I just realised something. The last series of The Apprentice was filmed a long time ago, going on a year ago now.

Considering the final two go to work for SAS in between filming and the result being revealed, how on earth hasnt anything leaked on the identities of the candidates. They must have been working for him for ages.

And also, how havent fired contestants identities been leaked either? Surely they all would have HAD to have gone back to work by now. I know some of them come from highly paid jobs, but nobody can live a year without pay, and presumably some would have gone back to their old roles.

I find it really difficult to understand how nobody has blabbed. I know the contestants sign contracts to not give away the results of the show, but surely that doesnt apply for everyone who knows them too.

The candidates are embarrassing complient to their contract with Talkback (the makers). Previous candidates have broken ranks, I think Simon Smith S4 was the last to spill the beans until he decided to leave it and move on. Pretty well I understand, good

The editors produce a simple story arc. Bit embarassed that those from S5 went along with it. Saw that in the final You're Hired. Even when done over they repeat it.

The contract for S6 stated that that the TV company could portray them in any way it saw fit. So expect even more complience from the candidates.

It's like they think they sign up to 'omerta', the mafia code of silence. However the mafia enforce it in a way Talkback can't.

So are you suggesting the contestants are effectively being threatened with bad edits if they blab? It'd be interesting if that were the case, but surely some of the contestants realise they are going to be the villain whether they break the rules or not?

Well a gagging order is part of the contract they sign with the program makers. As far as I know it starts from being selected for the show, and ends after the final is aired. Fair enough, don't want anyone telling us who wins. No, the bit that gets me is even when the firee's are giving interviews afterwards, they still stick with the edited version of events as applies to them. Even when made to look foolish, they hardly ever try and put the record straight about what wasn't shown. Do they just follow what some PR wonk tells them to say? Strange when they make out they are strong, individual personalities. A few have tried to make some small corrections in interviews, but the interviewers never seem to listen. But that's Adrian Chiles or breakfast TV for you. Dara should be different (hopefully)

I don't think they see any of the TV episodes before we do. Well actually a day or two before when Your Fired is recorded. They would have no idea on how they are going to be edited. The contract for last year (the one we've yet to see) did have a clause allowing the makers to portray any candidate how they liked. I suppose in case they don't get any real villans it's even easier to make some.

Occam's razor...

They're probably not making gargantuan corrections 'cause the programme makers probably aren't taking as massive an artistic licence as you think.

Occam's razor or the simplest explanation is usually the best.
Well that does apply to what we see on screen. Here are the faults that will bite them later and here's the later added voice over to make sure the thicker BBC1 viewers don't miss what will be later used in evidence.

There are two camera teams following around each team as they are made to split up. Say filming from 6am to 8pm gives up to 56 hours of film a day. Two day task, plus say 5 hours in the boardroom = a potential 117 hours of film typically per episode. That's a lot of raw footage from which to extract funny bits, reactions out of context, arguements that seem to come out of nowhere, general shots of people running about, etc. So a very great deal is 'left on the cutting room floor'. Most of it being boring or repetative. Some though will be unhelpful to the storyline as it may show a candidate who gets the chop actually doing something right. Perhaps even usually. A lot of viewers would leave if firings were to appear arbitory or too complicated to listen to on an entertainment show.
Editing is a storytelling art. And never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Some candidates have said that what is shown is pretty much correct. Others have pointed out how things are distorted. Depends how well each was happy with how they were portrayed.

The contract for last year (the one we've yet to see) did have a clause allowing the makers to portray any candidate how they liked i.e to make it more entertaining in their opinion. But your reputation is everything in business. Why would you hand it over as a hostage to entertainment film makers? They must find some unusually complient people for this show. Which perhaps answers the OP's question?