|
||||||||
The double standard with Paloma was shocking! |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7,314
|
Quote:
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. They seem to go from "I'm professional, I take no crap etc" into I laugh at everything, I'm a soft person kind loving person. How much friendlier, nice and a bit girly did Melissa look with the darker hair and a different haircut? Maybe they are different, but my first reaction is always here we go it's the audition for my media work time. Look at me I'm fun, I can be a reported on This Morning or a similar show. The transformations tend to be so big it just appears fake to me. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 198
|
I have indeed noticed this behaviour of some apprentice candidates but I think you are wrong in the motivation of the people concerned.
The people who have undergone the most dramatic changes of appearance are those appalled at their behaviour, performance, or appearance, and that tends to be women of course as they seem to have been in general the more appalling or at least most inclined to distant themselves from their previous selves. Melissa realised she had been an appalling candidate and utterly unprofessional, and stupid and inept and wanted to put as much distance between her and her previous self as possible in an attempt to find acceptance, and perhaps a job! In Paloma's case because she is very bright she realised that her performance in the programme as a contemptuous, savage, venom-spouting bitch was not in her interest and so also reworked her appearance and attitude hugely. In Paloma's case I am still unsure whether this was a pragmatic and insincere transformation, or a genuine re-evaluation of herself and her attitude to others and the value of treating others with respect and consideration. |
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,837
|
Quote:
In Paloma's case I am still unsure whether this was a pragmatic and insincere transformation, or a genuine re-evaluation of herself and her attitude to others and the value of treating others with respect and consideration.
she has a face for the interview and a face for the job .. its just that she forgot what face to wear in front of sugar .. |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
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. Actually, there were real reasons to bring in Sandeesh based on this task alone. She was part of the sub-team that failed to get Liquorice and it appears she didn't sell any better than Alex. However, Paloma was culpable in the former too and Sandeesh's sales seemed to come as a surprise to her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dagenham Essex UK
Posts: 9,714
|
Quote:
That's very likely. She made a big mistake concentrating on attacking the others instead of explaining why she herself was good.
Alex though played it the right way in the boardroom by being honest and factual about his failure, and there lies the difference between them. Paloma didnt think strategically, and I must admit now, that she probably had the only 2 she could choose in the BR, and my own opinion is that Sandeesh would have gone if Paloma had kept cool, and not played the blame game. |
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,483
|
people's true colours always come out when they are under pressure. Paloma showed that when she went on her aggressive tirade against her colleagues everytime she was in the boardroom. that rude, demeaning dissmissive almost bordering on contempt is really sad because she's quite capable. Yes she's fighting to stay on in the boardroom but an element of respect always goes a long way in business and she has to learn that.
That's a fatal flaw in her character she has to overcome really. |
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
|
Quote:
That's a fatal flaw in her character she has to overcome really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 821
|
People who are picking up on her 'lying' in previous weeks are being ridiculous. If you have NEVER commented on the performance of a colleague behind their back and not said it to their face then maybe you can criticise, but frankly I don't believe that anyone doesn't do that.
Maybe she performed badly in the boardroom, but Alex as ineffective middle management written all over him and Sadeesh has yet to do anything useful (well, apart from stopping Alex sending hoards of people to their shop expecting to meet Alesha Dixon and Ferne Cotton!) |
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,940
|
Quote:
People who are picking up on her 'lying' in previous weeks are being ridiculous. If you have NEVER commented on the performance of a colleague behind their back and not said it to their face then maybe you can criticise, but frankly I don't believe that anyone doesn't do that.
Quote:
Maybe she performed badly in the boardroom, but Alex as ineffective middle management written all over him and Sadeesh has yet to do anything useful (well, apart from stopping Alex sending hoards of people to their shop expecting to meet Alesha Dixon and Ferne Cotton!) However I do think alex should have gone because he brings nothing to the table and he would have if Paloma had kept her mouth shut |
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
[b]
The point isn't whether nor not everyone has bitched about a work colleague behind their back- it's the fact that Bitch Pavlova blatantly lied and denied ever having talked about Sandeesh As toby4000 reminds us, Alex wanted to tell people that Fearne Cotton and Alesha Dixon were in the shop. Isn't that a more reprehensible lie? Yet the people who are always on about Paloma's lie say not a thing about it. I'm afraid those people are just biased against Paloma. |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7,314
|
Quote:
But if you had bitched about a colleague behind their back, and the person you spoke to suddenly brought up what you'd said in front of them, wouldn't you deny it? I can't find that lie reprehensible, I honestly can't, and it amazes me that so many people get so sanctimonious about it.
As toby4000 reminds us, Alex wanted to tell people that Fearne Cotton and Alesha Dixon were in the shop. Isn't that a more reprehensible lie? Yet the people who are always on about Paloma's lie say not a thing about it. I'm afraid those people are just biased against Paloma. I think that the whole lying thing has taken over this thread which is why you are seing the bias. At the start the argument were more open and a lot focused on what she did and didn't do in the actual task and not the boardroom. I still stand by my decision that she was the right person based on her performance on the task and as her role as the project manager. |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 50
|
Quote:
I have indeed noticed this behaviour of some apprentice candidates but I think you are wrong in the motivation of the people concerned.
