I can think of many occasions where Sir Alan has made the wrong decision.

All of them are where a man should have been fired rather than a woman. I know this is a comment that brings up generalisation and controversy. But it is quite hard to ignore.

Namely, when he gets down to the last two. I am not saying Saira, Ruth, Kristina and Claire were the best candidates out of the 14/16 (even though IMHO Ruth and Kristina certainly were) but out of the final two SA could definitley be seen as having made the terrible decision.

In 3 out of 4 of hese occasions he chose the men. Basically, every single time a man has reached the last two, he has won.
Other occasions, such as Michael staying over Sara, Lohit remaining over Jadine and in the first series Miriam leaving over another man, always srping to mind. I have never seen a man being fired unfairly is what I am trying to say. (Unless it was clearly down to him and another guy)

I think in terms of driving SA's company forward, and getting on with the job, SA has consistenly made the wrong decision. Maybe in a time of "economic crisis" he will decide he needs someone who is not just his biggest fan.

With the past two winners being Lee and Simon, it seems the show is truning into 'Sir Alan Sugar's British Best Friend'. So Paris Hilton, eat your heart out.

What a ridiculous post. SAS chooses who he wants, it's not one of those 'odd year it's a woman, even year it's a man' options simply to keep this type of accusation at bay!

Margaret never worked directly for SAS, she was a partner at Herbert Smith managing Amstrad's flotation, then laterly a non-exec Director for Amstrad.

As the official site says:


He picks people because of their ability, and no other reason!

I disagree with SAS a lot

but I think he discrimintes more on class than gender. He says he doesn't care about class and it's for the best candidate, but deep down he has a soft spot for the working class London 'grafters' like himself.

He definitely goes for candidates he can 'see a bit of himself' on.

I firmly believe that Michelle wouldn't have won if she didn't have that tragic, poverty stricken childhood.

And I don't think Raef would have got the most undeserved firing in Apprentice history if he didn't dress all flamboyant and talk posh.

I agree, he seems to hate privileged people of either sex, plus he seems to dislike flighty people as well.

I do sort of agree about the class thing - its no coincidence that three of the four winners were all fairly working class, though Simon does put a spanner in that argument.

And also, I hate the misconception about Michelle's life story winning for her - she mentioned it vaguely once at the end, when asked by Sir Alan. Its not so much posts in this thread, but I always see that and it bugs me. I think Michelle won because she was sort of silent but deadly, and did a good job without being gobby going on and on about it.

Mind you, I do think there will be a bit of pressure on him to have a woman win this series, just because there will be people starting to question if he's sexist or whatever. Its a shame that thats what it'll come to, but it will if another guy wins.

I think Siralun has a problem with women , it's such a shame that Michelle Dewberry was such a failure after winning. If a man is the best candidate for the job ,I don't mind the winner being male but there are times when it was clear a woman was the best.Like in 2007 when Simon won rather than Kristina Grimes

Michael from last year is a good example of this favouritism. Michael got off the hook so many times because he was a "young man" who reminded Sir Alan of himself. What if a "young woman" made as many blunders as Michael did? Would they be excused so many times? Doubt it. In fact, I think Sara, who was fired in favour of Michael, was only a year older than him or something, yet she got fired for making the exact same mistakes that Michael made. And in previous tasks she was much better than Michael ever was.

[list][*]Tim over Saira: I disagree. Saira failed on merit. She was a bit of a disaster, frankly.[*]Michelle over Ruth: I thought Michelle won on merit, and it seems irrelevant here anyway because both are women.[*]Simon over Kristina: I was not a fan of Simon, but it looked like he was a better fit for the role Sir Alan was trying to fill, in property, and his presentation in the final confirmed it. (On that occasion Sir Alan seemed to be looking for someone different to himself; someone who could relate to posh people better.) (And I was even less a fan of Kristina because she was the most evil candidate we've seen.)[*]Lee over Claire: I was a fan of Claire during the series, and defended her frequently on here, but at the end I felt Lee was the better candidate.[*]Michael staying over Sara: I agree Michael was rubbish, but on the task there wasn't much in it.[*]Lohit staying over Jadine: I disagree. I wasn't a fan of Jadine, and if anything I felt Lohit deserved a place in the final more than Simon did.[*]Paul staying over Miriam: I agree; but this is the famous example where Sir Alan publicly admitted he got it wrong, and apologised to Miriam soon after.[/list]
So I disagree on most, and on all the finalists.

