DS Forums

 
 

The double standard with Paloma was shocking!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-11-2010, 12:57
cunningham1471
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7,314
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.
Haven't you noticed how often the women change their hairstyles and look the minute they are axed and on YBF?
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.
cunningham1471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 05-11-2010, 13:15
-Flossie-
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.
-Flossie- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2010, 14:19
wendy09
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,837
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.
it was for the audience .. she is very good at lying and manipulation .. and do you really expect her to have changed so drastically?

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 ..
wendy09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 02:15
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
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.
Paloma made it clear she couldn't fault any of her team except Alex. But she had to bring in someone else, so if she couldn't find anyone else who she felt had performed poorly on this task then why not base it on previous tasks? Obviously Sugar dislikes it and sees it as trespassing on his territory, but how else should she do it?

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.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 02:17
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
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.
That's very likely. She made a big mistake concentrating on attacking the others instead of explaining why she herself was good.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 02:27
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
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.
You don't know what Paloma was thinking. We can both guess at her thoughts from observing her, but my observations lead me to different conclusions from yours. I didn't see any satisfaction as she attacked the other two, or Shibby a couple of tasks back even. She DID plainly despise Alex, as she did Shibby, but not really I think Sandeesh. She didn't despise Alex at the start of the task, though; when she heard he'd worked in the very mall they were going to she plainly saw him as a big asset, but when he screwed up over the promotional stand I think she lost respect for him, and from then on saw his advice as worthless and an irritation. She didn't have sufficient humility to realise that she'd made mistakes too.

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.
One has to wonder, if she's the chameleon you claim, why she misread things so badly in the boardroom.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 05:21
Tourista
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dagenham Essex UK
Posts: 9,714
That's very likely. She made a big mistake concentrating on attacking the others instead of explaining why she herself was good.
Too true.

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.
Tourista is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 10:48
Elan Morin
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.
Elan Morin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 13:41
Sherlock_Holmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
That's a fatal flaw in her character she has to overcome really.
Sadly, there is no such thing as a personality bypass.
Sherlock_Holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 16:49
toby4000
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!)
toby4000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 19:06
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,940
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!)
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

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
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 02:02
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
[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
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.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 11:07
cunningham1471
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7,314
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.
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.
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.
cunningham1471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 11:47
psychocilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 50
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.
I'm guessing that both the apprentice and YBF have a dept that helps candidates who have been fired change their image for the better; especially for those who have come across as major bitches etc.
psychocilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 22:28
CaroUK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,168
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.
Are you talking about Alex here?

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!
CaroUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 23:26
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
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.
Yes, but the difference is only because Sandeesh stopped him, not from any greater honesty on Alex's part. So it doesn't make him less of a liar than 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 was referring specifically to those who keep banging on about the lie, not to those who criticise her on other matters.

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.
I agree with you.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 23:28
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
Are you talking about Alex here?
I think that reference was to Stuart.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 23:41
Sherlock_Holmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
I think that reference was to Stuart.
Actually, having watched the repeat, I believe that Stuart was the best candidate on their team (and he was virtually absent for most of it ).
Sherlock_Holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2010, 04:42
sibooboo
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.
sibooboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2010, 04:44
sibooboo
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
sibooboo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2010, 20:46
Kishan
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.
Kishan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 06:51
Tourista
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dagenham Essex UK
Posts: 9,714
it was hard to bring back two people into the board room since there were no major mistakes made in the task.
That is very true.

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.
Tourista is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 08:33
cunningham1471
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 7,314
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.
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.
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.
cunningham1471 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 10:04
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
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.
He then got fired, with Donald Trump telling him it was a stupid thing to do.
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 13:36
soulmate61
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.
soulmate61 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:30.