The people who have undergone the most dramatic changes of appearance are those appalled at their behaviour, performance, or appearance, and that tends to be women of course as they seem to have been in general the more appalling or at least most inclined to distant themselves from their previous selves. Melissa realised she had been an appalling candidate and utterly unprofessional, and stupid and inept and wanted to put as much distance between her and her previous self as possible in an attempt to find acceptance, and perhaps a job! In Paloma's case because she is very bright she realised that her performance in the programme as a contemptuous, savage, venom-spouting bitch was not in her interest and so also reworked her appearance and attitude hugely. In Paloma's case I am still unsure whether this was a pragmatic and insincere transformation, or a genuine re-evaluation of herself and her attitude to others and the value of treating others with respect and consideration. |
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,168
|
Quote:
Paloma's unpleasantness is being vastly exaggerated on here, much like it was by Siralan and Nick, and in the programme's editing of her.
Other candidates (including in this series) have been miles worse than Paloma in the boardroom. Strange how a short, ugly, cocky 21-year-old male gets let off the hook for his bad attitude but a tall, good-looking, articulate female has her "arrogance" singled out much more firmly and is given none of Siralan's infamous second chances. I also think the part where she attacked the business records of the other two came across as very set-up for TV. He was no way as bad as Paloma tried to make him out to be - his ONLY real error was about the promo stand and he was right in that it was a spot that had the most people passing it! He was giving Paloma good advice and she was dismissing everything he said out of hand because it was him saying it! He has also been solid on all the other tasks so there is no way he should have gone. Paloma lost them the sparkly frocks franchise with her dismissive attitude and her choice of the overpriced recycled tat was totally wrong. Lord Sugar made it quite clear before Paloma's hara kiri outburst that Alex wasn't going anywhere and she STILL tried to get him fired despite all the you have been set up comments. Despite that - up until the moment Paloma shot her mouth off by dissing the other two I am pretty sure that LS was going to fire Sandeesh - her misjudged attack on the the others at that point was an incredibly stupid thing to do. The right one went IMHO - LS doesn't want or need someone like Paloma telling him what to do! |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
Yes he was wrong as well but the keyword there are "wanted to" and as toby pointed out Sandeesh stopped him. So in fact despite his intent, he didn't lie. So it is different.
Quote:
I think that the whole lying thing has taken over this thread which is why you are seing the bias. At the start the argument were more open and a lot focused on what she did and didn't do in the actual task and not the boardroom.
Quote:
I still stand by my decision that she was the right person based on her performance on the task and as her role as the project manager.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
Are you talking about Alex here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
|
Quote:
I think that reference was to Stuart.
).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
|
Stuart wasn't two-faced like Paloma, she'd already slagged Sandeesh off in an earlier task and then denied it in the boardroom. Stuart just says what he thinks, and is honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
|
Why are people calling it YBF? It's You're Fired people!
Not You've Been Framed |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 317
|
I love how most people are getting on their sanctimonous high horse with regards to Paloma's behaviour, and how she should have acted.
One thing that keeps coming up, is Paloma's supposed two faced-ness by bringing back Sandeesh into the board room, but Paloma justified that by (basically) saying "She did well in this task but I have to take into consideration her performance over all, throughout the weeks". In no way did Paloma go back on her word but, for her, it was hard to bring back two people into the board room since there were no major mistakes made in the task. |
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dagenham Essex UK
Posts: 9,714
|
Quote:
it was hard to bring back two people into the board room since there were no major mistakes made in the task.
Paloma knew that the task itself was lost with the other team getting the party dress supplier, but even so, her team were not too far from the other total. My first "take" on her decision to bring Alex and Sandeesh back, I admit now was wrong, as she had no choice whatsoever. While it was hard for her to justify Sandeesh's inclusion, (hence the "previous" tasks excuse), Alex was a shoo in, as she knew she could get some mileage out of his promo spot failure. Paloma would have stayed if she had managed to keep her gob in neutral, instead of which, she indulged in a stupid tirade against the pair. |
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7,314
|
Quote:
I love how most people are getting on their sanctimonous high horse with regards to Paloma's behaviour, and how she should have acted.
One thing that keeps coming up, is Paloma's supposed two faced-ness by bringing back Sandeesh into the board room, but Paloma justified that by (basically) saying "She did well in this task but I have to take into consideration her performance over all, throughout the weeks". In no way did Paloma go back on her word but, for her, it was hard to bring back two people into the board room since there were no major mistakes made in the task. Paloma could have done the same as could any of the other contestants, but they don't because of the reduced odds of survival. You also have to think aboout whether a precedent could be set now. Regardless of what you do to cost us this task you are safe because in previous tasks another person has done more things wrong or has screwed me over. IMO as soon as Paloma said that she was bringing Sandeesh in because of perfomances on other tasks LS should have said he wasn't accepting that. If I was in his position I would have done that or I would have allowed it knowing that I was firing Paloma regardless of anything that was said when they return. Just use that part for research and gaining information about them. Trump is very big on loyalty and I think if Paloma was on the US version she would have got fired by him for what she did. |
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
|
Quote:
In the US version one PM only brought one person into the boardroom because they thought that none of the rest of the team did badly in the task and it wouldn't have been fair on any of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
Paloma and Stuart were both all mouth and no ears, big talk and small delivery -- nothing new there. Both went OTT in attacking their colleagues -- nothing new there.
The difference was that Paloma interrupted Sugar in his final summing-up. She also said she volunteered as project manager -- Sugar corrected her that she was appointed by Sugar as PM. Paloma talked back to say had she not been appointed she would have volunteered. Paloma also said she was exercising her own "overall judgement of longterm performance" in choosing 2 colleagues to bring bac. At this Sugar bristled, saying Paloma was usurping his role. Stuart was never foolhardy enough to assume equal status or even to lecture this 700-times millionaire. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:46.




).