Bully is a word often used too lightly. Paloma has her faults, but I don't accept that anything we saw her do constituted bullying.

I would if I thought someone was taking me to Basingstoke rather than Birmingham...

With regards to who was at fault:

The teams weren't actually that far apart in terms of profit.

Paloma's team were the best organised on the day and sold well despite what has been generally regarded as an inferior line.

So - which mistake from the "main two" really cost the task? Was it the promo stand or the choice of merchandise?

I'd say the latter definitely tipped the balance more than the former. Move Alex's stand and advert to the other team and I reckon the other team wins even more easily. Move the Paloma's range to the other team and I reckon they lose.

Why was Alex's mistake a "big" one?.

The "buying" team led by Paloma lost them the task from the off by not securing the popular dress designs, and had nothing to do with Alex.

Also. Alex made it quite clear that he had made a mistake, and LS would have nailed him to the floor if it HAD been a serious mistake that cost the team the task. And Alex DID get the TV ad, and did have valid points on point of sale that Paloma ignored.

Why didnt he make an 'arrow trail" pointing to the shop unit. That's what I would have done. Everyone likes following a trail, it has some mystery with it.

woops wrong thread

The buying team cant really be blamed. They were not to know that the other team were more enthusiastic. They did try their best I thought.
Alex mistake which he readily admitted was not done on the spot. He had plenty of time to think about it. He should have thought about the TV earlier, he knew it was there. We dont know why Paloma didnt follow him up on the points of sale there must have been a reason. LS doesnt always bother with everything. He had already admitted it as soon as he came in the room before anyone even mentioned it.

I'm not inclined too be too harsh on them for that either, though the Liquorice people were giving off signs that they would have preferred more of a response.

It was Paloma's selection of the recycled clothes, clearly not a product with mass appeal, that I think was the more serious error.

If they had prior permission of the center manager, then that may have been an idea, but as these things take time to clear for H & S reasons, it isnt really possible.

She had a terrible business mind. On the bread task, she agreed with every mistake Shibby made, and continued over-promising even after he had realised it was a mistake. She advocated rejecting the Boots deal in the second task, when it would have saved them. She actually made an exclusive deal in task 4 when it wasn't allowed, which cost them two sets of sales. She was terrible.


Apart from when she denied criticising Sandeesh to Shibby, when we know from the footage she did? And when she claimed Laura was responsible for the advert in the fashion task, when it was actually Alex?

I don't know if she was consciously lying, but in a way it doesn't matter: you can't trust anything she says because it might be something she conveniently forgot.

The buying team looked distinctly unimpressed/disinterested with the sparkly dresses in front of the designers. As I watched I immediately commented that this could be a big mistake for them and was not surprised at all when the other team were selected.
They all have to be looking enthusiastic with every visit for something like this, whatever their true view is on the products.

Paloma did actually disagree with one mistake Shibby made. Shibby's decision not to accept the later order because he couldn't meet it was correct, but he rejected the order in a very disrespectful and unprofessional way, and Paloma rightly took exception.


We do now know that Paloma was deliberately lying on the Sandeesh matter, because she admitted it on You're Fired. However, I don't see it as a very reprehensible lie. People bitch about colleagues and friends from time to time, and most wouldn't like what they said to be repeated in front of said colleague or friend, and would deny it if it was.

On the matter of the advert, Paloma might have forgotten or had an imperfect understanding of the circumstances surrounding how the advert was set up.

She was right ot call Shibby out on how he behaved but she was also trying to take more orders during the meeting, ie bad business sense.


The boardroom is a comedy of bitching to suddenly to claim she didn't want to Sandeesh to hear her saying those things is fairly silly given what she was saying in front of Sandeesh on her final boardroom. The only reason she didn't admit to it in the boardroom was at that point she was level headed enough to see that bitching wouldn't come across well to Sr Alan, a week later and she forgot in the heat of the moment and got fired for it.

Given how she was arbitrarily insulting the other 2 in the boardroom at the end I seriously doubt he had a mis-understanding. She was just trying to use semantics to show up Alex.

