I'm so glad she's gone. What a vile manipulative bully.
Ah, the old DS gem. Is this a parody post?
Everything she said was so ungenuine. I could see straight through her when she turned round near the beginning of the episode and said she was really glad to have Alex on her team because he knows the area etc. What she was really saying was : I'm so glad I can blame everything on Alex when things go wrong.
No, she was saying I'm glad to have someone on my team with knowledge that will put us at an advantage to win.
From that point on she did exactly that. She made sure Alex decided the promotional spot
No, Alex was insistent that he knew what he was talking about and took it upon himself to make the decisions about location.
She was rude to him throughout.
No, she was rude to him in the boardroom, and slightly rude about him when the camera crew took her to one side to give a "diary" entry in the middle of a stressful time. Others were rude about his efforts as well, so Palona was far from alone, and probably not wrong to have called him an irritant.
She was a nasty evil manipulative bitch. I hated her
Classy.
He made good points about the shop looking empty, without being rude. And he was proactive about it.
He wasn't. Yes, he pointed out a flaw but did nothing sensible to remedy it. Paloma knew there was nothing they could do to change that particular flaw and rightfully ordered them to concentrate on telling shoppers what was in the shop rather than wasting time reorganising it.
Glad Palomas gone. She thought she was better than everyone else, talked down to them.
She got fired because she started a personal attack on the other two (questioning their business skills), when she had nothing to base her attack on. She made it up essentially. This was why she got fired. You can also choose a few other reasons why she should have been fired.
It was going to be Sandeesh, until she opened her mouth.
No, she was saying I'm glad to have someone on my team with knowledge that will put us at an advantage to win.
No, Alex was insistent that he knew what he was talking about and took it upon himself to make the decisions about location.
No, she was rude to him in the boardroom, and slightly rude about him when the camera crew took her to one side to give a "diary" entry in the middle of a stressful time. Others were rude about his efforts as well, so Palona was far from alone, and probably not wrong to have called him an irritant.
Classy.
He wasn't. Yes, he pointed out a flaw but did nothing sensible to remedy it. Paloma knew there was nothing they could do to change that particular flaw and rightfully ordered them to concentrate on telling shoppers what was in the shop rather than wasting time reorganising it.
I agree.
You would think she was a serial killer the way people react.:D
I thought it was very telling that in the car with Alex, Laura and Chris were saying that Paloma was trying to pin the blame on him for the promotional stand if it goes wrong.
But when the two of them were trying to find it, all they were saying was how much Alex was a total fool and has messed up big-time. Hypocrites! The very thing they accused Paloma of intending to do, in the back of their minds they were clearly ready to do it to.
i think their reaction was after finding the reality of where alex had placed them in the center not before.
paloma was acting before the event, if she had doubts she should have made them clear.
i think their reaction was after finding the reality of where alex had placed them in the center not before.
paloma was acting before the event, if she had doubts she should have made them clear.
She did make her doubts clear though, hence why she told Alex she was putting her trust in him.
At least Paloma was honest in that respect, Chris and Laura were much more shameful I think. They supported Alex to his face only to talk badly about him behind his back.
- yes brutally honest. Lord Sugar is rude and unpleasant in the boardroom and is allowed to be. But if the candidate speaks their mind and it is rude she has to go.
alan sugar is the boss, does any boss want to see his potential employee act in the way paloma did in full glare of the lights?
paloma gave too much of herself away in a short few weeks.
I liked the fact with Sandeesh she said that she brought her in the boardroom not for this task but for other tasks and Lord Sugar attacked her for it - but what was she supposed to do? Don't forget Paloma took most of the sales and lead the team really well.
she was supposed to be objective and honest and brought in people who had performed badly in the current task, it was not her job to decide who had been poor in other tasks, that is sugars job alone.
He should have given her a stern warning and then said it is her final chance. She was no worse than many other people in the boadroom.
he gave her hint but she didnt listen to him, her real self came to the fore and what we all saw wasnt very pleasant.
She did make her doubts clear though, hence why she told Alex she was putting her trust in him.
