but hang on, the application form asked for "what is your biggest lie", were they supposed to lie and say "i never lie"
firing someone for telling a lie, when you have asked them to describe a lie is very strange.
sugar just looked like an idiot out of all of this, and totally irrational in his decisions and thought process. his "angry" firing was just stupid, any number of reasons to send him home, rather than over the wording of the word licence.
But "The Apprentice" is entertainment.;) If he just wanted to employ someone he doesn't need to televise it. Its useful to always remember that and its pretty obvious now that last week was all stage-setting based on the fact LS had already decided Liz wasn't going to be the one for him. Personally I thought the "angry" firing was highly entertaining !
The whole licence thing had been blown out of all proportion as an excuse for ridding themselves of Stuart who by and large worked hard during the time he was there.
Just because he is 21 dos'nt give them the right to fire him that way.
Other candidates have probably lied about far worse things.
So publicly, in front of all the others. And even they were shocked.
I agree with the above posters. I felt it was nasty and unnecessarily cruel. That's no way to treat a 21 year old who -as one of the posters quoted above said - just needed a bit of a reality check.
On BBC Radio Berkshire this morning, Stuart said Bordon was trying to get him to claim he was licenced as a mobile phone company, and said--- I've never said that and at no time have I ever claimed that.
Presumably, they didn't find anything else on his CV to pick up on, so made the most of what they did find after Stuart had added the word fully to which LS responds later to by telling Stuart he can't believe a word he says any more.
For the benefit of radio listeners, Stuart also pointed out he had PR people stood next to him while he was answering questions.
On BBC Radio Berkshire this morning, Stuart said Bordon was trying to get him to claim he was licenced as a mobile phone company, and said--- I've never said that and at no time have I ever claimed that.
Presumably, they didn't find anything else on his CV to pick up on, so made the most of what they did find after Stuart had added the word fully to which LS responds later to by telling Stuart he can't believe a word he says any more.
For the benefit of radio listeners, Stuart also pointed out he had PR people stood next to him while he was answering questions.
Interesting. If thats what the fuss was about then I doubt there is such a thing as a "fully licenced" telco using Bordens definition. BT for example aren't licenced for mobile, Voda, O2, Orange etc aren't licenced for landline infrastructure and Virgin aren't licenced for mobile (since they resell bandwith from T mobile)
I don't think it's impossible to conceive that LS was constantly being told by the producers to keep Stuart in for "good TV" reasons, even though he was a total BS-er, so when the time came for Stuart to actually go, LS took his frustrations out on him with extreme prejudice.
I loathed Stuart from the start, and have worked with too many mouthy, overconfident, underperforming (and sometimes lucky) idiots like him to not have smiled when he got the full blast from LS, but in all honesty, from what they showed, he didn't deserve it, though he definitely should have gone months ago... maybe there was more we didn't see last night?
... maybe there was more we didn't see last night?
A few people have said this in, I guess, a tacit admission that they didn't actually dig as much dirt on Stuart last night as LS et al claim to have done, but why on earth would they have 'good stuff' that they didn't show. I think we can be fairly safe in saying that they showed the worst they could come up with last night, and it wasn't that bad....
I know the show is about entertainment, but it would be good if you could take at least some business lessons from it. A bunch of old guys acting like ***** in interviews certainly doesn't serve that part of it...
A few people have said this in, I guess, a tacit admission that they didn't actually dig as much dirt on Stuart last night as LS et al claim to have done, but why on earth would they have 'good stuff' that they didn't show.
There are often arcane, legal, reasons.
I know the show is about entertainment, but it would be good if you could take at least some business lessons from it. A bunch of old guys acting like ***** in interviews certainly doesn't serve that part of it...
The entire series could be designed in such a way that it would be vastly better business programme but, sadly, that doesn't make good TV (at least for the size of audience they get for TA).
A few people have said this in, I guess, a tacit admission that they didn't actually dig as much dirt on Stuart last night as LS et al claim to have done, but why on earth would they have 'good stuff' that they didn't show. I think we can be fairly safe in saying that they showed the worst they could come up with last night, and it wasn't that bad....