Paloma wanted to accept the order. That would have been a far bigger mistake. She was disagreeing with him when he was right.


A lie is a lie. To lie in the boardroom, to Lord Sugar, about what happened on a task, is in my opinion very reprehensible. Even more so as it involved a matter of substance, and the assessing of another candidate.

That she was on camera both times, and knew she was, and was therefore highly likely to get caught out, makes it an extremely stupid lie, too. Why would someone like that ever be trusted again?

It was unnecessary. She could have refused to confirm or deny, or say that she was just venting in private.

Regardless, the point remains: she wasn't "brutally honest". She lied when it suited her.


Yes, that's what I said. Although she was rather adamant for someone who was wrong.

Paloma never really directly attacked Sandeesh in her final boardroom. What did she say that you think was worse than the comment Shibby repeated?

I don't disagree with you; I was just pointing out one thing she was right about in that task.


I don't think it was a matter of any substance, nor was it really relevant to what happened on the task. It wasn't as if Sugar didn't have other evidence as to Sandeesh's performance and character. Paloma's one bitchy comment amounted to nothing, and it wasn't in any way reprehensible. Frankly, I'd have done exactly the same.

How could she have refused to confirm or deny? She'd have looked idiotic. And if she'd said she was "venting in private" then that would have been a confirmation, and Sandeesh would have known what she'd said, which was just what she wanted to avoid.

What Paloma said was caught on camera, but I doubt if Paloma was thinking about what the audience would see at that time. Indeed, for all she knew her comment in the car might have ended up on the cutting room floor. I think she was purely focused on avoiding being fired and on retaining Sandeesh's friendship.
[/quote]

It wasn't so much about Sandeesh as Shibby. Shibby claimed the conversation happened. By denying it, Paloma was effectively accusing Shibby of lying, of making up a conversation which didn't happen. I doubt Lord Sugar knew which of them was telling the truth. Since he fired Shibby, he may well have decided Paloma was truthful and Shibby making stuff up to damn Sandeesh.

It was hugely significant. I'm very glad You're Fired picked up on it, and exonerated Shibby (albeit too late to save his position in the competition).


Her comment about Sandeesh wasn't represensible (or very bitchy, really; the point of the show is to assess candidates). Her denying it later was.


By saying, "Any comments I may made to you were said in confidence and off the record, and I refuse to confirm or deny them now." This would fit with those who think Shibby was wrong to bring up what she'd said.


Yes. Also, the truth. Explaining it in that way, as something said when tired and stressed, and not what she'd say now, would have reduced its significance and undermined Shibby's reasons for bringing Sandeesh into the boardroom.


Hopefully Sandeesh would have understood. Regardless, that doesn't justify it. It doesn't make it a necessary lie.


Indeed. Foolish of her.

It bothers me because in my experience, people who lie so blatantly, without thought of the likelihood of getting caught, are often habitual liars rather than strategic ones. Lying is a tool they keep near the top of their toolbox.


Yep. That's why she lied. She wanted to save her own skin and she wanted to conceal her duplicity from Sandeesh. It was a venal act.

And it worked. Shibby got fired. Sandeesh worked with her on the next task. You could argue that it was a cunning bit of gamesmanship. You can't argue that it was "brutally honest", because it was dishonest in the extreme.

But obviously you see it differently. I don't think we're going to agree.

I hadn't thought about it from that angle, but even there I doubt if it was really decisive. Shibby's poor performance both on the task and in the boardroom were quite enough to explain his being fired without Paloma's untruth.


Sorry, I expressed myself wrongly. I meant to say that the denial was not reprehensible.


My position remains that this would have appeared utterly absurd, both to the audience and to Lord Sugar.


Yes, she could have done that. It probably didn't occur to her on the spur of the moment though.


No, but since it was a fairly harmless lie (I know you dispute that, but I stand by my assessment) it seems fair enough under the circumstances.


I see it differently. Paloma was caught unawares and having to think fast. Simply denying what Shibby had said was the easiest way, and would have been for anyone, habitual liar or not.


I never said it was brutally honest.