Whether we think it was appropriate or not its hard to argue he wasnt full of sh!t.... I'm going to make you 3 million, I'm not a one trick pony I'm a field of ponies, Even when I'm sleeping I'm coming up with ideas, I'm alive there are so many who are dead - thats a gift, etc etc

Sorry but really these comments are actually definitively sh!t

ETA forgot he was going to invent a chip for Margarets cat in case it ended up in the bahamas

Why is age brought into everything? Would it be more acceptable if it was said to a 31 year old, 41 yo, 51 yo....? It would still have been if it was said to anyone regardless of age. Besides, it's not as if Stuart is some sort of sensitive, fragile, wimp who goes to pieces emotionally when something negative is said to him. After he was told that by LS he still had that arrogant 'whatever' look on his face like he always do. However, saying that, I agree it wasn't pleasant and LS should've used a euphemism which would've been less offensive.

It was the best part of the Apprentice this year.

I wanted him fired for weeks, not only do I get what I want, but a real verbal kicking from Lord Sugar.

It made my night and cheered me up no end.

This is my problem.

I've wanted him fired for weeks too, but to do it in such a bad way on, in my opinion, fairly dodgy grounds has now made me start sticking up for him, and I don't like that one bit...

Doctor, my arm hurts when I do this.

Well, don't do it then.

I know, but I just can't help it....

I remember a year or two back when another contestant, who was also a bit of a cock, claimed to have been awarded a scholarship to Sandhurst. Loads of people were on here claiming that they were in the Army, that their Dad was a Rear-Admiral, and other such things, and assuring us that there was no such thing and it was a completely made up term, for pages on end.

But a quick Google threw up the fact that it was a perfectly valid term. I didn't like him either but found myself compelled to argue his corner too.

It's a curse.....

Yes, I know what you mean.

I did a little spell standing up for Laura because I was sick of everyone jumping on the bandwagon to give her a kick. (If you'll excuse the mixed metaphor. )

The way Stuart was fired was terrible

Mr Viglen got it wrong, and Sugar showed no class at all.

No justification whatsoever.

Personally I think Stewart is a complete bullsh!tter who will try and talk his way out of anything. No matter how people worded their opinions to him, he had an answer for everything. Putting it in the terms "you are full of shit", Stewart had no comback and had to face the harsh reality of the truth for once. It was the only time I've seen him speechless.

I got the impression on You're Fired that Stewart himself knew that that assessment was right. He even said words to the effect that while he's grown up a lot in the year since then, he's still a bit of a c*ck. I doubt Stewart lost any sleep over it but it did make him question his behaviour which is a good thing.

best firing EVER!

I see "The Brand"'s fans are as full of it as he is - opinions can't be libelous. One can't be sued for their opinions - else newspaper columnists would be sued all the time...

You seem to be forgetting his illegal act of trying to noble his competition.

I get really fed up of this "he's only 21" schtick.

The thing that will teach him not to be an immature c*ck going forward is precisely the hard face of reality imposing on his Walter Mitty view of the world.

Yes it may not be pleasant to watch but its fully deserved and its the only thing that will change the ways of idiots like him.

His 'interviews' was TV Gold....but no way should AS get het up over it...he was in the wrong in keeping stubaggs in for so long...it was AS who was 'played' in the end and he knew it!!

That's spot on.
Sugar was afraid of Stuart and was looking for a chance to fire him.
Anyone else remember the Laker Airways collapse?.

Well, TV critic Nina Myskow was sued successfully for libel for giving her opinion of Charlotte Cornwell: "She can't sing, her bum is too big, and she has the sort of stage presence that blocks lavatories.”

So I imagine that alleging that someone is a very unpleasant person 'in real life' could be grounds for libel*- particularly if you had never met them in real life.

In 1987. The courts approach libel law somewhat differently these days, and it's actually quite hard to successfully sue for libel. And the crux is whether what is being presented is an opinion, a fact, or a fact dressed up as opinion. Saying "I think" is not an immediate get-out, but it does help to mitigate the following statement as it is straight away presenting it as an opinion. Now, whether someone is unpleasant or not is clearly a matter of opinion and not fact. And I think it's safe to say that there has been enough evidence in the programme itself (Stubags' own admission of slander, for a start) for any jury to rule that it is entirely reasonable for someone to honestly hold the opinion that Stubags isn't a pleasant person. That opinion can legally be expressed in as vociferous, exaggerated and offensive way as the person holding the opinion likes and it still won't be libellous.

Of course, libel law is far from black and white and Stubags probably could sue over the statement (in fact, anyone can sue over any statement, should they so wish). But he would almost certainly lose the case and would have to pay for the privilege of doing so. Even were he to win, he would almost certainly lose out. Charlotte Cornwall may have won £11,000 in damages off Nina Myskow, but after court costs she ended up something like £50,000 out of pocket.

So, really, nobody in this thread is going to get sued, and even if they were, they would not be sued successfully. Stubags himself, on the other hand, should consider himself very lucky that the company he slandered to the press haven't sued.

Also, there is a big difference between a newspaper which is supposed to have some credibility with its readers printing something such as 'X can't sing' and someone saying so on a forum.

The default assumption for something printed in a newspaper is that it is a fact (ha-ha), unless stated otherwise, whereas the default for something less formal is that it is an opinion.

Anyone calling themselves a Brand is asking to get fired.

It was worth watching him in the interviews for the one line that made my night.

"You're not a fish in a big pond. Your not even a fish."

Priceless.

Loved it. I thought whats her name getting compared to a knock off DVD was funny but bullshit Baggs getting the bullet was hillarious!

Sugar afraid of a nobody like Stuart LOL.

What planet are you on?

Stuart was full of shit, but the real bullshit is that that SA just cottoned onto this at the very end of the show. Are we to truly believe this?

I.e. to me the editing of this show and trying to sell it as credible to the public is what is utter bullshit.

So if there's any crime involved at all, it's TA production and the BBC for broadcasting it. (I say that knowing full well that they would never ever be investigated because they know that the public mostly buy into every bit of manipulated editing fed to them by the platefuls).

I am so glad he got caught out and I think that this person's blog is pretty bang on http://mymessylittlethoughts.wordpress.com/

I agree, I think people forget stuart is only 21 so good for him

I don't get what's so 'priceless' about that 'you're not a fish' line. It's pointless literalism. Exactly the sort of week patter I'd expect from some sort of paperclip Cray brother.

'Yes, I'm not a fish. I'd like to thank Claude for that very astute observation.' - Baggs on Radio5