Unfortunately, earlier today Jess (I've Got Class) informed me that she will have to be quitting the process due to personal issues. This is a shame, but not much can be done about it, and we wish her all the best.
As for what will be happening as a result of this exit...
We're going to do something that hasn't been done before in DSA and introduce a new candidate midway through to replace Jess. This may seem like a strange decision, but having discussed it with my advisor's and thought about it thoroughly I definitely think this is the right thing to do in this situation, especially considering the inactivity issues meaning we need someone dedicated to take part. Due to only missing two tasks, this candidate has not massively missed out on the process so far and will not be put at any advantage or disadvantage at all by joining in late.
The candidate who will be replacing Jess is Iain (grizzlyvamp). Iain was originally on the list of sign ups but had to drop out due to being unavailable at the beginning of the competition. He will be available to take part from the start of the third task however, and is therefore the perfect person to replace Jess. Here is the intro he had sent for the launch show:
My name is Iain and I am a 24 year old just finished a physics degree at Nottingham Trent. I have always fancied that I could do better than most of the candidates that appear on the TV show and so would like to see if this is true. Besides it looks like fun and everyone who entered last year seemed to get something out of it, of those who put in the effort.
I would say that I am fairly analytical and already aware of my strengths and weaknesses. I am a fair team player and try to let everyone contribute. I am interested in Television Production so feel that I would have a lot to contribute to media orientated and obviously my backgrounding would make me an obvious choice for more technical tasks.
I am not one for dirty tactics, I'll tell it as it is and how ever far I get it will be on merit alone and not because I let someone take the fall simply because it kept me in. I think that though I am not necessarily a natural businessman I have a certain creative flair which with the right team could make me the perfect "Apprentice".
Due to the fact that he has been able to fast track through two tasks, Iain will be made project manager of whichever team he is on in Task 3. More information about which team he is on will be given at the beginning of the third task. I hope you will all give Iain a warm welcome into the competition!
The third task will start next week, on Tuesday 15th July carrying on till we have the boardroom on Friday 18th July. Hopefully that's ok with everyone, if not please tell me. Advisor's will be posting feedback for all participants when they are able to do, aside from that that's it for tonight!
Thank you for the dates Lord Sugar and aw commiserations to Aptitude - we all tried so hard for the task so it's a shame but well done to Inspired! And commiserations to Tom and well done to Naruto. You did a fab job to be honest and I am glad you are still with us so we can hopefully redeem ourselves and win the task to come!
Ah no that is a shame that Jess has to quit. Jess would have been an interesting candidate for this process. Good luck to her and wish her the best with her personal commitments.
And hi Iain - welcome. I think you will do great - especially with such an amaze degree and background. I just love Physics .
Thank you for the dates Lord Sugar and aw commiserations to Aptitude - we all tried so hard for the task so it's a shame but well done to Inspired! And commiserations to Tom and well done to Naruto. You did a fab job to be honest and I am glad you are still with us so we can hopefully redeem ourselves and win the task to come!
Ah no that is a shame that Jess has to quit. Jess would have been an interesting candidate for this process. Good luck to her and wish her the best with her personal commitments.
And hi Iain - welcome. I think you will do great - especially with such an amaze degree and background. I just love Physics .
Thanks Roxie, I look forwards to working with you all on the third task (no I don't know the teams just in case your wondering)
I'm on holiday and doing this on my phone so it probably won't be very long
Shadi - Certainly the best member of this team in terms of finding the cheapest items and you put in the most effort by miles. Definitely had a minor attitude problem during one interaction which I hope we don't see continue as you're a very promising candidate. However you did apologise after privately which I appreciated. Very good showing this task.
Zak - Good effort this task. Helpful and available most of the time and you listened to feedback. Also had a good attitude compared to last task which was nice to see.
George - Fairly similar to Zak, to be honest. Worked well with your team and found some good items. Available and hardworking and helped with the organisation of your team in the absence of your PM.
Steve - I can see you tried but you didn't find many items and so you focussed more on other things such as compiling the list. Which is fine but doing those sort of menial tasks won't get you far for much longer. I'd like to see you come to the front next task.
Shadi's 'attitude problem' was barely anything more than standing up for himself after being attacked for no reason in a group discussion. I would have done exactly the same thing in his position.
Thank you for the feedback Louise and I have to agree with George, it wasn't an attitude problem if I had a team mate and our task adviser throwing degrading and sarcastic remarks at me only because I noticed a mistake and asked for it to be corrected. I was just standing up for myself and anyone with an ounce of self-respect would've done what I've done. But the past is the past, and I already cleared it up with you so it's good. Just felt like pointing it out to Niall and the viewers.
