Yes, I know the thread title's a bit of an exaggeration, but Paloma dug her hole beyond any survivable depth with that outburst right before she went, and her smaller outbursts before that. I did think that it would be her character rather than her ability as a candidate that would lead to her downfall - and it seems I was right, imo at least. If she had reigned it in, she might have got to the interviews - but now she hasn't and that's her own fault. Good riddance.

Had she kept quiet (and not gone on about how wonderful she was) I reckon Sandeesh would probably have gone. That's what I thought, at least. Sugar hinted that she could possibly go before Paloma choose who she was bringing back. I don't think she'll last much longer, and unless she pulls something out of the bag soon or does well as PM, she will be toast.

As for Alex, although he dissapointed me this week, he wouldn't have gone, and I would have thought it unfair if he had. Sugar seemed to agree - so he stayed. Right decision.

Well if they both kept their mouths shut, Alex would have gone.

Sandeesh's eyes freak me out !

Really? I think they're lovely. I'm jealous of her eyes!

Don't think so myself - Alex's performance for the past three tasks has been generally good and solid - it's only now he's made a mistake. He's probably had a larger positive effect than either Sandeesh or Paloma. So he would have been safe - even though I don't think he'll win.

Paloma treated people like dirt.

And she wasn't as bright as she made out either - cocked up on two previous tasks making promises to customers that she couldn't keep.

She was very eloquent, but there was little substance to her.

Yes she so did, she acted most superior without anything to back it up, not so clever.

I thought her performance in the boardroom was hilarious - I've never actually watched someone commit professional suicide before, I couldn't believe she could have so little emotional intelligence. Nasty bit of work, though, a real bitch. Melissa was just stupid, but Paloma was a very nasty person.

D'you think she wears contacts? I've got brown eyes, but if I put in grey ones, my eyes look like that!

It was delicious watching Paloma seal her own fate.

Having said that, she came across much better on You're Fired and seems to have learned the error of her ways.

Whereas childish name-calling shows an exceptional amount of emotional intelligence, doesn't it?

I agree with you, though, that Paloma really did herself in in the boardroom. I thought she'd have had more common sense than to drown herself like that!

a real example of "when you're in a hole, stop digging!"

I think your assessment is spot on, ag, but the expression is "to rein it in" as in use the reins .. Constructive criticism.

Yes, she could have got rid of Alex if she had been less obviously unfair, arrogant and cold.

I also agree with Sid, her business judgement was poor, for all the claims she made.

I thought her a rather rude and nasty person.

Paloma made no sense whatsoever in her choice of Sandeesh to go in the boardroom, as she had just bigged her up by saying she had "pulled her weight" in the task!.

While she may have a point about Alex and his poor choice of area to plug their gear, even someone as ego driven as Paloma should have realised that the task had effectively been lost before the selling day started, because of her lack of enthusiasm at the "sparkly dresses" supplier.

She did indeed cut her own throat.
She how she treats other people.
She came over as loftily indifferent to the frocks and alienated the designer. Trying to play it cool like someone buying a second-hand car.
Then she was vile to Alex. If that's how she treats people then....bye bye, Paloma.

In my opinion both Paloma and Sandeesh commited suicide in the boardroom and if Sugar made an error it was in not sacking both of them. He rightly said that Sandeesh blaming Alex's wrongly placed promotional stand for the loss showed she does not have the necessary of business. I don't expect Sandeesh or Alex (touch of the Alan Partridge about him) to last much longer.

We cheered when Paloma was fired! My wife is a good judge of character and had already noticed what a bitch Paloma was on previous tasks. Who would want someone like that in their organisation, constantly undermining colleagues? Pure poison with an overinflated ego.

I think Lord Sugar made the right decision.

It's interesting that The Apprentice has again shown that being overly aggressive and trying to stick the knife into your rivals is not the way to get ahead in business.

Up to now excluding the very first firing, Lord Sugar has gone for those who were "nice" people who had shown much ability but not enough to compete with the more vocal and stronger characters.
I really didnt think Sugar would fire Paloma but thankfully he did.
She was a trample upon everyone else to get there type person. We see a lot of those types of women in business.
I am glad Alex got a second chance. He put his heart and sole into that retail project even though he made an error that he openly admitted to.
I like honest people and Paloma just wasn't. Brave decision by Lord Alan Sugar but she needed to go.

It was clear that Paloma and Sandeesh picked up on the promo stand mistake and Alex's sale technique, and tried to use them as a weapon to get Alex fired. The problem was that Alex did admit the promo stand was a poor choice but gave valid reasons for the choice, apologised that it went wrong, plus he got the advert on the big screen. Nick said that it reached thousands of people - logic tells us that's a bigger audience than a promo stand would ever get. It wasn't such a make or break mistake. For the women to make such a big deal about it just made it obvious that they were deflecting the real problem which was product choice.

As for Alex's sales style putting off customers, Karen kind of busted them when she said that Alex sold as many as Sandeesh. So, it was a non-starter. And whilst Alex may have been annoying, it wasn't really backed up Nick and he didn't show it in the boardroom, whilst the Paloma showed what an arrogant, quite ruthless character she was.

So, I agree. I think Sandeesh and Paloma were the ones in trouble for their boardroom tactics, and Paloma was the one to go since she really went for it and I guess Lord Sugar didn't like what he saw. I do think she was a credible and capable though, if only she would tone down the trampling.

The task was lost in the shiny dress designers gaff, and Alex wasn't there, so he should have been safe.

I also LudAl saw Paloma taking Sandessh as a tactical move, never a good thing

Only in the boardroom, which makes her no different to many of the other candidates. (She did initially defend Sandeesh's contribution, which many PMs don't do when Siralan is singling someone out for scrutiny.)

Sugar is a notoriously aggressive, rude and unpleasant character (the show mentions it at the beginning of every episode...). He almost certainly stuck a fair few knives in to get where he is today.

I hope this doesn't come across as sexist, but I come across so many businesswomen like Melissa and Paloma who seem to think that the only way to be taken seriously is to never stop talking always make sure you're saying something positive about yourself just don't stop make sure you also say bad things about other people while still talking and if there's a pause make sure you fill it etc. etc.

I've run recruitment sessions for multiple candidates and there's always one or two women like this, and they virtually never get a job unless they really are spectacularly good, and the firm thinks that the grief she causes will be worth it...