Exactly. Someone like her would soon make many enemies and disrupt a business.

Her own double standards were shown up for what they where when she praised Sandeesh but still took her into boardroom. She couldn't be trusted, all smiles and compliments one moment and sticking the knife in next. Dangerous.

Paloma threw her toys out of the pram. She deserved the boot.

I cringed for her when I saw her "highlights" on "You're Fired". There are usually shots of the fired candidate in unguarded moments, laughing, mucking about and generally looking human. Paloma's had none of these, she looked perfectly poised and controlled, and a little aloof, in every shot, which suggested to me that the poor girl never ever relaxes and lets herself go. What a very sad way to live if you never have a good old belly laugh or never dance a little jig of joy.

*attempts to remember last time he jigged a dance of joy*

I wonder if SAS sees himself like Stuart when he was younger, determined to get to the top.

It is interesting that whatever team stuart has been in that has failed the task has resulted in him being taken into the boardroom each time. \surely SAS must notice this?
saying that Paloma deserved to go last night, silly girl, must be kicking herself after Nick telling her that, He and SAS had her marked as the favourite to win.

I'm sure you know full well what the poster meant.

Yes, the poster was suggesting that dancing some sort of jig is commonplace. What did you interpret it to mean?

That's true of Alex, but not Stuart.

Remind me who Paloma brought back into the boardroom with her.

And kinda true about Sandeesh as well (Laura did pick her first before she changed her mind).

He/she wasn't being quite that literal. They were pointing out that Paloma never showed any moments in the house where she had switched off and relaxed a bit:


Dancing a jig wasn't the only example given. A little more imagination would have been able to stretch beyond those two examples.

I wasn't impressed by her business sense at all. Alex made some valid points re the shop but she dismissed them as she dislikes him.

Her decision to sell the ludicrous recycled clothing was as daft as previous weeks' attempts to be a super sharp wheeler dealer. Integrity, graft, good judgement are what counts and she's lacking on at least two of those.

That's it exactly - she was venomous in her negativity. An impossible creature.

That's actually the very opposite of what she did. Her team were very clear that she'd been a good PM, and she did seem to gel with them (with the exception of Alex). She was constantly praising members of her team and did so again in the boardroom.

Paloma certainly made a mistake over exclusivity, but the argument in the street was clearly caused by Laura.

She was involved in the catfight (if you want to call it that; it seems to be a bit of an exaggeration to me) in the boardroom, but so were pretty much all the girls except Stella (on the other team).

I didn't see that at all. She was too negative about her rivals as she grew increasingly desperate to stay in, but I don't think she relished it the way Katie plainly did with Adam in Series 3, nor was she nearly so personal.

She did sell most on her team, and actually she did manage the team pretty well.

I agree. Quite a few candidates in the past have been very negative about others as they got desperate. The boardroom segment encourages that. It's better if you don't in the long run, but I didn't hear anything worse than some who have survived have done. I think she did give off the attitude that I'm one of the strongest this year, and sadly some of the previous mistakes didn't support that. Sugar may have learnt his lesson with Katie or Micheal. Those who plan on saving themselves by BR performances as a tactic might find it isn't going to work this series.

Kept Paloma?...

What nonsense.

Paloma not a few minutes before her choosing, had been PRAISING Sandeesh, so her choice of bringing her back made no sense, and while she hasnt shone so far, Sandeesh did a reasonable job in the task.

It is NOT Paloma's job to decide anything based on other weeks tasks, but her own alone.

As to Alex, apart from not getting the pitch area correct, Alex was spot on in his comments, and had the idea of the Trafford channel advert, so Paloma's bare faced lie about who was responsible for it was pathetic.

I see no double standard at all. Paloma was an ars*, and got fired. Nobody else was anywhere near as much of an ars* as her except Melissa, who was fired last week.

Personally I believe that Alan Sugar has become sensitive to public perceptions of his acumen, and hence isn't keeping the "good television" characters in until the end.

Yes, and if she had stuck to highlighting this in the boardroom instead of being spiteful and trying to tell Sugar what to do she would have been saved.

Exactly. This task was quite similar to the wedding dress task a few years back. Helene actually did worse than Paloma because she got the product wrong and was bad at selling but she stuck up for herself well in the boardroom without being (as) aggressive and survived.

She may not have relished abusing and demeaning others with jokes and a smile on her face but she drew great satisfaction from abusing and disparaging her fellow candidates. She had contempt for them and for most other people with whom she came into contact. Her self-aggrandisement and spiteful abuse of others seemed to be her natural inclination.

However, I do believe she is extraordinarily adaptable, a human chameleon in terms of character, she adopts a character that she believes gains maximum advantage in any situation: where she believes aggression, savagery and ruthlessness are expected and profitable she will adopt those traits, and where they are inappropriate and unprofitable, such as in YBF, she will adopt entirely opposite traits.

I have yet to decide if she does have a moral framework which she suppresses if she perceives it as inconvenient when striving for success and status, or if she is prepared to adopt any moral framework that is advantageous at any one moment.

Was she really being sincere in YBF where she admitted to being aggressive and morally questionable and implied she accepted she had been abusive of others in her ruthless and self-serving approach and regretted much of it and had now learnt a life-changing lesson and changed her approach to life? Or was this an insincere expediency because she was faced with a morally-inclined and potentially critical audience, in the studio and in the outside world? With someone as clever and quick thinking as she is, determining whether she presents a pragmatic façade or is being genuine, is extremely difficult.

Sorry senior moment

Sorry to you too