Stuart did try to interrupt Lordalan's summing up. He just wasn't allowed to, where Paloma was. And it was Liz who said that she volunteered to be PM, not Paloma.

Paloma didn't do anything outstanding but she didn't do much wrong on the task either.

Her problem was that Lord Sugar isn't very bright and didn't go deep enough to find anyone to blame. When she failed to get anyone else in the frame to go Paloma panicked into random attacks which allowed his Lordship to conclude that the attack on Alex was unfair and look even more at her.

Her logic was fine. The big problem she agreed was the non-availability of the best thing to sell. However no one emerged with most blame for that - largely as Sugar never even asked the obvious question who was most to blame when he had feedback and an advisor to tell him an answer. Paloma's point then, that 4 more sales would have made the difference anyway, and the lack of them was decisive, was right. Sugar, however, was focused on his discovery- leading nowhere - that the lack of the right thing to sell mattered. Because he was focused on the cause he had found with no evidence, he ignored the secondary cause where there was evidence.

Sandeesh is a catch 22 situation - unless she argues to take only Alex in. If she hasn't got anyone else to blame for that task she can only go on overall view and LAS had already told her there was a problem with Sandeesh. As soon as she picks Sandeesh, though, Sugar sees her as making his judgements for him. Paloma amplifies the argument too much making it look as if she is judging Paloma - but even there she does so because she's asked to.


Alex should have been her target. His choice of pitch was terrible and could easily explain the lack of 4 sales if she had sustained her argument. His sales technique was bad and his retail design assistance was long winded and impractical as she said. She should have painted him as being all about theory which LAS should not have liked. His saving argument was his idea for a TV advert but even that was from a chance meeting and was put into effect by the two girls. You could assess the errors against that one plus and still come out on the negative side. If he wanted to, LAS could even have had a look at the sales logs to see what impact the advert had and Paloma, even then, had an argument that the idea came to late to matter.

The basic problem is that his Lordship is floundering around. He spots a cause and doesn't follow up, ignores another and confuses Paloma not liking and ranting against Alex with the perfectly good case against Alex put together by Paloma and Sandeesh. He then decides everyone is out unfairly to get Alex and questions Sandeesh's morals for pointing out whats actually true. Paloma may be awful anyway, but its not difficult to see why she's panicking and going OTT by this stage. He ends up turning against Paloma because he thinks Alex is a victim and he can't sack Sandeesh when he's responsible for not giving her a chance to lead. Worse he ends up sacking Paloma because of her attitude to others and going off the facts - when he's leapt to just as unjustified conclusions about Sandeesh who has more idea whats going on and how to weigh it than he does. Not his finest hour.

Meeting the fashion supplier involved Paloma, Sandeesh, and one guy. The supplier was quite clear she preferred the other team by a long chalk.

Paloma has this trait of showing disapproval with her face and body language. AND she led the get-together. Unless the supplier singled out Sandeesh or the guy then the pitch leader will have to shoulder the blame for defeat. The supplier understood the leader will have the most impact in flogging their gear.

That face-to-face was about language and charm and body language and rapport. Hard to hold an inquiry on precisely why the supplier did not like Paloma, and/or co. To be frank the supplier would have to be explicit and unavoidably unkind, for which they had no appetite. Paloma does not sell herself well, being openly dismissive and impatient with those she regarded as inferior, evidently rating herself on a par with a millionaire 700 times over. If she can neither charm a seller nor a buyer nor a colleagure nor an employer then she will be no asset for a profit-making business.

Yes, totally.

I think it's important not just to look at whether someone is 'good' (and I don't think Paloma is all that anyway) but also at whether or not anyone else with an ounce of self-respect could bear to work with them.

If I got a new job and realised I'd have to put up with her bitchiness/anger/eye-rolling on a daily basis, I'd be out of there by lunchtime. Life is too short to spend it around people like that. I'm very good at what I do, so basically Paloma types just lose good employees.

One thing worth saying about this is that Paloma said on You're Fired she actually really liked Sandeesh, and that's why she found her words about Sandeesh being brought up in front of her so embarrassing. She might just have been saying that, of course, but I don't think so; she never really attacked Sandeesh in the boardroom, and her farewell to her seemed genuinely warm.

I've never seen any suggestion on the UK show that the PM can choose to bring only one person in. I don't think they can.

Obviously Monkseal has already pointed out that it was Liz who said she'd volunteered or would have done (and by the way, really loving your blog, Monkseal )

On the other matter, Sugar saw Paloma as usurping his role, but I don't think that's how she saw it. I think she just saw it as she said; she felt that apart from Alex everyone had done brilliantly and no-one deserved bringing in on this task, so she was using previous tasks as a guide. I think it's a perfectly legitimate reason, and I think Sugar is too prickly about this.

The thing is, Paloma did seem to be enthusiastic about Liquorice, but only after she'd left. I think she saw it as being businesslike and playing her cards close to her chest. It was a misjudgement, and the Liquorice people did give clues that they were expecting more enthusiasm; they were obviously trying to solicit a reaction.

She seemed pretty supportive and encouraging to most of the team; she just took against Alex.

And of course The Apprentice probably doesn't represent the way she normally is. It's a very artificial situation.

Agree there are two possible answers to the question who is to blame - someone and we don't know. We didn't know what was in the feed back or what karen (or was it Nick?) or the producers saw or heard. If no one person can be found to have done most to put the designer off, though, the answer is to find another issue that does help you split three people up so one can go. Lord Sugar, however, concluded that the choice was the problem and wasn't even open at the start to Paloma's more relevant argument that they needed to identify who was responsible for losing the few crucial potential sales. Because he wasn't following that argument his Lordship then jumped to the conclusion that Paloma and Sandeesh following it, and identifying Alex as the one who had made mistakes, was them ganging up on Alex.

Its bizarre because it suggests he starts with the idea of getting rid of Paloma or Sandeesh and then can't nail either for the product choice issue or any other. He started by going on about his preconceptions about Sandeesh for no good reason at all and then criticises Paloma for using his own arguments against Sandeesh. .He's then left floundering as the other arguments lead to a plus and minus score card for Alex that he's not interested in marking up. Paloma just makes it easy for him by going OTT, but you can see why she does - because he has dismissed the real issue (who made most mistakes that cost sales) and is discounting her case against Alex and telling her she can't run his argument against Sandeesh.

What do you mean he's not very bright and how much deeper did you want that boardroom to go exactly? LA's been hiring and firing for longer than Paloma's been alive besides which you don't have to be Einstein nor Sherlock Holmes to know instinctively who you don't want or need in your organisation.

You also seem to be forgetting that it's his prerogative to make his decision based on what the candidates have done (or not done) overall, not just the current week! Paloma's a great candidate in her own head but in reality she's nothing special and worse she's shown (more than once) that she lacks integrity and can't rise above getting nasty and personal. I said earlier I wouldn't even employ her as a 'meeter-greeter' let alone a highly paid exec.

.

She'd make a great meeter-greeter, as long as she was wearing the same outfit as on Your Fired