At least Paloma was honest in that respect, Chris and Laura were much more shameful I think. They supported Alex to his face only to talk badly about him behind his back.
she is the leader, she has doubts she can act on them. instead she paved the way to say im not accountable for this decision you are. it was her decision to accept alexs recommendation , in the end her responsibility.
it was dishonest and manipulative.
they had no knowledge of the center, it is an after the event reaction. if someone claims that they know the center like the back of their hand then you find that actually they dont with respect to the task, one is going to be peeved.
paloma took the decision to allow alexs claims.
all she had to say was that she was responsible for the decision and it was the wrong decision in hindsight.
it was alex who redeemed himself by looking for other marketing opportunities and he got something more than a pitch that could nevr have matched the sales opportunity. paloma did not do this. she got sales because of alex not in spite of alex.
in the end it was her failure to understand the market , she was unprofessional in securing the designers and failed to use alex to his full ability.
I really like Paloma. I thought she was smart. She also spoke her mind and I respect that. Yes she was confident but she backed it up.
Alex is all talk but doesn't really show much. Chris doesn't have any real spark and just seems to hang around. I think the other Chris (ex-marine) shows some promise. Jamie seems bright, all round nice guy. I quite like Joanna but I don't think she is one of the best there. Laura like Sandeesh just seems to hang around not doing a lot apart from starting fights. Liz along with Paloma is one of the top candidates, she consistently delivers. Sandeesh should have gone this week, had it not been for Palomas final encore then she would have definitely gone. I think Stella did well in the first few weeks and I think she is the only one who can challenge Liz now but she will need to stop being so laid back. Stuart is a likeable guy but he just doesn't have the spark and doesn't have enough experience.
So I think Liz or Stella are going to win it this year. Liz looks the favourite at the moment but I think Stella is keeping her cards close to her chest and then go all out in the final. I can't see any of the men winning it to be honest. Liz, Stella and Paloma would have been a good final.
No way was Paloma worse than Katie! Have you forgotten so soon Katie's pieces to camera wishing death on her fellow contestants? Or her rant in the boardroom at Adam; worse by a mile than anything that Paloma said.
I shouldn't think she'll have too much trouble getting something. Certainly she's made a number of errors on the show, but bear in mind that she sold very well on this task and that her team all thought she'd been a good PM. We saw her praising her staff and giving them lots of positive encouragement - apart from Alex, who she did treat unhandsomely, though she was by no means the bully some present her as (people use the word bully too lightly. If you want to see bullying on The Apprentice, dig up a clip of Jenny Celery in Series 4)
The only thing he got wrong was the seperate pitch area, and at least he was big enough to admit his mistake.
Now lets look at the "talented" Paloma.
Right from the off, she displayed a complete absence of skill in her attitude to the dress designers, (which effectively lost them the task before their shop even opened), she lied her head off at every opportunity, she belittled and bullied anyone she could. That is SOME skillset for a prospective employer, dont you think?.
It isnt any surprise she has set herself up in business, as she may make a success of it, but as an employee, she lacks the sense needed to work as a team player.
She seems to be the sort of person who would rather start her own business than work for someone else.
I think her attitude proved this lol She's obviously very used to doing things her own way.
Don't think she's anywhere near as bad as Katie though.
Whatever people can guess about Paloma's intentions, no-one can prove that she actively tried to take out her competition like Katie bragged she would do before the boardroom.
No one realises that Alex mistake, was a big mistake. It was not something in the heat of the moment. He knew the layout of the centre, had worked there, and still didnt realise that you cant tell shoppers to walk a mile to your booth.
About the TV ad again, if he had worked at the centre why did it take him so long to discover it.
Paloma should have mentioned all this and not the fact that he argued with her.
I really like Paloma. I thought she was smart. She also spoke her mind and I respect that. Yes she was confident but she backed it up.
.
speaking ones mind and being a desperate witch are 2 very different things.
she is smart in the sense she can cover her back when there are no cameras to watch over her .. but she is not smart task wise.
"No one realises that Alex mistake, was a big mistake. It was not something in the heat of the moment. He knew the layout of the centre, had worked there, and still didnt realise that you cant tell shoppers to walk a mile to your booth.
About the TV ad again, if he had worked at the centre why did it take him so long to discover it.