Shadi's 'attitude problem' was barely anything more than standing up for himself after being attacked for no reason in a group discussion. I would have done exactly the same thing in his position.
Thank you for the feedback Louise and I have to agree with George, it wasn't an attitude problem if I had a team mate and our task adviser throwing degrading and sarcastic remarks at me only because I noticed a mistake and asked for it to be corrected. I was just standing up for myself and anyone with an ounce of self-respect would've done what I've done. But the past is the past, and I already cleared it up with you so it's good. Just felt like pointing it out to Niall and the viewers.
It wasn't just me who saw it as Shadi having a bad attitude when criticised and don't worry about Niall, he saw the full conversation.
I used the word "minor" for a reason and there was nothing "degrading" said whatsoever.
Also Shadi I'm not sure why you're lying. I didn't care about the mistake you asked to be corrected.I only interjected because you were assuring everyone Stacey was going home and they were all safe. Please quote where I said anything degrading or anything about you asking for the list to be corrected because I'm sure you can't.
Shadi's 'attitude problem' was barely anything more than standing up for himself after being attacked for no reason in a group discussion. I would have done exactly the same thing in his position.
I have no doubt you would have. Overblown the situation, that is.
Also Shadi I'm not sure why you're lying. I didn't care about the mistake you asked to be corrected.I only interjected because you were assuring everyone Stacey was going home and they were all safe. Please quote where I said anything degrading or anything about you asking for the list to be corrected because I'm sure you can't.
I don't know if Shadi will, but I can. When Shadi corrected Steve's list, which did not credit him with as much as he had actually done, Zak suggested that Shadi was saying that out of fear of not being credited with doing much. This was emphasised when Zak said, 'The part where people are scared they're not gonna get credit; Louise is more than capable of seeing who did what; y'all need to chill.' Shadi explained that he was entirely chilled (as he believed that Stacey would be fired if we lost), he just wished to be credited accurately within the list, which you yourself had requested that we do. Zak went on to say, 'While it's true that Stacey has been missing, we should be looking to win, not looking for Stacey to be fired.' I found that comment out of order, because it suggests that Shadi was hoping that we would lose so that Stacey would be in the firing line, and given that Shadi found the cheapest items out of any of us, I do not think that that was fair. You, Louise, said, 'You're basically telling everyone they're safe so it doesn't matter Shadi. That wasn't sarcasm so no need to be rude. Zak is right,' thereby suggesting that you agreed with Zak's assertion that Shadi wanted us to lose so that Stacey would be fired, and thereby undermines the work that Shadi did in order to make us win. That, in my opinion, is degrading.
Also, your comment 'That wasn't sarcasm so no need to be rude'. In response to Shadi's suggestion that Stacey would be fired if we lost (in my mind, an entirely reasonable comment in the circumstances, but I'll come to that in a second) you said 'Glad you can predict the future!' Are you suggesting that that was not sarcastic? It certainly came across as very sarcastic. And regardless of whether or not you personally disagreed with Shadi, I don't think it's appropriate to make that sort of comment in the middle of a group chat in front of the group. I have never heard either Nick Hewer or Karren Brady approach any candidate in that way on a task. In the first episode of Series 9, Luisa said to Uzma, Leah and Rebecca, 'No way on this Earth that even if we lose, any of us four are going back into that boardroom.' That sort of statement is common from Apprentice candidates who honestly believe that their side of the team did the best job. Whether or not they are right is revealed in the boardroom, but I have never seen an advisor argue with them about it in the middle of the task. If they did, I would think that that was pretty degrading to the candidate in question, as it undermines them and everyone ought to be on an equal footing, regardless of an advisor's personal opinion.
I am actually really surprised that we are having this conversation, as in the past I have generally regarded you as extremely fair. Despite a rocky start, last year when you were Lady Sugar I grew to really like you and trust you, and I felt that you helped me out and gave me the benefit of the doubt on a few occasions, and I really needed that given the other candidates' reaction to me and appreciated it when it happened. I don't understand why you have reacted to Shadi in the way that you have, but I think it is unfair and of course I will speak up about it. I'd do it no matter who was involved really. I will not put up with anyone being undermined or degraded, whether it is myself or someone else, especially when the person in question has done the best damn job of the whole group.
Thank you, George. You explained the whole situation perfectly.