I know the show is about entertainment, but it would be good if you could take at least some business lessons from it. A bunch of old guys acting like ***** in interviews certainly doesn't serve that part of it...
BIB probably because it was defamatory (sp?) / libellous / slanderous if it was more about his 'worst lie'
Only its not a lie. The Brand had everry right to defend himself.
If I said I had owned fully licenced public house then what does that mean?
A - Licenced to sell beers, wines and spirits?
and
B - Licenced to sell for consumption in all rooms and in the beer garden?
and
C - Licenced for on and off sales?
and
D - Licenced for live entertainment?
and
E - Licenced for the playing of recorded music?
Only a pedant would argue that fully licenced means all of them where as most people would regard it to mean A or A&B
Well firstly LS is told that Stu does know his stuff, so its not like they are ignoring what he had done... and maybe Im wrong but this paticular interviewer proberly has much better understanding over these licences? To me I understand ur abC licence but its not using the same name even, where as Stu clamied he had a telicom Licence, he does not, he can sell it via a different method but u need to state that. The two in my mind are very different esp the ground work you need. Perhapse he grills him on this too hard but it was the same kind of interigation for Jamie, what you still fail to see,
Is all 4 of then found something different, He tried to blag in his mind he knew margret like a freind, she the one person I think most people would agrea has the most respect from allot of the audiance. Let alone ADMITTING to some pritty underhand tactics, something he clamied he was not about...... black and white , forget the ABC stuff. The fact he lied to the media to "bankrupt" a competitor..... thats exactly what LS was asking about. "you come across as a bit of a blagger" ..." no no"... well actually yes , he blags.
BIB probably because it was defamatory (sp?) / libellous / slanderous if it was more about his 'worst lie'
So, your contention is that there was a really good reason for LS's outburst, but it couldn't be shown for some legal reason / D-Notice / gagging order or something, so they were forced to over-egg a lame technicality on the show instead ?
Stuart was never going to get the job - he didn't really want to be 'The Apprentice', as Margaret pointed out he saw himself more as going in as a business partner.
He did actually show a lot of skills as well though, so LordAlun's suggestion (by saying he was full of $h1t) that he had got to the last five by blagging his way through was not true.
I'm getting a bit tired of the interviews hinging around dodgy statements in the CVs, in an effective selection process your CV should be matched against the person spec during the shortlisting process. Nobody with credibility gaps in their CV should get to an interview, whether or not it is 'the interview from Hell.'
Also I thought Chris' claim on his CV to be a 'renowned theologian' because he got a top A level mark was more worrying than anything that was brought up on Stuart's CV, because it appeared from what he said to Margaret that he actually did believe that a good A level made you an expert in your field.
So, your contention is that there was a really good reason for LS's outburst, but it couldn't be shown for some legal reason / D-Notice / gagging order or something, so they were forced to over-egg a lame technicality on the show instead ?
Well, let's not get silly with D-Notices and gagging orders, but, generally, yes.
Sugar was clearly really annoyed - to the extent that he virtually admitted that he'd made a fool of himself.
He wouldn't have done that on the basis of some arcane technicality.
He could have delivered a much more humorous firing that did not need him to admit his own failings and there is no credible reason why he behaved the way he did unless he had discovered something serious.
Prior to each series, susepct the producers go down to Central Casting to see if they can get some people who look or sound good on telly.
The main difference between the Apprentice and your standard drama, is that in a drama, they pay the actors to take part. The Apprentice is enduring because it's cheaper to make than a drama, does not require a script and gives publicitiy to those who take part.
In the end, the Apprentice is a television programme with unpaid actors. I stil enjoy it.
Stuart was never going to get the job - he didn't really want to be 'The Apprentice', as Margaret pointed out he saw himself more as going in as a business partner.
He did actually show a lot of skills as well though, so LordAlun's suggestion (by saying he was full of $h1t) that he had got to the last five by blagging his way through was not true.