Paloma should have mentioned all this and not the fact that he argued with her. "
it wasnt a big mistake, having the wrong product is the big mistake, not securing the correct deal is the big mistake .
just as he did not realise that directing people to the shop from the site was a mistake neither did anyone else .. they all had the plans to the center and they all could have made a point of asking.
the fact is not one of them had it in them to ask .
Would you bother looking at a road map if someone who knew the way was directing you?
No, and initially I was under the impression that Paloma trusted Alex and so trusted his decision, but there was the scene in the car where she seemed to be studying the map and then said something along the lines of this may be a mistake. I therefore did feel that she was not wholly confident of him. Furthermore in the boardroom she kept on about how she had "seen" Alex scaring away the customers, why then did she not stop him?
Curious situation, she may have genuinely trusted him, changed her mind but did not voice it until she re-wrote her "views" to suit the boardroom
No, she was saying I'm glad to have someone on my team with knowledge that will put us at an advantage to win.
I saw straight through that. Watch her body language, her eyes, and her actions after. She was glad she had someone to blame.
No, Alex was insistent that he knew what he was talking about and took it upon himself to make the decisions about location.
Agreed that he was very keen on what he said. But she made a point of calling him to make sure everyone knew it'd be his fault.
No, she was rude to him in the boardroom, and slightly rude about him when the camera crew took her to one side to give a "diary" entry in the middle of a stressful time. Others were rude about his efforts as well, so Palona was far from alone, and probably not wrong to have called him an irritant.
She was by far the most rude. She was rude and patraonizing to the doctor PM the other week as well. And awful in her attitude regarding exclusivity to the Soho store.
Classy.
Classy that I hate the stupid bitch because of how rude and dismissive she was of other people. The one thing I cannot stand in work, or in general, is bullies. And that's exactly what she is.
He wasn't. Yes, he pointed out a flaw but did nothing sensible to remedy it. Paloma knew there was nothing they could do to change that particular flaw and rightfully ordered them to concentrate on telling shoppers what was in the shop rather than wasting time reorganising it.
Wasting time reorganising? They only had to pull a full of the clothes into view. He was right that people will not go into an empty store. He made suggestions to his PM and acted on his actions after discussing it with her.
You would think she was a serial killer the way people react.:D
Probably Big Brother fans.
Not a serial killer, just a vile bully that was right to be fired. She was rude and personal about other candidates careers and life. People who bully others at work and blame everyone but can't face critisism shoudn't be rewarded. He was right to set an example and fire her.
And no, I've never watched Big Brother. What a ridiculous assumption to make.
QUOTE=Aleksis;45363985]Ah, the old DS gem. Is this a parody post?
What do you mean? She was a bully.
No, she was saying I'm glad to have someone on my team with knowledge that will put us at an advantage to win.
I saw straight through that. Watch her body language, her eyes, and her actions after. She was glad she had someone to blame.
No, Alex was insistent that he knew what he was talking about and took it upon himself to make the decisions about location.
Agreed that he was very keen on what he said. But she made a point of calling him to make sure everyone knew it'd be his fault.
No, she was rude to him in the boardroom, and slightly rude about him when the camera crew took her to one side to give a "diary" entry in the middle of a stressful time. Others were rude about his efforts as well, so Palona was far from alone, and probably not wrong to have called him an irritant.
She was by far the most rude. She was rude and patraonizing to the doctor PM the other week as well. And awful in her attitude regarding exclusivity to the Soho store.
Classy.
Classy that I hate the stupid bitch because of how rude and dismissive she was of other people. The one thing I cannot stand in work, or in general, is bullies. And that's exactly what she is.
He wasn't. Yes, he pointed out a flaw but did nothing sensible to remedy it. Paloma knew there was nothing they could do to change that particular flaw and rightfully ordered them to concentrate on telling shoppers what was in the shop rather than wasting time reorganising it.[/QUOTE]
Wasting time reorganising? They only had to pull a full of the clothes into view. He was right that people will not go into an empty store. He made suggestions to his PM and acted on his actions after discussing it with her.
Not as rude as some though. I never heard her call anyone an obnoxious bitch.
