James - Digging a Hole
Hmm, I think this is going to ruin his chances of making it to the final. The thing I notice is the interviewers make a quick evaluation of a person and then try their best to find their weak points so they can break the candidate, show them in a poor light. James is a quick-witted, fun person but I'm not sure he's tough enough to withstand such negative comments. The interview task can be brutal.
The interviewer didn't know what SLA stands for? 
Cretin, fraud or liar?
Mr Interviewer bloke you're rubbish, you're fired!
Cretin, fraud or liar?
Mr Interviewer bloke you're rubbish, you're fired!
Cosidering the background checks they do on all the candidates when they reach this far you'd think he'd know what any acronym meant.
Could be just a ploy to put him off kilter and see how he reacts to being put in a negative situation and how well he defends himself.
I've always disliked the interview task as it's not a 'real' interview situation just an excuse for SAS's cronies to rip them to shreads. With the candidates having to defend themselves without upsetting them too much for fear of them squeeling to Sugar.
Could be just a ploy to put him off kilter and see how he reacts to being put in a negative situation and how well he defends himself.
I've always disliked the interview task as it's not a 'real' interview situation just an excuse for SAS's cronies to rip them to shreads. With the candidates having to defend themselves without upsetting them too much for fear of them squeeling to Sugar.
Originally Posted by Old Codger:
“Cosidering the background checks they do on all the candidates when they reach this far you'd think he'd know what any acronym meant.
Could be just a ploy to put him off kilter and see how he reacts to being put in a negative situation and how well he defends himself.
I've always disliked the interview task as it's not a 'real' interview situation just an excuse for SAS's cronies to rip them to shreads. With the candidates having to defend themselves without upsetting them too much for fear of them squeeling to Sugar.”
“Cosidering the background checks they do on all the candidates when they reach this far you'd think he'd know what any acronym meant.
Could be just a ploy to put him off kilter and see how he reacts to being put in a negative situation and how well he defends himself.
I've always disliked the interview task as it's not a 'real' interview situation just an excuse for SAS's cronies to rip them to shreads. With the candidates having to defend themselves without upsetting them too much for fear of them squeeling to Sugar.”
Seems to confirm this.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...70&postcount=1
All in the name of entertainment.
Digging himself a hole?
I don't agree.
I think James stuck up for himself well, made himself very clear and tried to rationalise the criticisms.
If the interviewer is going to be a contrary arsehole then what else can the interviewee do other than lick his arse?
If the interviewer is treating you like shit and not respecting you as another human being then you may as well walk out and say "Thanks, but no thanks".
An interview is a two way communication. It shouldn't just be about the interviewer making a judgement, it should also be about the interviewee having the ability to judge and use their own discretion. If the interviewer acts like that then the interviewee maybe shouldn't bother having their time wasted by a disrespectful interviewer.
The interviewee isn't a subordinate to the interviewer, he's not some slave that can be treated like a dog.
So I can't believe that the BBC comment presented the clip saying that James dug himself into a hole.
It makes it sound as though having an interview for a job at the BBC must be quite a nasty experience if the BBC comment is saying that James is at fault and not the interviewer.
I don't agree.
I think James stuck up for himself well, made himself very clear and tried to rationalise the criticisms.
If the interviewer is going to be a contrary arsehole then what else can the interviewee do other than lick his arse?
If the interviewer is treating you like shit and not respecting you as another human being then you may as well walk out and say "Thanks, but no thanks".
An interview is a two way communication. It shouldn't just be about the interviewer making a judgement, it should also be about the interviewee having the ability to judge and use their own discretion. If the interviewer acts like that then the interviewee maybe shouldn't bother having their time wasted by a disrespectful interviewer.
The interviewee isn't a subordinate to the interviewer, he's not some slave that can be treated like a dog.
So I can't believe that the BBC comment presented the clip saying that James dug himself into a hole.
It makes it sound as though having an interview for a job at the BBC must be quite a nasty experience if the BBC comment is saying that James is at fault and not the interviewer.
Originally Posted by Alrightmate:
“Digging himself a hole?
I don't agree.
I think James stuck up for himself well, made himself very clear and tried to rationalise the criticisms.
If the interviewer is going to be a contrary arsehole then what else can the interviewee do other than lick his arse?
If the interviewer is treating you like shit and not respecting you as another human being then you may as well walk out and say "Thanks, but no thanks".
An interview is a two way communication. It shouldn't just be about the interviewer making a judgement, it should also be about the interviewee having the ability to judge and use their own discretion. If the interviewer acts like that then the interviewee maybe shouldn't bother having their time wasted by a disrespectful interviewer.
The interviewee isn't a subordinate to the interviewer, he's not some slave that can be treated like a dog.
So I can't believe that the BBC comment presented the clip saying that James dug himself into a hole.
