100% agree with this post. I felt it was unfair Lorraine being compared to a Dementor. The only time Philip ever gives out positive vibes is when he is the centre of attention and he successfully forces everyone to use his ideas.

Kimberley missed several tricks by not taking Noorul into the boardroom with her, just for being a non-entity. Can't believe we have to endure at least another week of this vacuous character.

Jenny Eclair's 'gay' comments were just embarrassing - i.e. she made herself look a complete fool. Even Adrian Chiles didn't seem himself in last night's YF.

I think you're spot on there - they were busy slamming Lorraine for 'sucking out enthusiasm', but Philip drove them into right into the ground with his single idea, stropping the moment attention was taken away from him. What I found most astonishing was that even at the end, after all the boardroom slamming of the whole concept and Kim's firing, I think he still thought it was a genuinely great idea, he didn't seem to grasp that this is what laid the bogus foundation for their whole project! Kim was rightly fired but Philip was just as worthy (though he of course makes for better TV )


Kim genuinely looked liked she couldn't care less through most of the task, the only time she actually did anything was directing the advert - I think she egotistically believed she was that good in that field, and the rest was 'not her thing', that they would sail it regardless of the idea. She completely missed the point of the product being the essential part of the whole task - you can polish a turd all you like, you still won't sell it

I didn't agree with the panel's suggestion of bringing the non-entities, such as Noorul, into the boardroom - this only works in a task where failure stems from lack of effort. This task was doomed from the start with a floored concept, further impaired by a complete lack of focus and management from the PM. The only person Kim might have brought in with Phil would have been Mona for the presentation - but Kim would have been rightly slammed for not stepping up to do this herself as the (supposed) expert in this field (I really failed to grasp what it is she actually does in her marketing job )

I thought that too!

i felt sorry for lorraine-she might be a bit depressing but was the only one to say how crap the idea was -why should she befired for that?

kim was nice but took the wrong people in-the lorraine bashing was just uncalled for

I agree with this post. The Yr Fired team were so unfair on Lorraine and so indulgent of Philip. Does this mean that he's in the final two and they are aware of it? It's just ridiculous.

Kim has already admitted in her interview on here that the reason she was so upset with Lorraine in the boardroom was for personal reasons - ie. she stuck up for her in previous weeks when the other apprentices disliked her. She assumed that Lorraine would therefore support her when she was PM and was taken aback by her criticism.

But the truth is, Lorraine's comments to Suralan were justified. I can understand why Kim was hurt, but Lorraine was treating it as a business situation whereas Kim was reacting personally. None of the Yr Fired panel picked up on this. They wre all a load of PANTS!

Why would she think that stading up for her would outweigh the fact that she'd brought her back to the BR?

It's quite obvious that a lot of candidates feel as if they've been stabbed in the back if they are brought back.

It's quite funny to see someone who appears to own a very large part of the responsibility for the failure of a task (e.g. Ben and Philip) being completely shocked and indignant that they are actually being called to account.

I don't think her mission in life is to be taken seriously.

I didn't know they were selling carpet?

The Pants idea lacked any common sense, thinking it would be funny! The underwhelmed 8 years olds really did sum it up!

Sorry but she was just covering her own backside. She had nothing woth while to offer. Philip is the only one on that crap team with any ideas. Lorraine should have gone.

No way. Anyone who comes up with an idea as bad as that and even after they've tried to realise it still thinks it's good is too much of a twank to even consider.

With Philip's pants?

how was she covering herself she said she didnt like the task before they knew they had lost-thats jsut speaking the truth

I love Jenny Eclair's contributions on "Grumpy Old Women" but it seems that it is all she actually is ... a grumpy old women. She isn't much of a comedienne anymore because all we ever see her do on TV these days is moan about other people with a certain amount of bitchyness.

Potty-mouthed old b***h. Good on Adrian Chiles for 'quickly moving on' after her remarks.

I'd love to see how Alan Partridge would have handled that.

Yeah I totally didn't get why they were laying into Lorraine including SAS. They can hardly saying she was just being negative and trying to cover her arse when the idea was in fact crap and SAS thought that himself. One minute you're supposed to bring up problems at the beginning to avoid absolute failure then the next minute you're trying to cover your arse. If Kim was smart she should've brought up what Phil said in the taxi about 'well if you don't do this then I'll say I told you so in the boardroom' (word to that effect) - now that is blatent arse covering.

Kim felt hurt because Lorraine didn' t wait to be brought back to the boardroom before she was critical. When Suralan asked how she was as team leader, Philip praised her, the others maintained a diplomatic silence but Lorraine was very cocal in her crititicisms - and that was before the results were read out.

But Philip's ideas are too often crap, and he sulks if they aren't accepted. He should have gone.

Absolutely.

If you were in your probation period for a new job, if you just stood back and let others do all the work, with no contribution towards the task, you would not get through your probation period.

How on earth do you know exactly what anyone did whilst off camera?

It's very, very, obvious that they are editing the programmes to make it appear as if Noorul is doing nothing (much as they did with Helen last year).

But if he really was doing nothing we would certainly have seen some altercations when other members of the team objected (as a mouthy git like Philip most certainly would).

You need to read between the lines to work out how the production is trying to manipulate you.

Of course, they could just be exaggerating a rather low key player.

I think presuming that if someone is shown as not contributing that it must be due to editing, or that all disagreements and minor arguments are shown on air, or that Phillip is definitely the sort of person who would challenge somebody for doing nothing (when he seems exactly the opposite to me- he challenges people for doing something, because he is the only one allowed to do that) are all assumptions equal or greater to "Noorul is not contributing much".

It's a question of a balance of probabilities.

What are the chances that after 5 weeks not a single candidate has made a single comment about Mona or Howard or Noorul not working hard enough?

Pretty well negligable I would have thought.

Perticularly in the advertising task, where they were so short of time that they couldn't even come up with a back to the box, being able to bring someone into the boardroom and say: "They were skiving off" would be an absolute life saver for the TL.

The candidates could have made comments about Noorul not working hard. Lots of them. They could just not have been shown, for any number of reasons.

I know that sounds counter-intuative, given that Noorul is getting a "does very little" edit (IMO because he actually does very little), but there are good reasons for keeping those comments out.

1) One of the best ways to give someone a "does very little" edit is to ignore them completely - Noorul has had no on task interviews, and given no opinions on any of the other candidates. Likewise nobody's talked about him.

2) The edit often exists to make Siralan, Nick and Margaret (particularly the latter two these days) look clever. Them spotting that Noorul does nothing when everyone else has ignored it makes them look brighter.

3) The comments may conflict with the edit of another character. Showing Phill complaining again might push his character too far negative when he's supposed to somewhat relatable. Other candidates confronting Noorul might make them appear more intelligent or aggressive than we're supposed to think they are.

4) Noorul is possibly around for a while longer. Heavy focus is brought to bear on a character's flaws only in the episode they leave. Kimberly has been demonstrably poor at marketing throughout. This fact only got heavy focus this week. Pushing the "Noorul does nothing" storyline too hard might cause viewers to burn out.

And so on and so on and so on. Just because nobody has been shown saying on camera that Noorul is useless and does nothing, is a long way from proving that Noorul is not useless and does things.

Speculation on the edit and trying to understand it is a good thing. I just think you're being too simplistic.

These are all very good points to bear in mind.

You may well be correct with the simplistic comment. I may not have realised quite how devious the producers are.