|
||||||||
You're full of Shit! |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
I think it was plain nasty and if it was based on what that smug guy said, who was just trying to look clever, it was unmerited
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lancs
Posts: 14,455
|
i'm watching this again on bbc hd
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 466
|
That was by far the best firing I have ever seen!
Bloody brilliant!! I want to watch that clip over and over again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 11,412
|
Quote:
That was by far the best firing I have ever seen!
Bloody brilliant!! I want to watch that clip over and over again.
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,996
|
The firing was TV Gold, pure theatre but even the smuggest TV Prodcuer surely dosen't expect us to believe that minor 'detail' about Stuart's company only came to light at the interview stage. There have been postings on here questioning his claims.
I thought Stuart did well on the BBC Two show afterwards though, he wasn't all bad. A tosser for sure but not a real baddie. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 166
|
I'm going to complain to the Daily Wail...
After all, if childerun can be expected to sit through the tedium that was Saturday's X Factor to watch a tasteful burlesque routine, they are of course all going to get infected by Lord Sugar's bad language, which causes cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 11,412
|
Quote:
The firing was TV Gold, pure theatre but even the smuggest TV Prodcuer surely dosen't expect us to believe that minor 'detail' about Stuart's company only came to light at the interview stage. There have been postings on here questioning his claims.
I thought Stuart did well on the BBC Two show afterwards though, he wasn't all bad. A tosser for sure but not a real baddie. |
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,740
|
Quote:
Looking at his company he seems to be doing what is very close to basic IT tech services, specializing in internet and wifi.
http://www.bluewave.im/ Definitely not a 'telecoms operator' - more an IT company working in the area of networks. Quote:
"BlueWave Communications Ltd is licensed and regulated under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949."
http://www.bluewave.im/broadband/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,766
|
Quote:
Loved it. But this was a total set-up anyone with half a brain could have seen that StuBaggs was a bullshitter from the start.
I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Preston
Posts: 4,755
|
Quote:
Hmm, maybe this is where he gets the "licensed" from:
That's so Stuart Baggs ![]() Edit: As is Quote:
If you currently work for another ISP [Click Here].
Leading to:Quote:
A career with BlueWave Communications is an exciting prospect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
Quote:
I'd sort of agree with you but then Stuart showed his true colours in the interview by asking Bawden who he was with the intention of telling him he knew nothing about the subject then when quickly realising he was on a loser being patronising and slightly threatening.
I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
I was lmao when he said that. Stu is very immature and a complete waffler who doesn't know when to fess up. He would be a liability to any company with his talent for getting people's backs up. its best if he remains working for himself. To slander a rival is bad enough but to be stupid enough to admit in such a public forum is just
![]() He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him. Quote:
I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear
You know nothing about him in real life and therefore it's you thats slandering him...well, libelling him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,766
|
Quote:
He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him.
You know nothing about him in real life and therefore it's you thats slandering him...well, libelling him. I take it you are Stuart...I can tell by the mildly threatening tone when challenged and the implication of legal action because you don't like what I am saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
[quote=The Rhydler;46594042]He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him.
/QUOTE] Not true. Stu said "I'm sorry, what did you say your name is?"Borden immediately commented that Stu didn't have much attention to detail either. Its easy to forget a name in a pressurised situation but Stu's immaturity allowed him ask an interviewer what his name was. Its a wee bit insulting in a normal convo but to say that in interview is really dumb imo. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,362
|
Quote:
Alan Sugar's angry with himself for letting Liz go after Stuart's bluffed his way through!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Posts: 5,415
|
The weird thing was I thought Stuart got away fairly lightly in the interviews. considering. And even in the boardroom discussion there was some praise for him.
I don't actually see how all that was shown equated to LS being told Stuart was 'full of sh*t' - although I do agree with that assessment! |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 958
|
Quote:
The key words being "I Think" i.e. I am entitled to MY opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,740
|
Quote:
Its easy to forget a name in a pressurised situation but Stu's immaturity allowed him ask an interviewer what his name was. Its a wee bit insulting in a normal convo but to say that in interview is really dumb imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,779
|
I have to say that, whilst he may have been a bit of a cock, a quick look at his website does seem to reveal that he isn't 'full of shit' at all. He is the MD of a proper, bona-fide telecoms company that is providing some quite technical services. He maybe wasn't quite there at the time of filming the interviews, but he certainly appears to be now.
At least he wasn't trying to act all big, whilst getting wrong what ISP stood for......
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,243
|
Quote:
Alan Sugar's angry with himself for letting Liz go after Stuart's bluffed his way through!!!
At last he realises his awful mistake. On last week`s task Liz was the most successful out the 3 candidates in the boardroom. Over the weeks he has made little remarks to Liz such as`I suupose you`d have been more comfortable in Harvey Nicks or Bond Street`. He had put Liz in a box because of a combination of her looks, sex & age. He saw her as a young good looking girl who was likely to get pregnant & leave. I found that appalling. She is someone who wants a career , she`s well organised & is good at leading a team. Perhaps it`s time he gave up on The Apprentices if he can`t keep his streotypical judgements of people in check. Stuart got what he deserved unfortunately it was weeks too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,694
|
Quote:
You're entitled to your opinion, but it could still be libellous to air it in public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,113
|
Quote:
He asked Borden his name because he probably didnt introduce himself at the beginning. Stuart wasnt being patronising, quite the opposite, he was trying NOT to patronise him.
You know nothing about him in real life and therefore it's you thats slandering him...well, libelling him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Laich Kintraes
Posts: 4,086
|
Quote:
I think it was plain nasty and if it was based on what that smug guy said, who was just trying to look clever, it was unmerited
I found it extremely unpleasant. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 180
|
Shit Happens!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen/shire
Posts: 3,367
|
Quote:
I think it was plain nasty and if it was based on what that smug guy said, who was just trying to look clever, it was unmerited
Quote:
I'd sort of agree with you but then Stuart showed his true colours in the interview by asking Bawden who he was with the intention of telling him he knew nothing about the subject then when quickly realising he was on a loser being patronising and slightly threatening.
I think Stuart is actually a very very unpleasant person in real life and I'd steer well clear. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21.





After all, if childerun can be expected to sit through the tedium that was Saturday's X Factor to watch a tasteful burlesque routine, they are of course all going to get infected by Lord Sugar's bad language, which causes cancer.
Stuart got what he deserved unfortunately it was weeks too late.