It makes it sound as though having an interview for a job at the BBC must be quite a nasty experience if the BBC comment is saying that James is at fault and not the interviewer.”
“Digging himself a hole?
I don't agree.
I think James stuck up for himself well, made himself very clear and tried to rationalise the criticisms.
If the interviewer is going to be a contrary arsehole then what else can the interviewee do other than lick his arse?
If the interviewer is treating you like shit and not respecting you as another human being then you may as well walk out and say "Thanks, but no thanks".
An interview is a two way communication. It shouldn't just be about the interviewer making a judgement, it should also be about the interviewee having the ability to judge and use their own discretion. If the interviewer acts like that then the interviewee maybe shouldn't bother having their time wasted by a disrespectful interviewer.
The interviewee isn't a subordinate to the interviewer, he's not some slave that can be treated like a dog.
So I can't believe that the BBC comment presented the clip saying that James dug himself into a hole.
It makes it sound as though having an interview for a job at the BBC must be quite a nasty experience if the BBC comment is saying that James is at fault and not the interviewer.”
I know he didnt. But ive actually watched tonight's episode and he does at one stage
Originally Posted by Kris:
“The interviewer didn't know what SLA stands for?”
“The interviewer didn't know what SLA stands for?
”
Who does?
Having said that, I do think that the interviewer couldn't have cared less what it meant and was just being nasty.
Originally Posted by Ignazio:
“Seems to confirm this.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...70&postcount=1
All in the name of entertainment.”
“Seems to confirm this.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...70&postcount=1
All in the name of entertainment.
”
Is anyone else envisioning a massive media outcry much like Johnathon Ross/ Russell Brandt farce against Reality TV? Susan Boyle and Big Brother are already stupidly prevalent and even Gordon Brown has stuck his two penny's worth in. BORING!
The stupid thing is the more people get angry at these producer's the more publicity they get! People who believe these reactions on the show are entirely real are going to the ones jumping on the bandwagon.
I can understand in the first series people being naive, but surely not now! Why can't we all take it as it is, entertainment and good at that?
Originally Posted by Sammix:
“How have you watched tonight's episode already?”
“How have you watched tonight's episode already?”
Jazz-misuc has a thread about their trip to see this weeks "you're fired"
Originally Posted by Sylvia:
“Who does?
Having said that, I do think that the interviewer couldn't have cared less what it meant and was just being nasty.”
“Who does?
Having said that, I do think that the interviewer couldn't have cared less what it meant and was just being nasty.”
Fair enough that a viewer might not but the interviewer is supposed to be in business!
The acronym stands for "Service Level Agreement" part of the agreement entered into by any customer / supplier, which contains things like "if this thing breaks, how quickly will you fix it" and pretty much the first acronym you learn if you are ever involved in contract discussions.
Originally Posted by Kris:
“Fair enough that a viewer might not but the interviewer is supposed to be in business!
The acronym stands for "Service Level Agreement" part of the agreement entered into by any customer / supplier, which contains things like "if this thing breaks, how quickly will you fix it" and pretty much the first acronym you learn if you are ever involved in contract discussions.”
“Fair enough that a viewer might not but the interviewer is supposed to be in business!
The acronym stands for "Service Level Agreement" part of the agreement entered into by any customer / supplier, which contains things like "if this thing breaks, how quickly will you fix it" and pretty much the first acronym you learn if you are ever involved in contract discussions.”
How daft am I? I did actually know it.
Also- just reading an article in which Alan Sugar is quoted calling this a 'contest' it's moved from being a job interview to something associated with Reality TV.
http://tv.sky.com/the-apprentice-week-11-our-verdict
http://tv.sky.com/the-apprentice-week-11-our-verdict
Originally Posted by anniecatz:
“Also- just reading an article in which Alan Sugar is quoted calling this a 'contest' it's moved from being a job interview to something associated with Reality TV.
http://tv.sky.com/the-apprentice-week-11-our-verdict”
“Also- just reading an article in which Alan Sugar is quoted calling this a 'contest' it's moved from being a job interview to something associated with Reality TV.
http://tv.sky.com/the-apprentice-week-11-our-verdict”
Well, we can't really avoid the fact that its associated with reality TV can we! I know what you mean but it must be easy to confuse your words when it's probably 50/50 job interview and entertainment show.
You're right. I'm being unclear- I just meant how before it was conveyed as so set in stone that was a serious interview and the fact that it was filmed was almost a co-incidence, now it seems as though that aspect of the show is becoming neglected.
Originally Posted by Shrike:
“Jazz-misuc has a thread about their trip to see this weeks "you're fired"”
“Jazz-misuc has a thread about their trip to see this weeks "you're fired"
”
Thank you! I will take a look.
