|
||||||||
Joanna - I don't like her. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Man that was almost a really balanced posting but then...
We already know that there's a prima facie case for Joanna nagging Jamie. What those who are determined to place Joanna at fault stubbornly refuse to accept is that as PM she is entitled to certain information to do her job and if Jamie was being willfully obstructive she had good reason to press him. It was deliberately edited to make it look as if she was being unreasonable and yet they did not once show Jamie giving her a proper answer to a question. And you have to ask why? One obvious answer is that they didn't have such an answer to show. Quote:
I think this is why we wont see eye to eye on this, you feel its obvious that Jamie was mostly at fault,
No, you see, you still don't get it.What I'm saying is that we don't have enough information to tell. In all likelihood it was a bit of both. As I said above: "All it was was two people, both operating under extremely high pressure and with little sleep, getting a bit wound up with each other." |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Laich Kintraes
Posts: 4,086
|
Quote:
I thought the "will you calm down? you seem mad" comment she made after riling him up was a wonderful example of moving the 'art' of trolling into the realm of real life.
Sorry, I have not read through the whole thread and it may have been mentioned before, but I had a feeing she was playing for the camera, trying to show off what she thinks goes with being a 'leader'. It was cringing and I admire Jamie for not completely losing it there and then. Joanne reminds me very much of Saira from series 1 who I think was projectleader in the very first task. She constantly created chaos (with micromanaging people amongst other things) and then shouted to everyone else to 'calm down'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
That was particularly infuriating... Pushing him into a corner with false accusations and at the first hint of an emotive reaction from him, she turns it around.
Then he accused Joanna of aggression. Joanna just pointed out, quite correctly, that he had been aggressive. It's truly amazing how people can see what they want to see and ignore what is there before their eyes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Laich Kintraes
Posts: 4,086
|
Quote:
You might have had a point if that's what had happened. Unfortunately for your take, it wasn't. Jamie lost it, threw a strop and made a physically aggressive gesture.
Then he accused Joanna of aggression. Joanna just pointed out, quite correctly, that he had been aggressive. It's truly amazing how people can see what they want to see and ignore what is there before their eyes. On the other hand you too might have missed something, in terms of tone of voice, context, intent etc. In my recollection she verbally attacked him for not doing his best, not walking fast enough and when he denied it, she kept having a go at him - very aggressively in my view - , in front of Nick, in front of the camera, talking down at him, berating him like a little boy, trying to make him look like a saboteur in front of the camera, almost verbally bullying him into admitting that he was sabotaging her, up to the point where he did not know what else to do and showed an emotive respons which she immediately used against him. I thought her behaviour was infuriating, condescending and provoking. I also seem to remember (will have to check that too...) that she was standing higher than him on some stairs(?), literally talking down to him.And I remember thinking that if I was Jamie, I wouldn't know how to respond to that, except to turn around and walk away, which again would have been used against him as she was his projectmanager. If I was LS I would NEVER EVER employ someone like that, who will use their position of 'power' (being the projectmanager) to treat people like that. Out of interest, how would YOU have responded to that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
I will have to watch it again to see if you are right. It would be interesting to see if I had missed what you point out.
On the other hand you too might have missed something, in terms of tone of voice, context, intent etc. In my recollection she verbally attacked him for not doing his best, not walking fast enough and when he denied it, she kept having a go at him - very aggressively in my view - , in front of Nick, in front of the camera, talking down at him, berating him like a little boy, trying to make him look like a saboteur in front of the camera, almost verbally bullying him into admitting that he was sabotaging her, up to the point where he did not know what else to do and showed an emotive respons which she immediately used against him. I thought her behaviour was infuriating, condescending and provoking. I also seem to remember (will have to check that too...) that she was standing higher than him on some stairs(?), literally talking down to him.And I remember thinking that if I was Jamie, I wouldn't know how to respond to that, except to turn around and walk away, which again would have been used against him as she was his projectmanager. If I was LS I would NEVER EVER employ someone like that, who will use their position of 'power' (being the projectmanager) to treat people like that. Out of interest, how would YOU have responded to that? For example, giving them a run down in such a way that there is only one sensible way to proceed and then asking what they think. Works a treat! Joanna was in a much more difficult position. As PM she was entitled to know what Jamie was planning as she would undoubtedly have been asked why she didn't point out any flaws in his plan had they lost. Even if she decided she could trust him, because of the entirely artificial situation they were in she could not just let him get on with it because the whole filming setup was based upon them working as a team and if she had not been taking her part she would have had nothing whatever to do and, again, had they lost Sugar would, without a doubt, have asked her why she spent the day doing nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,348
|
Quote:
If I'd been in Jamie's position I'd have just done what was necessary to make her feel she was being kept in the loop. It's actually very easy to deal with someone who wants to micromanage - it's just a question of keeping them informed and making sure they think they are part of the process.
