why nobody knows who the winner is going to
>>be until Sugar makes his pronouncement.
>
>And where did the deception come in, at that stage?
 
The winning candidate lied about his academic qualifications on his
CV.   He was selected for the final 16 from thousands of applicants,
based (among other things) on his CV.  Therefore the fact that he was
even in the final was based on an initial deception.  You could say,
therefore, that his mere appearance in the series was based on
deception.