Steve posted a list that credited some people more than it should and some people less, so I asked for the list to be corrected. Zak then accused me of trying to protect myself in a very condescending manner. Someone else would've probably told Zak off, or started comparing what he'd done to what Zak's done to make a point that if anything, Zak should be more worried. I didn't do that. I was trying to be nice and said that this is not why I asked for the list to be fixed, but in the name in the accuracy, it should, and there's no point in me worrying about being fired because I don't think ANYONE would be fired besides Stacey. You have an invisible PROJECT MANAGER. REGARDLESS of what everyone did and did not do, there wouldn't have been a case for anyone to be fired. Heck, if we had an invisible team member who also did nothing, the odds are, the invisible PM will be fired, not the invisible team member. So I was just defending why I WASN'T WORRIED about being fired. To which Zak interpreted as me not focusing on winning when I had worked my tail off not only this task but the first task as well. And Louise, instead of professionally addressing the situation, mocked my statement as "predicting the future". It felt like a joint attack on me and it really wasn't fair.
You know I came here to show my abilities and see how I'd do on a show that closely resembles The Apprentice. I don't like the drama, and I didn't really cause it. I will remain respectful and nice but I will stand up to myself whenever and if-ever I feel like I'm being disrespected and mocked, as I would expect anyone to do. The situation was actually fueled by Louise's comment on the group chat because up until that, we were having a normal peaceful group discussion (despite Zak's condescending remarks, it was still a peaceful conversation), so it was, I thought, unprofessional. Louise took Zak's side AND mis-interpreted what I had said, AND mocked me for it. And then after I let it go and talked to Louise about it because I didn't want it to be a nuisance, and actually did not mention it in my evaluation either because I thought it had passed and gone, I see that Louise mentioned here again and portrayed me as the one at wrong in the situation, which I sure wasn't.
I hope that Niall can see that because it wouldn't be fair for my work to be overshadowed by drama that I did not create.
In my opinion y'all should be dealing with this privately. Making such a huge show over something so minor isn't reflecting very positively on anyone.
The discussion is a direct response to the feedback that Louise gave Shadi, which was delivered on a public forum. If something is delivered in public, the person it is about should be able to respond in public, and the same for anyone else who was there who may have an opinion on it, such as myself.
I don't really think you should be getting involved tbh George, it was a comment made by Louise to Shadi in her feedback, it just comes across a little like you're poking your nose into something that doesn't really involve you.
Anyway, congrats to Team Inspired and commiserations to Aptitude
The discussion is a direct response to the feedback that Louise gave Shadi, which was delivered on a public forum. If something is delivered in public, the person it is about should be able to respond in public, and the same for anyone else who was there who may have an opinion on it, such as myself.
Sure, he should be able to defend himself in public, but Louise's feedback was very, very, very minor and such a huge public response from both of you is completely unwarranted and doesn't reflect very well on either of you. A small "thanks for the feedback Louise, but I don't necessarily agree with it" would have been sufficient and the rest could have been kept private. You're not always going to agree with the feedback you're given, but not every piece of feedback deserves an essay in response.
Plus, I'm sure Shadi is perfectly capable of defending himself and doesn't need you to fight his battles for him.
I don't really think you should be getting involved tbh George, it was a comment made by Louise to Shadi in her feedback, it just comes across a little like you're poking your nose into something that doesn't really involve you.
Anyway, congrats to Team Inspired and commiserations to Aptitude
If Shadi would rather I didn't stand up for him, I will respect that and back down. However, if my one of my team mates has had unfair comments made about them in public I think it is right and decent for me to stand up for them, just as I would hope that they would for me.
Sure, he should be able to defend himself in public, but Louise's feedback was very, very, very minor and such a huge public response from both of you is completely unwarranted and doesn't reflect very well on either of you. A small "thanks for the feedback Louise, but I don't necessarily agree with it" would have been sufficient and the rest could have been kept private. You're not always going to agree with the feedback you're given, but not every piece of feedback deserves an essay in response.
Plus, I'm sure Shadi is perfectly capable of defending himself and doesn't need you to fight his battles for him.
Actually David, if you look back through this thread you will see that my initial response was a two-sentence post commenting that I didn't think that Shadi had an attitude problem, from the two tasks that I have worked with him. Anything else I have said since has been in response to things that have been posted.