No but she did back stab people, bully people, make rude offensive remarks about other candidates careers, try to blame someone who gave the team an amazing opportunity...
i think they were being very generous to her on YF which was interesting to watch in it self.
i think she proved that she is manipulative, dishonest and has no loyalty . its that underlying nastiness , the inability to own up to her own shortcomings - failings and the readiness to go for the jugular when she had no place to.
is looking nice now a criteria for alan to judge his victims?
no she hadnt forgotten she thought it wouldnt be brought up. it wasnt off the cuff, she is pretty manipulative and forward thinking strategically to cover her backside. think of her as nasty nick from BB fame.
no you are wrong we wouldnt have believed her and from her position she had no choice but to admit it.
her purpose in YF was to appear normal and conciliatory and eat humble pie.
Nobody said she'd forgotten about it, they said it was a possibility that she could have. They also said it was very big of her to admit that she had done it (as she did on You're Fired).
I am not trying to excuse her behaviour in the boardroom, but up until that point, she was a major contender to win. Nick himself said that he had put money on her and that Lord Sugar had earmarked her to be in the final. She was a fantastic candidate, she just couldn't control her mouth...
I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying they should be 'punished'. Those are your words, not mine. I do think they get off very lightly for behaviour which is unexcusable.
It's a reality TV show designed to be entertaining, it isn't school!! They don't get off lightly for inexcusable behaviour... They get fired!!
You're Fired is meant to be a programme which explores the comedy highlights of the programme and allows the candidate to give their views on the competition and provide a little insight into what is going on. The things they did wrong should not be punished!! They can learn by listening to the advice of the experts on the panel...
No one realises that Alex mistake, was a big mistake. It was not something in the heat of the moment. He knew the layout of the centre, had worked there, and still didnt realise that you cant tell shoppers to walk a mile to your booth.
About the TV ad again, if he had worked at the centre why did it take him so long to discover it.
Paloma should have mentioned all this and not the fact that he argued with her.
The problem was she didn't make those points in that manner, so she deserved to go.
No, and initially I was under the impression that Paloma trusted Alex and so trusted his decision, but there was the scene in the car where she seemed to be studying the map and then said something along the lines of this may be a mistake. I therefore did feel that she was not wholly confident of him. Furthermore in the boardroom she kept on about how she had "seen" Alex scaring away the customers, why then did she not stop him?
Curious situation, she may have genuinely trusted him, changed her mind but did not voice it until she re-wrote her "views" to suit the boardroom
I think Stuart was pretty much on the mark about Paloma's initial suggestion in the car that the location of the booth might be a mistake. She wasn't sure if it was a mistake or not, and made sure to question it so that if it turned out to be wrong, she could say that she had her doubts but Alex knew the mall and seemed so sure that she trusted him. And she didn't want to outright over-rule him in case he was right.
Unattractive conduct, but really the show does encourage that kind of thinking.
Not a serial killer, just a vile bully that was right to be fired. She was rude and personal about other candidates careers and life. People who bully others at work and blame everyone but can't face critisism shoudn't be rewarded. He was right to set an example and fire her.
And no, I've never watched Big Brother. What a ridiculous assumption to make.
Bully is a word often used too lightly. Paloma has her faults, but I don't accept that anything we saw her do constituted bullying.
Comments
Ah, the old DS gem. Is this a parody post?
No, she was saying I'm glad to have someone on my team with knowledge that will put us at an advantage to win.
No, Alex was insistent that he knew what he was talking about and took it upon himself to make the decisions about location.
No, she was rude to him in the boardroom, and slightly rude about him when the camera crew took her to one side to give a "diary" entry in the middle of a stressful time. Others were rude about his efforts as well, so Palona was far from alone, and probably not wrong to have called him an irritant.
Classy.
He wasn't. Yes, he pointed out a flaw but did nothing sensible to remedy it. Paloma knew there was nothing they could do to change that particular flaw and rightfully ordered them to concentrate on telling shoppers what was in the shop rather than wasting time reorganising it.
She got fired because she started a personal attack on the other two (questioning their business skills), when she had nothing to base her attack on. She made it up essentially. This was why she got fired. You can also choose a few other reasons why she should have been fired.
It was going to be Sandeesh, until she opened her mouth.
I agree.
You would think she was a serial killer the way people react.:D
Probably Big Brother fans.
i think their reaction was after finding the reality of where alex had placed them in the center not before.
paloma was acting before the event, if she had doubts she should have made them clear.