For example, giving them a run down in such a way that there is only one sensible way to proceed and then asking what they think. Works a treat! Joanna was in a much more difficult position. As PM she was entitled to know what Jamie was planning as she would undoubtedly have been asked why she didn't point out any flaws in his plan had they lost. Even if she decided she could trust him, because of the entirely artificial situation they were in she could not just let him get on with it because the whole filming setup was based upon them working as a team and if she had not been taking her part she would have had nothing whatever to do and, again, had they lost Sugar would, without a doubt, have asked her why she spent the day doing nothing. "She had the perfect right to do that as project manager" Love is blind eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
You know Jepson if Joanna took her kids, drowned them in the river and then used them as dishrags you'd still defend her.
"She had the perfect right to do that as project manager" Love is blind eh? Such as showing how Joanna could have answered accusations of bad/lazy project management if they had failed because Jamie did something stupid. Or, maybe, explaining why Jamie should not be held equally accountable for the squabble when he could have prevented the whole thing by keeping his PM involved. You make the mistake of seeing a desire to get people to take an intelligent view of things rather than lazily accepting a view that goes along with their prejudices as 'love'. This was a very minor spat that is being made a storm in a teacup by people who are not only ignoring anything they don't want to see but are failing to examine the options open to the candidates in the particular circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
It's only because Joanna has hardly put a foot wrong during the whole process that those who seem to have taken an almost vitriolic dislike to her have seized upon this comparatively minor incident to try and bash her.
You can call it "confirmation bias" if you like, but it's not irrational hate. It's seeing a pattern. I personally don't think she was too bad in the first two episodes, nor now, but I can understand those who think she was. Putting it down to "an almost vitriolic dislike" is a form of ad hominem - ie addressing why they say that rather than whether what they say is true - which I've noticed you do a little too often. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33,270
|
Quote:
I think it's because it seems like a repeat of what caused the dislike in the first place. Some people saw Joanna as being aggressive in the first two episodes, then she seemed to get better, and now she's relapsed. A leopard doesn't change its spots. The pressure of being PM (as she was in the first task) has made her forget what Lord Sugar told her and she's showing her true colours again.
You can call it "confirmation bias" if you like, but it's not irrational hate. It's seeing a pattern. I personally don't think she was too bad in the first two episodes, nor now, but I can understand those who think she was. Putting it down to "an almost vitriolic dislike" is a form of ad hominem - ie addressing why they say that rather than whether what they say is true - which I've noticed you do a little too often. People say that all the time as if it were fact, but people do change, a lot. I am very different to the person I was at 25 and 35 And those chages can happen very quickly, because we learn and as a result of learning we adapt our behaviour. You do what you know, and when you know better...... you do better. ![]() Jo is a hardworking tenacious woman and that is unlikely to change much... but the style of behaviours she adopts to progress and handle relationships with people will change, as will her priorities. Saying 'a leopard doesnt change its spots' is, IMO, an easy option for forming an opinion quickly and then sticking to it. It supports ones bias.... that's what i think anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
That's wrong you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 4,835
|
I agree with the OP. What does Joanna do, apart from nag people and throw a strop when things don't go her way? The way she hen-pecked Jamie and tried to pull out of the Visitor Centre deal was really unprofessional. When she kept banging on about curry-flavoured crisps, I was grateful for the "mute" button!
Jo has no decorum, no finesse, and really doesn't deserve to win. |
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,500
|
Quote:
I thought the "will you calm down? you seem mad" comment she made after riling him up was a wonderful example of moving the 'art' of trolling into the realm of real life.
absolutely.I thought it despicable to claim she felt "threatened" by Jamie after nag, nag, nagging him. She seems a decent person, but not good in the workplace. |
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
I think it's because it seems like a repeat of what caused the dislike in the first place. Some people saw Joanna as being aggressive in the first two episodes, then she seemed to get better, and now she's relapsed. A leopard doesn't change its spots. The pressure of being PM (as she was in the first task) has made her forget what Lord Sugar told her and she's showing her true colours again.
But no one has actually come up with an intelligent response to the two points I made: a) Jamie could have got Joanna to stop asking him questions by simply answering them and generally keeping her in the loop. Why did he not do this? b) What could Joanna do except to keep pressing him for answers given that she was PM ad would undoubtedly have been called to account if he'd cocked up and, even if he hadn't cocked up, had they lost Sugar would have asked her why she did nothing that day? Quote:
You can call it "confirmation bias" if you like,
Thank you.Quote:
but it's not irrational hate.
