I was discussing Sugar's relaxed attitude to Chris's lying on this task and the subject of his indignation at the girls who flirted with the suppliers a couple of seasons came up.

Odd, isn't it that he can show a mass of self-righteous indignation over some girls innocently flirting to get a good price but not seem to 'give a monkey's' about the tirade of lies we saw from Chris yesterday?

It's as much true that women flirt in business to get what they want as bend the truth (although I think the outright lies told by Chris go way over the top).

So why the weird double standard from Sugar?

I agree, I'm thinking back to previous Apprentice series where I'm sure he gave some of the contestants a mouthful over telling lies in a transaction.

Buying and selling are two different ballgames.

Selling on false promises are a no no.

Buying a one off with people you will never deal with again is okay, they can always refuse to sell. The false truths they told hurt no one.

Yes, but you've completely missed the point, haven't you?

I was talking about the (mock?) outrage he exhibited when he was told that a group of girls were flirting with suppliers to get a good price compared to his utter lack of concern at one of the candidates repeatedly lying his head off.

This is one of the main troubles with this programme.

Sugar is unpredictable.

When Lindi offered exclusivity to a customer in the ice cream task without getting permission from the product's 'owner' he blew his top and disallowed the sale.

When Laura (possibly having taken on board his reaction in that previous task) refused to give Boots a discount on the spot he and everyone else castigated her for a stupid mistake.

Yet based upon Sugar's previous histrionics over an unauthorised exclusivity deal she made exactly the correct call.

Those are completely different though. Lindi offered exclusivity on a product that belonged to someone else and had no right to.

Laura refused exclusivity on a product that they owned and had the rights to.

I think Lordalun may have been channelling Margret's disapproval on the first one. Plus the treasure hunt is a bit of fun anyway - its not representing Lordalun in any way and the traders obviously know its all a bit of a muck about - in the end if the trader doesn't want to give a discount he won't.
As for the exclusivity - this was discussed at lenth when it happened this year. The two instances are not comparable as the ice cream task was representing a third party so they had no authority to offer exclusivity whilst on the beach task they represented only themselves and so were free to offer it if they so wished.

There was a massive difference between the product Linzi was selling and the one Laura was selling which Laura failed to take on board. When selling on behalf of someone else, you cannot agree to exclusivity without permission from them! Laura turned down a deal on her own product, and refused to enter into dialogue about it. It's all very well and good talking about 'on the spot' but she knew perfectly well that this was her only meeting with Boots - she wasn't going to get another opportunity.

As for the flirting vs. the white lies, what Chris did was essentially harmless, and he went in there representing nobody but himself. He could easily have been just some bloke off the street. The girls went to the suppliers as professionals and behaved in a manner that was anything but. IIRC they were offering kisses in exchange for discounts - that goes beyond playing up a bit. A bit of flirting is one thing but they were ridiculous.

What Laura was being slated for was not knowing in advance that Boots would throw a hissy fit and assume that they would not get exclusivity when, in reality, once it had been properly discussed, they almost certainly would.



This is complete and utter nonsense.

How on earth do you determine that in one instance they were representing Sugar and in the other they weren't?

The rules are that they are not allowed to use the fact that these are TA tasks to get deals so the situations were exactly the same in that respect.


One could just as easily say the bending the truth is one thing but lying through your teeth is another.

People have been selling kisses at fairs and fête 's for centuries without anyone throwing a self righteous tantrum about it.

It's interesting (and somewhat worrying) that so many people seem to think that lying is harmless and of no consequence.

No they didn't. Your confusing that series with a task in series 3 where they had to set up their own business and the girls decided to do a kissogram out of desperation. In series 2 all they did was flirt. It crossed the line somewhat but no more than Chris' stupid lies tbh.

Not overtly but I distinctly remember them hugging suppliers and kissing them on the cheeks when they received discounts. Completely different task to the kissogram one.

I never said they were representing Sugar in either task. But in the girls task, they were going in as a company and there's a level of professionalism expected in those circumstances.

I'm surprised that so many people do have a problem with 'lying' under these circumstances. Chris wasn't harming anybody. He made himself look a bit of a tw*t, but he didn't go in there saying 'I'm Chris from Apollo/Synergy and you must give me this discount at a cost to yourselves...' Nobody got 'harmed' - making his tall stories harmless.