She did make her doubts clear though, hence why she told Alex she was putting her trust in him.
At least Paloma was honest in that respect, Chris and Laura were much more shameful I think. They supported Alex to his face only to talk badly about him behind his back.
alan sugar is the boss, does any boss want to see his potential employee act in the way paloma did in full glare of the lights?
paloma gave too much of herself away in a short few weeks.
she was supposed to be objective and honest and brought in people who had performed badly in the current task, it was not her job to decide who had been poor in other tasks, that is sugars job alone.
he gave her hint but she didnt listen to him, her real self came to the fore and what we all saw wasnt very pleasant.
she is the leader, she has doubts she can act on them. instead she paved the way to say im not accountable for this decision you are. it was her decision to accept alexs recommendation , in the end her responsibility.
it was dishonest and manipulative.
they had no knowledge of the center, it is an after the event reaction. if someone claims that they know the center like the back of their hand then you find that actually they dont with respect to the task, one is going to be peeved.
paloma took the decision to allow alexs claims.
all she had to say was that she was responsible for the decision and it was the wrong decision in hindsight.
it was alex who redeemed himself by looking for other marketing opportunities and he got something more than a pitch that could nevr have matched the sales opportunity. paloma did not do this. she got sales because of alex not in spite of alex.
in the end it was her failure to understand the market , she was unprofessional in securing the designers and failed to use alex to his full ability.
Alex is all talk but doesn't really show much. Chris doesn't have any real spark and just seems to hang around. I think the other Chris (ex-marine) shows some promise. Jamie seems bright, all round nice guy. I quite like Joanna but I don't think she is one of the best there. Laura like Sandeesh just seems to hang around not doing a lot apart from starting fights. Liz along with Paloma is one of the top candidates, she consistently delivers. Sandeesh should have gone this week, had it not been for Palomas final encore then she would have definitely gone. I think Stella did well in the first few weeks and I think she is the only one who can challenge Liz now but she will need to stop being so laid back. Stuart is a likeable guy but he just doesn't have the spark and doesn't have enough experience.
So I think Liz or Stella are going to win it this year. Liz looks the favourite at the moment but I think Stella is keeping her cards close to her chest and then go all out in the final. I can't see any of the men winning it to be honest. Liz, Stella and Paloma would have been a good final.
No way was Paloma worse than Katie! Have you forgotten so soon Katie's pieces to camera wishing death on her fellow contestants? Or her rant in the boardroom at Adam; worse by a mile than anything that Paloma said.
I shouldn't think she'll have too much trouble getting something. Certainly she's made a number of errors on the show, but bear in mind that she sold very well on this task and that her team all thought she'd been a good PM. We saw her praising her staff and giving them lots of positive encouragement - apart from Alex, who she did treat unhandsomely, though she was by no means the bully some present her as (people use the word bully too lightly. If you want to see bullying on The Apprentice, dig up a clip of Jenny Celery in Series 4)
On this task you are wrong.
The only thing he got wrong was the seperate pitch area, and at least he was big enough to admit his mistake.
Now lets look at the "talented" Paloma.
Right from the off, she displayed a complete absence of skill in her attitude to the dress designers, (which effectively lost them the task before their shop even opened), she lied her head off at every opportunity, she belittled and bullied anyone she could. That is SOME skillset for a prospective employer, dont you think?.
It isnt any surprise she has set herself up in business, as she may make a success of it, but as an employee, she lacks the sense needed to work as a team player.
She seems to be the sort of person who would rather start her own business than work for someone else.
I think her attitude proved this lol She's obviously very used to doing things her own way.
Don't think she's anywhere near as bad as Katie though.
Whatever people can guess about Paloma's intentions, no-one can prove that she actively tried to take out her competition like Katie bragged she would do before the boardroom.
About the TV ad again, if he had worked at the centre why did it take him so long to discover it.
Paloma should have mentioned all this and not the fact that he argued with her.
she is smart in the sense she can cover her back when there are no cameras to watch over her .. but she is not smart task wise.
"No one realises that Alex mistake, was a big mistake. It was not something in the heat of the moment. He knew the layout of the centre, had worked there, and still didnt realise that you cant tell shoppers to walk a mile to your booth.