I agree that Shadi is completely capable of defending himself, and has demonstrated that ability; the reason that I have made these points is not because I do not consider him capable of doing so himself, but because in this situation it is helpful to have an ally. Anyone looking in on this may just see this as a dispute between an advisor and a candidate, and either not be able to judge at all or simply assume that as an advisor, Louise is right. Me being there as another person who was involved in the situation means that it is clear to everyone that Shadi is not just an irritant, as there is at least one team member who is prepared to back him up. Those who were following or taking part in last year's game will recall an infamous dispute between two candidates, during which one of those candidates complained that a third candidate did not back them up very much. I'm not like that; if I think that someone is being unfairly picked upon, of course I will speak up in their favour unless for whatever reason they ask me not to - and given that Shadi's own defence was prefaced with 'Thank you, George. You explained the whole situation perfectly.' that would not appear to be the case.
*sigh* I don't wish to get involved in this because it really has nothing to do with me, I just think making such a big show in public is a bit embarrassing and shows you up a little. Even more so because it's not even about you in the first place.
Comments
As for what will be happening as a result of this exit...
The candidate who will be replacing Jess is Iain (grizzlyvamp). Iain was originally on the list of sign ups but had to drop out due to being unavailable at the beginning of the competition. He will be available to take part from the start of the third task however, and is therefore the perfect person to replace Jess. Here is the intro he had sent for the launch show:
Ah no that is a shame that Jess has to quit. Jess would have been an interesting candidate for this process. Good luck to her and wish her the best with her personal commitments.
And hi Iain - welcome. I think you will do great - especially with such an amaze degree and background. I just love Physics
Thanks Roxie, I look forwards to working with you all on the third task (no I don't know the teams just in case your wondering)
Shadi - Certainly the best member of this team in terms of finding the cheapest items and you put in the most effort by miles. Definitely had a minor attitude problem during one interaction which I hope we don't see continue as you're a very promising candidate. However you did apologise after privately which I appreciated. Very good showing this task.
Zak - Good effort this task. Helpful and available most of the time and you listened to feedback. Also had a good attitude compared to last task which was nice to see.
George - Fairly similar to Zak, to be honest. Worked well with your team and found some good items. Available and hardworking and helped with the organisation of your team in the absence of your PM.
Steve - I can see you tried but you didn't find many items and so you focussed more on other things such as compiling the list. Which is fine but doing those sort of menial tasks won't get you far for much longer. I'd like to see you come to the front next task.
Stacey - Basically INV after a promising start.
It wasn't just me who saw it as Shadi having a bad attitude when criticised and don't worry about Niall, he saw the full conversation.
I used the word "minor" for a reason and there was nothing "degrading" said whatsoever.
Also Shadi I'm not sure why you're lying. I didn't care about the mistake you asked to be corrected.I only interjected because you were assuring everyone Stacey was going home and they were all safe. Please quote where I said anything degrading or anything about you asking for the list to be corrected because I'm sure you can't.
I have no doubt you would have. Overblown the situation, that is.
Could you elaborate on that statement please?
I don't know if Shadi will, but I can. When Shadi corrected Steve's list, which did not credit him with as much as he had actually done, Zak suggested that Shadi was saying that out of fear of not being credited with doing much. This was emphasised when Zak said, 'The part where people are scared they're not gonna get credit; Louise is more than capable of seeing who did what; y'all need to chill.' Shadi explained that he was entirely chilled (as he believed that Stacey would be fired if we lost), he just wished to be credited accurately within the list, which you yourself had requested that we do. Zak went on to say, 'While it's true that Stacey has been missing, we should be looking to win, not looking for Stacey to be fired.' I found that comment out of order, because it suggests that Shadi was hoping that we would lose so that Stacey would be in the firing line, and given that Shadi found the cheapest items out of any of us, I do not think that that was fair. You, Louise, said, 'You're basically telling everyone they're safe so it doesn't matter Shadi. That wasn't sarcasm so no need to be rude. Zak is right,' thereby suggesting that you agreed with Zak's assertion that Shadi wanted us to lose so that Stacey would be fired, and thereby undermines the work that Shadi did in order to make us win. That, in my opinion, is degrading.
Also, your comment 'That wasn't sarcasm so no need to be rude'. In response to Shadi's suggestion that Stacey would be fired if we lost (in my mind, an entirely reasonable comment in the circumstances, but I'll come to that in a second) you said 'Glad you can predict the future!' Are you suggesting that that was not sarcastic? It certainly came across as very sarcastic. And regardless of whether or not you personally disagreed with Shadi, I don't think it's appropriate to make that sort of comment in the middle of a group chat in front of the group. I have never heard either Nick Hewer or Karren Brady approach any candidate in that way on a task. In the first episode of Series 9, Luisa said to Uzma, Leah and Rebecca, 'No way on this Earth that even if we lose, any of us four are going back into that boardroom.' That sort of statement is common from Apprentice candidates who honestly believe that their side of the team did the best job. Whether or not they are right is revealed in the boardroom, but I have never seen an advisor argue with them about it in the middle of the task. If they did, I would think that that was pretty degrading to the candidate in question, as it undermines them and everyone ought to be on an equal footing, regardless of an advisor's personal opinion.