Maybe men are just better? though of that?

Right, just because I'm surprised no-one's said it yet...
You might want to be careful how loudly you shout that!

This is a good point; I completely agree. Michael made many mistakes yet got away with it for a long time because of the similarities Sir Alan thought they shared - and because he was a "young man". I can't see him letting any woman off with so much even if she too shared similar traits with Sir Alan.

How the heck was Kristina evil?!?! I personally rate Kristina as the best ever candidate!

I just want to let everyone know that I meant Sir Aan prefers to employ men than women

Ridiculous. Kristina was evil!?!?
LOL

And Lindi Mngaza was as white as a sheet

Those aren't mutually exclusive. I was referring her, eg, putting a lollipop into the hand of a 5-year-old, turning to the parents and saying, "That'll be £2 please." Or bringing up Katie's private life in the boardroom when she wasn't there to defend herself. Or conspiring with Adam to keep from Katie that she'd done that. And then allying with Katie to bring down her erstwhile ally Adam the next day. Not someone I would trust, was Kristina.

Sorry, but I disagree with all that.

* The lollypop thing was very very cheeky, but not evil.
* She brought up Katie's personal life, but against Paul and not Katie, because Paul had let it get in the way of business. Kristina had no place in the boardroom that week, Katie did.
* The conspiring with Adam was hardly evil. They knew they had to work with Katie the next week, and keeping her oblivious was obviously the better scenario.
* Kristina didnt allign with Katie to take down Adam, it just benefitted them to work together because they were both very strong candidates. I also wouldnt call Kristina and Adam allies either, and even if they were, there should be no such thing as allies in the Apprentice.

As if

It amounted to extortion. If the parents had taken the lollipop away from the child, it would have cried. They had little choice but to pay.

Katie had done nothing wrong that task. I grant you Kristina hadn't either; Ghazal should have been there. The point remains; Kristina resented Katie being absent and dropped her in it. She knew what she was doing.


It showed she knew what they had done was wrong.


Did you miss the scene in which they toasted his downfall? Kristina played Katie there.

If it helps, I wrote "most evil", not "evil". I can't think of another candidate who was worse. (Katie certainly wasn't - she just mouthed off to camera a bit. Her actual actions were honourable, at least in the show.) (Simon was pretty bad, in that he set up Adam and Andy as fall guys in ep1, and Adam himself was quite bad too - he admitted he was happy to sabotage his own team so long as someone else got the blame. But Kristina was the worst.)

Sorry, but there is no way to justify Kristina being more evil than Katie. I personally found Katie to be a great contestant, and I actually wanted her to win for a long time (check my post history! ) but she was a nasty piece of work. I dont think either are EVIL pursé, but Katie was worse..

I do have to say mind, whilst Paul came up with most of the ideas in the France task, Katie was 100% on board with them, and was vocal about how she supported Paul. I can remember her mouthing off Kristina and how she wasnt on board actually. And I dont think they did wrong whatsoever. She was in danger of being fired because Paul was doing Katie, I personally would call them out for it everytime, just because Katie would have probably been in serious shit if she had been called in that week. Lol, I like how we're debating this like it matters now! It was two years ago and none of the people involved won anyway!

Season 3 was the best.

I do think that he prefers men over women, slightly. But he is fair most of the time. He obviously has a chip on his shoulder about the more highly enducated / middle-class candidates though.

Sara getting fired over Michael was my biggest disapointment of that season. Since Sara was my favourite, and Michael my least favourite out of everyone.

Actually most of the mistakes were made in Makro, when Katie wasn't present. I remember her being told about the cheese by phone, and she sounded very dubious, but it was a bit late for her to do anything about it. (Perhaps you are confusing her with Adam, who went to Makro with Paul, and could have put a stop to the cheese and the jelly-burners had he chose.)

It's true Katie did everything Paul wanted on the task, and for that reason he couldn't very well bring her into the boardroom. It was nothing to do with their relationship; she just didn't give him any difficulty on the task. Where-as Kristina he apparently found to be a thorn in his side.