It's not necessarily irrational hate.Quote:
It's seeing a pattern.
Yes. That's what confirmation bias is all about.It's often seen in gamblers who see a pattern but don't realise that it's statistically inconsequential and then notice things that agree with the pattern and ignore things that don't. That's what's happening a lot here. People see Joanna bending Jamie's ear and then refuse point blank to see why she was bending his ear. Even when it's explained to them they simply ignore the explanation. They make no serious attempt to refute it, they just pretend it doesn't exist. Quote:
Putting it down to "an almost vitriolic dislike" is a form of ad hominem - ie addressing why they say that rather than whether what they say is true
LOL, you're mixing up two different things here.The 'vitriolic dislike' is aimed at the sort of people who start these negative threads and those who just add 'me too' posts. Look at the hate threads for Laura, Stella and Liz, in addition to this one and you'll see people who post nothing constructive, just comments of the 'Oh, God, she's awful' variety. It's not against the rules and they are entitled to express themselves but I think the need to jump on the bandwagon and join a long queue of people bad mouthing someone tells us more about them than it does about the person they are bad mouthing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,500
|
Quote:
a) Jamie could have got Joanna to stop asking him questions by simply answering them and generally keeping her in the loop. |
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,500
|
Sorry couldn't cut bottom out of that post.
How annoying .. long answer lost. |
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,500
|
Short version
No one responds well to nagging, it's mental torture. |
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 272
|
Quote:
It seems to me that throughout this series Jamie is passive aggressive with his PM unless the PM is treating him like his 2nd in command.
He has consitently undermined and harried but he does it very quietly, sneekily. It could well be that he deliberately waited until there was just him, Nick and Jo to have his little meltdown to convince Nick that Jo was bullying, harrasing and being agressive. What it seemd to me was that she then turned the tables to neutralise what he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,348
|
Quote:
That is exactly what I think. I would actually go one further and say that Jamie has no respect for women in the workplace and no idea how to work with or for a woman.
Shes probably got too much sway in her own business and is used everyone jumping when she barks. Including probably her kids. |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Can Joanna work with a man? Can Joanna work with anyone? Joanna has no respect for anyone and treats them like dogs to give orders too.
That's how she's got all the way to the interviews and has been complimented more than once by Nick and Karen. Makes perfect sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33,270
|
Quote:
That is exactly what I think. I would actually go one further and say that Jamie has no respect for women in the workplace and no idea how to work with or for a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33,270
|
Quote:
Can Joanna work with a man? Can Joanna work with anyone? Joanna has no respect for anyone and treats them like dogs to give orders too.
Shes probably got too much sway in her own business and is used everyone jumping when she barks. Including probably her kids. |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33,270
|
Quote:
Short version
No one responds well to nagging, it's mental torture. Some of us do think she is competent and therefore think its hard to say what was going on but judging from past performace its fair to assume that Jamie was not responding well to being in a team unless he is PM. Its not cut and dried... Nick said nothing... why was that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Laich Kintraes
Posts: 4,086
|
Quote:
short version.... some people dont like Joanna so took Jamies side.
Some of us do think she is competent and therefore think its hard to say what was going on but judging from past performace its fair to assume that Jamie was not responding well to being in a team unless he is PM. Its not cut and dried... Nick said nothing... why was that? I think Nicks face spoke for itself when he was witness to Joanna's berating of Jamie. Also Nick did make Jamie a BIG compliment and mentioned to LS what a great job he had done. Why was that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,348
|
Quote:
short version.... some people dont like Joanna so took Jamies side.
Some of us do think she is competent and therefore think its hard to say what was going on but judging from past performace its fair to assume that Jamie was not responding well to being in a team unless he is PM. Its not cut and dried... Nick said nothing... why was that? Oh yes, past performance. Nothing to do with the way she was hectoring him at all? She treats people like dogs. |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33,270
|
Quote:
We don't know if it was discussed in the boardroom or not. Joanna's team won, so there was no reason to bring up her behaviour.
I think Nicks face spoke for itself when he was witness to Joanna's berating of Jamie. Also Nick did make Jamie a BIG compliment and mentioned to LS what a great job he had done. Why was that? Quote:
Its not his job to interject. His look of disgust said it all.
Oh yes, past performance. Nothing to do with the way she was hectoring him at all? She treats people like dogs. And...... its not important to me
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:29.




