The Apprentice and The Importance of Background Checking

The Apprentice is well underway with two episodes having come and gone, and Alan Sugar (now Lord Sugar rather than Suralan) has the uneviable task of trying to control the latest batch of self-proclaimed business geniuses.

Even before the sixteen erstwhile candidates hit our TV screens, reports of skullduggery and scandal had hit the press. It has been revealed that five of the competitors for the apprenticeship to Britain's most belligerant boss have been hiding a dark past. First up is Christopher Farrell, ex-marine turned mortgage broker turned... criminal. Not only has he been sacked for fraud, he has also been convicted of possessing offensive weapons - and is now hiding out in Spain. According to the makers of the show, Talkback Thames, a CRB check was done on Christopher, but before he attended court last year. Next up is the charming Joanna Riley, who was convicted of racially abusing 3 taxi drivers after a drunken night out. Mouthy Melissa Cohen has also fallen on the wrong side of the law, namely for a credit card fraud carried out when she was 19. Shibby Robati, surgeon, has in the past been issued with a formal warning for unprofessional conduct, which doesn't bode well for any would-be patients. Finaly, it was revealed after last Wednesday's show that Stella English, the successful project manager for the boy's team, has a past as a "gangster's moll", according to The Mirror.

Back in 2008, there was outrage when Lee McQueen, the eventual winner, was discovered to have lied on his CV about his educational achievements, and was only caught out in the final episodes during the gruelling interview round. Some people felt he should have been ejected at that point, but Sugar decided to hire rather than fire. So how did it go from educational overstatement on a CV to full-on criminal past - without being discovered during the background checks? If Talkback Thames didn't manage to pick up any of these people's pasts before the dirt was dished to the press, then what hope is there for the rest of us? It brings up the whole issue of screening, and who we should look to to provide background information on candidates. In any recruitment process, background checks are very important, to find out more about the candidate's personal and professional life. Even more crucial are criminal checks for those working or potentially working with children or vulnerable adults. There are companies who charge for the service of carrying out checks, and getting references etc, but how can the rest of us ensure that we dig deep into the pasts of our candidates to make sure no nasty surprises come to light further down the line? We can only ask as many questions as we can during the telephone screening, and then the face to face interviews, and try to wheedle out anything that might set alarm bells ringing. But how can we ensure that skeletons don't start throwing themselves out of cupboards after the interview process? And can we?

I tell you what, if all this is happening at this stage, I am very excited about what we could find out by the end! It could be anything... Roll on Episode 3, and roll on all the juicily gossip-filled articles of The Mirror, The Mail et al.