I'm getting a bit tired of the interviews hinging around dodgy statements in the CVs, in an effective selection process your CV should be matched against the person spec during the shortlisting process. Nobody with credibility gaps in their CV should get to an interview, whether or not it is 'the interview from Hell.'
Also I thought Chris' claim on his CV to be a 'renowned theologian' because he got a top A level mark was more worrying than anything that was brought up on Stuart's CV, because it appeared from what he said to Margaret that he actually did believe that a good A level made you an expert in your field.
Quite. Renowned means someone who is celibrated, famous, honoured or having widespread reputation. I hardly think an A level in the subject counts. Maybe if he had studied it at uni and then gone on to get a PhD or two and then published books on the subject and was invited to speak at various events then he could claim that! Otherwise, what he claimed is bullshit, pure and simple.
Interesting. If thats what the fuss was about then I doubt there is such a thing as a "fully licenced" telco using Bordens definition. BT for example aren't licenced for mobile, Voda, O2, Orange etc aren't licenced for landline infrastructure and Virgin aren't licenced for mobile (since they resell bandwith from T mobile)
Although BT Mobile does not have a mobile network (since Cellnet was hived off to be O2), their MVNO offering (like Vigin on T-Mobile) is via Vodafone who will be fully pukka.
BT have other substantial licences, as per the link, and will no doubt be licenced for the various Microwave transmission towers, radio link stations and satellite operations they run. They also have a substantial compliance dept, to ensure stuff like this is done, under the OfCom regulatory framework.
I don't think benchmarking "Baggs, the Brand's" Bluewave Comms on the IoM, v's BT is remotely productive.
Yes - it's completely AS's problem if he fired Liz on a whim.
He didn't fire her on a whim though, the producers will have told him that Stuart MUST be kept in for the Interviews (good TV and fire him then for his bullsh!tting), so that left Lord Sugar with a problem. Fire Stella (top candidate) or Liz (top candidate). He plumped to keep Stella in, so Liz had to go.
The real problem was that by luck ,more than design, the 'wrong' team won last week's tour bus task, which reduced the available options.
Sugar was clearly really annoyed - to the extent that he virtually admitted that he'd made a fool of himself.
He could have delivered a much more humorous firing that did not need him to admit his own failings and there is no credible reason why he behaved the way he did unless he had discovered something serious.
More likely he was annoyed with the producers for 'persuading' him to keep Stuart in for the sake of 'good TV'. The dramatic firing was part of that 'good TV' but it should and could, I think, have been done last week not this week.
And then, we would have had a Stella versus Liz final (unless the producers wanted boy versus girl).
Although BT Mobile does not have a mobile network (since Cellnet was hived off to be O2), their MVNO offering (like Vigin on T-Mobile) is via Vodafone who will be fully pukka.
BT have other substantial licences, as per the link, and will no doubt be licenced for the various Microwave transmission towers, radio link stations and satellite operations they run. They also have a substantial compliance dept, to ensure stuff like this is done, under the OfCom regulatory framework.
I don't think benchmarking "Baggs, the Brand's" Bluewave Comms on the IoM, v's BT is remotely productive.
It's like comparing IBM v's Fisher-Price.
However, would you agree with me that BT are not fully licenced in the sense of the phrase that Baggs was picked up on?
He didn't fire her on a whim though, the producers will have told him that Stuart MUST be kept in for the Interviews (good TV and fire him then for his bullsh!tting), so that left Lord Sugar with a problem. Fire Stella (top candidate) or Liz (top candidate). He plumped to keep Stella in, so Liz had to go.
Well IF he did that he has a bleddy cheek accusing anyone else of being 'full of $h1t' since it is presented as a real interview process!
More likely he was annoyed with the producers for 'persuading' him to keep Stuart in for the sake of 'good TV'. The dramatic firing was part of that 'good TV' but it should and could, I think, have been done last week not this week.
I think that would be a credible explanation were it not for the fact that Sugar was clearly really annoyed and if it was just the machinations of the producers there would have been no reason for him to castigate his own foolishness.