Yeah your right about that, I remember the hugging but I forgot about the kisses on the cheeks, my bad. And it was unprofessional and would never work in terms of repeat business BUT I feel the same about Chris' lies as well. (And kissing people on the cheek is very different from actually offering kisses for deals which is what you said happened ). Chris was also going direct to the businesses he was buying from so I honestly don't understand the difference

This is just a desperate attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Half the time people try and justify the lying by saying that evrything must be judged on a 'do what's best for the one off task' basis and half the time time they talk about professionalism.

You seem to be trying to use both arguments at the same time.

The flirting girls were wrong because they were supposedly a company - even though it was only for one day and they didn't tell any lies.

Whereas Chris gets a free pass because there is no identifiable company involved.

Talk about clutching at straws.


I'm sure that the sort of people who find lying an acceptable way to behave will be surprised that there are others who take a different view.

One reason why many find such mendacity unacceptable is because it means that you can never know when someone is in genuine need of some special consideration.

Basically, Chris was begging from these people on the basis of lies. And it's people who indulge in that sort of activity that make other people reluctant to help people, some of whom might have a genuine need.

it would seem that LS doesn't get the corporate ethics world we are supposed to operate in these days. he and Karren both endorsed telling lies to get the price down. so long as everybody knows it is a game and the prize for the most imaginative excuse is a good price- no harm is being done, but if a trader is not a 'player' and innocently believes the BS, then that is different. it is about context, but that was not made clear.

would you want Sugar in charge of a world cup or Olympic bid?

I operate in a business environment where lying is verboten and from operating in that arena for over 20 years, I think it takes more skill to negotiate only using the truth than it does to come up with amusing lies.

Well, the vendor made less money. Now their children can't have new shoes.

Although I see people saying that the vendors didn't believe Chris - as if its OK to lie if the lies aren't believed. I just don't agree.

Anyway... I think Lord Sugar is more bothered about sexual ethics than business ethics. He thinks lying on your CV is part of the game, but exploiting your charms isn't. I don't think he's "flexible" about morality, he just has these particular values. I would not expect him to say that selling kisses was OK one week and not the next. He's old-fashioned about it.

The best example of this sort of thing was in the US series. One woman told punters she'd take off her skirt if they paid $20 for a chocolate bar - and did so. Trump's sidekick Carolyn went ballistic. Part of Carolyn's argument was that Trump sells to some very conservative customers who wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing.

So what a ****ing brilliant person to choose to champion business.

Someone who has no great appreciation for ethical behaviour in business but is a bit of a prude.

To be fair to Ivana, that was more of a statement than actual tactic. She felt that Jen and Sandy, with their skirts up to their thigh-tops and flirting were selling sex, so she decided to drop her skirt for a $20 as a one-off to make a point about what she thought about their tactics. I thought it was a profoundly stupid thing to do, but it wasn't a "sex sells" tactic.

Personally I think Series 1 would be a better example, where the women won task after task after task (I think the first four in a row), and Carolyn threw a huff because she thought they were being too provocative to do so. Said provoctiveness being some mildly suggestive adverts and clothes that exposed their cleavage. I thought Carolyn was full of crap to be honest.

And at the risk of channelling Karren Brady, it's women who use their sexuality to get ahead that set all women in business back.

You've missed the point those examples are all selling.


This week they were all buying.

You cannot give exclusivity for something you do not own all rights to.

Totally agree.

You are 100% confused here.

I was talking about Sugar's erratic behaviour.

There was no suggestion that exclusivity had any bearing whatsoever on the buying task.

OK, so you approve of Sugar taking offence at something he considers unethical - viz: flirting with suppliers.

But that's only one half of the equation.

The problem that I was highlighting was that whilst he may have strict views on one subject his sense of ethical behaviour does not seem to stretch as far as something so straightforward as basic honesty.

As such he's an appalling ambassador for businessmen and women.

They were your examples. One they didn't own the rights for the other they did, quite simple really.

Yes, you've simply misunderstood the post to which you were replying. In fact, you don't even seem to understand your own initial response. I made no comment whatsoever about exclusivity in the buying task.

And yet you responded:
"You've missed the point those examples are all selling.

This week they were all buying."

Which did not in any way relate to what I said.

So why the examples that you provided ? Was it to prove Sugar was not consistent? Because they did not prove your case.