About the TV ad again, if he had worked at the centre why did it take him so long to discover it.
Paloma should have mentioned all this and not the fact that he argued with her. "
it wasnt a big mistake, having the wrong product is the big mistake, not securing the correct deal is the big mistake .
just as he did not realise that directing people to the shop from the site was a mistake neither did anyone else .. they all had the plans to the center and they all could have made a point of asking.
the fact is not one of them had it in them to ask .
No, and initially I was under the impression that Paloma trusted Alex and so trusted his decision, but there was the scene in the car where she seemed to be studying the map and then said something along the lines of this may be a mistake. I therefore did feel that she was not wholly confident of him. Furthermore in the boardroom she kept on about how she had "seen" Alex scaring away the customers, why then did she not stop him?
Curious situation, she may have genuinely trusted him, changed her mind but did not voice it until she re-wrote her "views" to suit the boardroom
Wasting time reorganising? They only had to pull a full of the clothes into view. He was right that people will not go into an empty store. He made suggestions to his PM and acted on his actions after discussing it with her.
Not a serial killer, just a vile bully that was right to be fired. She was rude and personal about other candidates careers and life. People who bully others at work and blame everyone but can't face critisism shoudn't be rewarded. He was right to set an example and fire her.
And no, I've never watched Big Brother. What a ridiculous assumption to make.
What do you mean? She was a bully.
No, she was saying I'm glad to have someone on my team with knowledge that will put us at an advantage to win.
I saw straight through that. Watch her body language, her eyes, and her actions after. She was glad she had someone to blame.
No, Alex was insistent that he knew what he was talking about and took it upon himself to make the decisions about location.
Agreed that he was very keen on what he said. But she made a point of calling him to make sure everyone knew it'd be his fault.
No, she was rude to him in the boardroom, and slightly rude about him when the camera crew took her to one side to give a "diary" entry in the middle of a stressful time. Others were rude about his efforts as well, so Palona was far from alone, and probably not wrong to have called him an irritant.
She was by far the most rude. She was rude and patraonizing to the doctor PM the other week as well. And awful in her attitude regarding exclusivity to the Soho store.
Classy.
Classy that I hate the stupid bitch because of how rude and dismissive she was of other people. The one thing I cannot stand in work, or in general, is bullies. And that's exactly what she is.
He wasn't. Yes, he pointed out a flaw but did nothing sensible to remedy it. Paloma knew there was nothing they could do to change that particular flaw and rightfully ordered them to concentrate on telling shoppers what was in the shop rather than wasting time reorganising it.[/QUOTE]
Wasting time reorganising? They only had to pull a full of the clothes into view. He was right that people will not go into an empty store. He made suggestions to his PM and acted on his actions after discussing it with her.
No but she did back stab people, bully people, make rude offensive remarks about other candidates careers, try to blame someone who gave the team an amazing opportunity...
Nobody said she'd forgotten about it, they said it was a possibility that she could have. They also said it was very big of her to admit that she had done it (as she did on You're Fired).
I am not trying to excuse her behaviour in the boardroom, but up until that point, she was a major contender to win. Nick himself said that he had put money on her and that Lord Sugar had earmarked her to be in the final. She was a fantastic candidate, she just couldn't control her mouth...
It's a reality TV show designed to be entertaining, it isn't school!! They don't get off lightly for inexcusable behaviour... They get fired!!
You're Fired is meant to be a programme which explores the comedy highlights of the programme and allows the candidate to give their views on the competition and provide a little insight into what is going on. The things they did wrong should not be punished!! They can learn by listening to the advice of the experts on the panel...
The problem was she didn't make those points in that manner, so she deserved to go.
I think Stuart was pretty much on the mark about Paloma's initial suggestion in the car that the location of the booth might be a mistake. She wasn't sure if it was a mistake or not, and made sure to question it so that if it turned out to be wrong, she could say that she had her doubts but Alex knew the mall and seemed so sure that she trusted him. And she didn't want to outright over-rule him in case he was right.
Unattractive conduct, but really the show does encourage that kind of thinking.
Bully is a word often used too lightly. Paloma has her faults, but I don't accept that anything we saw her do constituted bullying.