He could have delivered a more humourous firing without the need to dwell on his own errors.
Several people here, myself included, believe that they found out something that they were unable to broadcast for legal reasons.
Bagg's admission that he made false claims about a competitors business failing, for example, could lead to some pretty serious trouble for him now they are in the public domain.
Bloody hell, if you think being told "You're full of shit" on a TV show is bang out of order and a disgrace, then god help you when you start work yourself.
Firstly, pal, I do work. Dunno where you'd get the suggestion otherwise, I'm 29!
Second, it wasn't just the line 'You're full of shit', it was what followed where he acted as if Stuart had lied to the extent of Pinocchio on crack cocaine! It was a loose confusion over licensing, it was NOTHING. Sugar attacked him for no real reason at all.
Comments
But "The Apprentice" is entertainment.;) If he just wanted to employ someone he doesn't need to televise it. Its useful to always remember that and its pretty obvious now that last week was all stage-setting based on the fact LS had already decided Liz wasn't going to be the one for him. Personally I thought the "angry" firing was highly entertaining !
I agree with the above posters. I felt it was nasty and unnecessarily cruel. That's no way to treat a 21 year old who -as one of the posters quoted above said - just needed a bit of a reality check.
Very unpleasant to watch.
Presumably, they didn't find anything else on his CV to pick up on, so made the most of what they did find after Stuart had added the word fully to which LS responds later to by telling Stuart he can't believe a word he says any more.
For the benefit of radio listeners, Stuart also pointed out he had PR people stood next to him while he was answering questions.
Interesting. If thats what the fuss was about then I doubt there is such a thing as a "fully licenced" telco using Bordens definition. BT for example aren't licenced for mobile, Voda, O2, Orange etc aren't licenced for landline infrastructure and Virgin aren't licenced for mobile (since they resell bandwith from T mobile)
On that basis, its not stuart who's full of shit!
I loathed Stuart from the start, and have worked with too many mouthy, overconfident, underperforming (and sometimes lucky) idiots like him to not have smiled when he got the full blast from LS, but in all honesty, from what they showed, he didn't deserve it, though he definitely should have gone months ago... maybe there was more we didn't see last night?
A few people have said this in, I guess, a tacit admission that they didn't actually dig as much dirt on Stuart last night as LS et al claim to have done, but why on earth would they have 'good stuff' that they didn't show. I think we can be fairly safe in saying that they showed the worst they could come up with last night, and it wasn't that bad....
I know the show is about entertainment, but it would be good if you could take at least some business lessons from it. A bunch of old guys acting like ***** in interviews certainly doesn't serve that part of it...
The entire series could be designed in such a way that it would be vastly better business programme but, sadly, that doesn't make good TV (at least for the size of audience they get for TA).
BIB probably because it was defamatory (sp?) / libellous / slanderous if it was more about his 'worst lie'
Well firstly LS is told that Stu does know his stuff, so its not like they are ignoring what he had done... and maybe Im wrong but this paticular interviewer proberly has much better understanding over these licences? To me I understand ur abC licence but its not using the same name even, where as Stu clamied he had a telicom Licence, he does not, he can sell it via a different method but u need to state that. The two in my mind are very different esp the ground work you need. Perhapse he grills him on this too hard but it was the same kind of interigation for Jamie, what you still fail to see,
Is all 4 of then found something different, He tried to blag in his mind he knew margret like a freind, she the one person I think most people would agrea has the most respect from allot of the audiance. Let alone ADMITTING to some pritty underhand tactics, something he clamied he was not about...... black and white , forget the ABC stuff. The fact he lied to the media to "bankrupt" a competitor..... thats exactly what LS was asking about. "you come across as a bit of a blagger" ..." no no"... well actually yes , he blags.
Was he right to be that anrgy , hell yes.
So, your contention is that there was a really good reason for LS's outburst, but it couldn't be shown for some legal reason / D-Notice / gagging order or something, so they were forced to over-egg a lame technicality on the show instead ?
