Your view, to a greater or lesser degree, seems to be echoed by many posters with regards to Paloma. Even though she undoubtably has qualities, anyone who generates a feeling of distrust and negativity isn't a person I'd want to work alongside.

For me, it was more her non verbal communication, such as her imperious expressions, that made me prickle, and the little gestures such as mouthing 'wow' sarcastically at one point. I do appreciate that the show is edited, but personalities do come out. In contrast, Liz has only ever left a positive impression with me.

It's not just the tasks - it's a case of: do I want to be around this person. Paloma- an overwhelming no. Others, in particular Liz, would be a yes. Paloma certainly showed some business acumen but had a high unlikeability quotient. I think if anything, being fired relatively early in the series may have done her more good than harm - if she has the capability of learning from mistakes, better to realise that being cold and calculating makes her less employable than some she considers inferior.

I did, however, get the feeling from her demeanor in the aftershow that she's already made her excuses for her behaviour and will just carry on as before. I don't see any double standards in how she was treated, just that someone who has some good qualitiies but also some overwhelming negative ones was given a reality kick that she thoroughly needed.

And there the task was won and lost

I'm not exggerating her arrogance at all. I am simply stating my opinion.

The only other person who I have found to be in any way as unpleasant as Paloma in the boardroom was the girl who went last week. Melissa, I think?

I have yet to see Stuart shine at all. I said that above. But from what I have seen of him so far, he hasn't come across as so unpleasant. He's definitely cocky, whether that is down to his age and he will calm down and grow up remains to be seen!

Yes, of course it will be edited to make her look worse. But those words still came out of her mouth. I would not want to employ someone who got as personal as Paloma did, whilst refusing to admit her own mistakes. She was very arrogant, whilst delivering not that much.

If Stuart had been team leader and behaved the same way last night, I would have expected him - or whoever else who behaved like that, to go.

As I said before, I am female. I don't think it was a gender decision. This was the second time she had got personal and unpleasant in that boardroom.

She just seemed to refuse to accept any criticism for that pitch didn't she?

You could see the designer wasn't convinced by them. They just seemed indifferent to the product. Whether they liked it or not shouldn't really have come in to it.

It was their task, they had to sell clothes, I would have mustered up some enthusiasm for the dresses, whether I liked them or not. I would have commented on the colours or the intracracies, or the sequins....something to suggest I was confident to sell them. I just didn't see any enthusiasm for the product in that pitch.

She was bare faced liar and deserved to go as such.

As Alexander says "simples"

Paloma was caught out in 2 lies, the earleir one about sandeesh and the one this episode about Laura being responsible for the advertisment. If we get to see these lies and her quite frankly antagonisitic behaviour towards her other candidates in this epeisode and in the past, dont you think that Lord Sugar, Karen and Nick have also seen this behaviour.

I think until that final attack on Sandeesh and Alex she may well have got away with a ticking off and a watch your step my girl from Lord Alan. I think her past behaviour and her boardroom behaviour sealed her fate and rightly so.

As a team member she was disruptive and divisive , not to mention a liar and I cant see her fitting in in any team. managing a very unhappy team possible but as a team member no.

People seen to have forgotten the argument in the street caused by her and the exclusivity offer that wasn't in her power to give. AS would clearly know all about these but was unable to do anyhting about it last week. Add to that the catfight in the boardroom earlier in the series that she was involved it and the result was that it was her time to go.

Was she involved in that argument? I honestly can't remember. As far as the boardroom goes, IMO that is different. By design the whole point of that is to survive and if need be backstab. In a way this show has two parts. The tasks, when you show what you can do when working. The boardroom is the reality TV bit. Other shows like BB, the jungle show and the like fill up time with the arguments and bickering as bugger all happens in that show.
In this show they don't concentrate on what happens in the house. Who gets on, who doesn't, any romances etc. Everything that would normally be encompassed in that stuff is kept to the boardroom.
The candidates/contestants are encouraged by the way the show is to have a go then, although sometimes it does go too far.

i dont think anyone is intimidated by a liar and with disloyalty. disgusted yes.


it wasnt so much that she went on the attack but the manner of that attack, it was wholly vicious and uncalled for. it was dishonest.

would anyone want to work with someone who is so manipulative in the workplace.

the point is if she was prepared to be as openly nasty as she was in the boardroom, he understood that outside of that room she would be nothing but a disaster.


she did not intimidate, she had no boundaries and that means she would be a loose canon.


there is a bit of difference in being diplomatic and presenting a constructive case and being an out and out witch as paloma was.

alan sugar has to take on criticism and be prepared to listen to it otherwise his businesses just wouldnt work.

but a wiser man would have thought do i want a liar, manipulator, disloyal and disruptive person in my team, do i want a vicious and underhand individual who is not prepared to accept any responsibility for failure .

the fact is she was prepared to be dishonest disloyal in front of alan sugar .. any boss does not want to see that in any potential employee.

nor does any boss want to be manipulated into a situation where he is firing the wrong person for the wrong crime.

can anyone work with someone so underhand and a schemer .. everyone would be too busy watching their backs rather than the business.

Anybody who uses the phrase "step up to the plate" is invariably talking bollocks and this example is no exception.