I am actually really surprised that we are having this conversation, as in the past I have generally regarded you as extremely fair. Despite a rocky start, last year when you were Lady Sugar I grew to really like you and trust you, and I felt that you helped me out and gave me the benefit of the doubt on a few occasions, and I really needed that given the other candidates' reaction to me and appreciated it when it happened. I don't understand why you have reacted to Shadi in the way that you have, but I think it is unfair and of course I will speak up about it. I'd do it no matter who was involved really. I will not put up with anyone being undermined or degraded, whether it is myself or someone else, especially when the person in question has done the best damn job of the whole group.
Steve posted a list that credited some people more than it should and some people less, so I asked for the list to be corrected. Zak then accused me of trying to protect myself in a very condescending manner. Someone else would've probably told Zak off, or started comparing what he'd done to what Zak's done to make a point that if anything, Zak should be more worried. I didn't do that. I was trying to be nice and said that this is not why I asked for the list to be fixed, but in the name in the accuracy, it should, and there's no point in me worrying about being fired because I don't think ANYONE would be fired besides Stacey. You have an invisible PROJECT MANAGER. REGARDLESS of what everyone did and did not do, there wouldn't have been a case for anyone to be fired. Heck, if we had an invisible team member who also did nothing, the odds are, the invisible PM will be fired, not the invisible team member. So I was just defending why I WASN'T WORRIED about being fired. To which Zak interpreted as me not focusing on winning when I had worked my tail off not only this task but the first task as well. And Louise, instead of professionally addressing the situation, mocked my statement as "predicting the future". It felt like a joint attack on me and it really wasn't fair.
You know I came here to show my abilities and see how I'd do on a show that closely resembles The Apprentice. I don't like the drama, and I didn't really cause it. I will remain respectful and nice but I will stand up to myself whenever and if-ever I feel like I'm being disrespected and mocked, as I would expect anyone to do. The situation was actually fueled by Louise's comment on the group chat because up until that, we were having a normal peaceful group discussion (despite Zak's condescending remarks, it was still a peaceful conversation), so it was, I thought, unprofessional. Louise took Zak's side AND mis-interpreted what I had said, AND mocked me for it. And then after I let it go and talked to Louise about it because I didn't want it to be a nuisance, and actually did not mention it in my evaluation either because I thought it had passed and gone, I see that Louise mentioned here again and portrayed me as the one at wrong in the situation, which I sure wasn't.
I hope that Niall can see that because it wouldn't be fair for my work to be overshadowed by drama that I did not create.
The discussion is a direct response to the feedback that Louise gave Shadi, which was delivered on a public forum. If something is delivered in public, the person it is about should be able to respond in public, and the same for anyone else who was there who may have an opinion on it, such as myself.
Anyway, congrats to Team Inspired and commiserations to Aptitude
Plus, I'm sure Shadi is perfectly capable of defending himself and doesn't need you to fight his battles for him.
If Shadi would rather I didn't stand up for him, I will respect that and back down. However, if my one of my team mates has had unfair comments made about them in public I think it is right and decent for me to stand up for them, just as I would hope that they would for me.
Actually David, if you look back through this thread you will see that my initial response was a two-sentence post commenting that I didn't think that Shadi had an attitude problem, from the two tasks that I have worked with him. Anything else I have said since has been in response to things that have been posted.
I agree that Shadi is completely capable of defending himself, and has demonstrated that ability; the reason that I have made these points is not because I do not consider him capable of doing so himself, but because in this situation it is helpful to have an ally. Anyone looking in on this may just see this as a dispute between an advisor and a candidate, and either not be able to judge at all or simply assume that as an advisor, Louise is right. Me being there as another person who was involved in the situation means that it is clear to everyone that Shadi is not just an irritant, as there is at least one team member who is prepared to back him up. Those who were following or taking part in last year's game will recall an infamous dispute between two candidates, during which one of those candidates complained that a third candidate did not back them up very much. I'm not like that; if I think that someone is being unfairly picked upon, of course I will speak up in their favour unless for whatever reason they ask me not to - and given that Shadi's own defence was prefaced with 'Thank you, George. You explained the whole situation perfectly.' that would not appear to be the case.
*takes two pennies and leaves*