Not sure I buy that, to be honest...
Stuart was a smug, fat little shit who deserved everything he got.
Stuart was never going to get the job - he didn't really want to be 'The Apprentice', as Margaret pointed out he saw himself more as going in as a business partner.
He did actually show a lot of skills as well though, so LordAlun's suggestion (by saying he was full of $h1t) that he had got to the last five by blagging his way through was not true.
I'm getting a bit tired of the interviews hinging around dodgy statements in the CVs, in an effective selection process your CV should be matched against the person spec during the shortlisting process. Nobody with credibility gaps in their CV should get to an interview, whether or not it is 'the interview from Hell.'
Also I thought Chris' claim on his CV to be a 'renowned theologian' because he got a top A level mark was more worrying than anything that was brought up on Stuart's CV, because it appeared from what he said to Margaret that he actually did believe that a good A level made you an expert in your field.
Well, let's not get silly with D-Notices and gagging orders, but, generally, yes.
Sugar was clearly really annoyed - to the extent that he virtually admitted that he'd made a fool of himself.
He wouldn't have done that on the basis of some arcane technicality.
He could have delivered a much more humorous firing that did not need him to admit his own failings and there is no credible reason why he behaved the way he did unless he had discovered something serious.
Prior to each series, susepct the producers go down to Central Casting to see if they can get some people who look or sound good on telly.
The main difference between the Apprentice and your standard drama, is that in a drama, they pay the actors to take part. The Apprentice is enduring because it's cheaper to make than a drama, does not require a script and gives publicitiy to those who take part.
In the end, the Apprentice is a television programme with unpaid actors. I stil enjoy it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Mobile
Although BT Mobile does not have a mobile network (since Cellnet was hived off to be O2), their MVNO offering (like Vigin on T-Mobile) is via Vodafone who will be fully pukka.
BT have other substantial licences, as per the link, and will no doubt be licenced for the various Microwave transmission towers, radio link stations and satellite operations they run. They also have a substantial compliance dept, to ensure stuff like this is done, under the OfCom regulatory framework.
I don't think benchmarking "Baggs, the Brand's" Bluewave Comms on the IoM, v's BT is remotely productive.
It's like comparing IBM v's Fisher-Price.
He didn't fire her on a whim though, the producers will have told him that Stuart MUST be kept in for the Interviews (good TV and fire him then for his bullsh!tting), so that left Lord Sugar with a problem. Fire Stella (top candidate) or Liz (top candidate). He plumped to keep Stella in, so Liz had to go.
The real problem was that by luck ,more than design, the 'wrong' team won last week's tour bus task, which reduced the available options.
More likely he was annoyed with the producers for 'persuading' him to keep Stuart in for the sake of 'good TV'. The dramatic firing was part of that 'good TV' but it should and could, I think, have been done last week not this week.
And then, we would have had a Stella versus Liz final (unless the producers wanted boy versus girl).
Yes, but SAShad been played for a fool and he was not happy, Stuart was the whipping boy.
Well IF he did that he has a bleddy cheek accusing anyone else of being 'full of $h1t' since it is presented as a real interview process!
I'd LOVE it if Stuart sued for slander and won!!! HAHA, a man can dream.
I think that would be a credible explanation were it not for the fact that Sugar was clearly really annoyed and if it was just the machinations of the producers there would have been no reason for him to castigate his own foolishness.
He could have delivered a more humourous firing without the need to dwell on his own errors.
Several people here, myself included, believe that they found out something that they were unable to broadcast for legal reasons.
Bagg's admission that he made false claims about a competitors business failing, for example, could lead to some pretty serious trouble for him now they are in the public domain.
Firstly, pal, I do work. Dunno where you'd get the suggestion otherwise, I'm 29!
Second, it wasn't just the line 'You're full of shit', it was what followed where he acted as if Stuart had lied to the extent of Pinocchio on crack cocaine! It was a loose confusion over licensing, it was NOTHING. Sugar attacked him for no real reason at all.