Paloma's attacks were very different to the attacks of others, she was savage, deeply personal, unprincipled and often totally unjustified. Many of them seemed desperate and petty and she seemed to relish abusing of others and she indicated clearly nothing but contempt for her fellow human beings.

I think however she may have adopted many of these characteristics because she perceived the Apprentice process rewards savagery and self-promotion and that dispensing with morals and consideration of others is a necessary casualty in the drive for success.

In YBF she showed considerable charm and consideration of the feeling of others and a self-awareness and moral framework that was completely absent in the programmes.

She seems capable of adapting and changing in a way she believes will deliver maximum advantage in the environment she finds herself and not hampered by a moral framework. She sees succeeding as the overriding priority and everything else is therefore subsidiary. She may learn from the Apprentice that having a moral framework and considering others will actually aid her personal success and so she may consider adopting both attributes.

Her natural contempt for fellow humans who are not immediately providing some advantage to her led her to treat the liquorice people with disdain and near disinterest and lost her team the task. She presumed that they would treat her with the reverence she feels she deserved, and learned a useful lesson.

I am inclined to post a lengthy character analysis of her, as she is an interesting and intelligent character, and she does have nice legs.

Who else could have Paloma brought back in. Too be honest Paloma was stuck with terrible team members and did really well considering. I would have made exactly the same choice as Paloma for bringing Sandeesh back in. It was obvious Alex had to come back and even though everyone else was rubbish Sandeesh has been the most consistently rubbish every week. Alan Sugar should have just fired the whole team and kept Paloma.

Paloma was terrible, terrible, terrible

All the normal cliches apply

"When you are in a hole, stop digging"

"Two Ears, One Mouth - use them in that proportion"

She was completely unprofessional, and absolutely deserved to get fired. Total lack of class. Why would anyone employ her on that performance.

Paloma's been unprofessional throughout and the fact she's older than Stuart demonstates she's unlikely to learn anything or change during the 13-week 'interview'. But worse than that, the poor woman's beyond deluded and thinks she's much better than she actually is...she hasn't demonstrated much skill other than supreme (and unwarranted!) overconfidence, belittling others and a readiness to take credit for other candidates' work...and I'm actually trying to be kind here.

Doesn't take a genius to work out she would not only be bad for business, but bad for 'office' harmony. Full of sh!t doesn't even begin to sum her up - I wouldn't employ her as a receptionist.

BTW Paloma hasn't 'offered' to be PM either so that point too is invalid.

Just tell Liz that.

I quite missed Melissa jumping up and down with her hand in the air saying 'Let me be team leader Lord Suralun, please, please, I love fashionality, I could do that".

But she was aggressive rather than assertive, and that's why she got the elbow.

You're missing out an important step there.

Lord Sugar said the plot was wrong.

Alex starting deflecting away how this wasn't down to him and that (even though he claimed to have personal experience of working in the centre) the others were there and could have chosen somewhere else (so clearly it wasn't his mistake).

Lord Sugar said he had no time at all for people who never admitted it when they made a mistake.

Alex absolutely, positively admitted he had made a mistake...and went on admitting it for the rest of the boardroom meeting.

it Is simple in my view why she went. when asked about Sandeesh by Sugar, Paloma said oh she was good in this task very helpfull in the pitch and so on.

Sugar had a coupel of digs at Sandeesh and Paloma thought to herself if she was going into the boardroom, Take Alex and shift the blame. Also take Sandeesh as a back up. Thinking wrongly Sugar would definaltly get rid of both of them first.

Sugar doesn't seem to like that sort of behaviour.

You're not really shocked are you?

Sugar will already have a good idea which two or three he would have working for him and the winner will be one of those. The rest will be also-rans, and will all go, does it really matter what order they go in?

She is one of those fierce, determined female candidates similar to that Barr woman from last year. Definately thought she couldve just been given a warning as she obviously has the talent as opposed to the other 2 who havent impressed so far and have no chance of winning.

Very surprising decision.

What talent does she have?

She refused to acknowledge Alex's efforts to get the ad. Frankly I think she was miffed that SHE wasn't in it.
She acted all haughty about the sparkly frocks instead of buttering up the designer.
She was mad for the unsaleable recycled items. Chris managed to push that ludicrous dress. But that range was a non-starter!

So what talents has she exactly?

Wow someone got out of bed on the wrong side today....

The blurb from the beeb website

Paloma started her working life frying donuts in Donut King and went on to launch her first company at the age of 21 immediately after leaving university.

Paloma eventually moved into the telecommunications industry and has subsequently continued to cultivate her passion for business development. She also views herself as a "no nonsense" type of person.

Her last job is listed as a senior marketing manager.

You are listing personality traits/things that you didnt like as proof of her having no talent? She has been very solid throughout all the episodes as far as I can tell and certainly didnt deserve to go over the other two.

Yeah, but she was kinda hot.

And the selling of more bread than a bakery can bake the week before. She was a constant liability who couldn't consult others, and who was involved on almost every dispute, not just the Battle of Old Compton Street. She was very vocal in the Boardroom arguements too- two weeks ago LS said that he didn't like her distain for her other candidates, but that Karren had stuck up for her. You'd have thought she's have noted that and changed her ways.