Correct!

i'm watching this again on bbc hd

That was by far the best firing I have ever seen!
Bloody brilliant!!
I want to watch that clip over and over again.

Enjoy

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.

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.

I love how he said he's grown up a bit but he's still a bit of a c*ck!

Hmm, maybe this is where he gets the "licensed" from:

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.

Haha THE Island's Communication Company

That's so Stuart Baggs

Edit:

As is
Leading to:

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.


You know nothing about him in real life and therefore it's you thats slandering him...well, libelling him.

The key words being "I Think" i.e. I am entitled to MY opinion.

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.

[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.

Very unprofessional of Lord Sugar. He is the one who is "full of shit."

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!

You're entitled to your opinion, but it could still be libellous to air it in public.

Yes! Especially coming when it did. It seemed like he was trying to deflect the questions over the licence, and also it DID sound patronising, a "who are you exactly?"-type question, even if that's not how it was intended. Left me cringing.

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......

I agree with you on this. Last week on this forum I suggested that Lord Sugar was going senile for firing Liz in favour of that idiot.

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.

I think eggshell is pretty safe. Unlike Stubags who admitted to deliberately making defamatory statements to the press about one of his competitors.

are you actually stuart the brand, as over the past few weeks you seem to have spent alot of time trying to defend the indifensible

Very nasty and unnecessarily cruel to treat a 21 year old like that. He could have let Stuart know that he needed to keep a check on reality with a bit of humour and kindness.

I found it extremely unpleasant.

Shit Happens!

That description sounds like Stuart - nasty and smug and trying to look clever!


That wasn't a good look for Stuart, I hope that was his extreme youth that made him do that - he is only 21 you know!