Also, feel free to go onto Ofcom's own site here:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/s10_code.txt

and search for "bluewave".

s

yep...of course you are the victim here.

You were set up to get the ratings in as the entertainment and then stitched up without even having a chance to explain yourself next to SA's so called experts.

How could you ever have a chance against them, uh?

Even the public all believe in the credentials of the 'experts' without ever checking them out.

And whilst the BBC also endorses SA and The Apprentice......and the Apprentice's so called expert, you were royally stitched up mate.

But good on you for at least having the guts to post on here, because DS is also very 'bandwagonish'

I think you are probably more legit than SA was when he first started out.

I think somebody needs to investigate his CV and wheeling and dealings and then see how squeeky clean he is.

Thanks, I'm not after sympathy and I know I may come across as a bit of a cock at times but if people don't want to do business with me I want it to be because they don't like me and not because they think I am a liar.

I'm happy to stand up on any TV show any radio show or speak with any paper (except Isle of Man newspapers who have been throughly unsupportive throughout this process) and prove all of the claims I have made.

P.S. I have been touching on this on my new Twitter account @stuartbaggs.

s

I don't follow Twitter or any of that shit.

But good on you to be here right now to challenge questions and answers that peeps want to put to you.

However, I think better still is to just open a thread on your own and invite peeps to question you.

Daunting, I know, but seriously, it would be the way to go here rather than on the shit Twitter.

I'm sure Mr Viglen must have been quite shocked when the Isle of Man commisioner told him BlueWave was not on the scale of BT or Telefonica...

Let's get some perspective here folk. Borden could have simply asked 'does your company offer landlines like BT does?' Any service which he expected was on offer, he could have asked about, and known for sure if Stuart was honest. But his intention was not to clarify, it was to trip Stuart up on a imaginary technicality. Telecoms operator is not a proper noun like General Practictioner, and as far as I'm aware there's no clearly defined 'Full Licence' to be had. BlueWave is a company that is an ISP and also provides some services not associated with ISPs in common parlance, hence BlueWave is best described as what else but a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom...tions_operator

Frankly the Sugar/Apprentice brand is tarnished by this whole episode. Not only did they spurn all the candidates with actual entrepreneurial backgrounds in favour of a graduate and a corporate ladder climber, but they made basic research errors and then failed to apologise or own up. Then gave those patronising "I hope he learned something from this process" speeches. What a joke.

Baggs, if you're still reading, could I ask why you think it was nevertheless right for you to exit at that stage?

That was his advice back in 2008 (after he caught Lee out), not exactly consistent


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7436404.stm

Stuart's big mistake was that when he was first asked the question he started with a weaselly, "How can I answer this without sounding weaselly" (or words to that effect). He should have been more defiant at the outset rather than setting the tone but that introduction.

Once that was said the whole world was primed for weaseling and probably thought Bordon was doing good job by not standing for any.

Right, I don't believe that this is the real Stubags posting here (he doesn't seem to know how old he is, for a start), but on the off-chance, let's see if we can get the answers to a question or two.

You have made mention of being a director of a company with £3m turnover:

1. Is this company Bluewave and, if not, who owns it?
2. What, exactly, does your role as director entail?
3. How much profit does it make and, if it's not Bluewave, how much profit does Bluewave make?

Because, really, without this information, saying you're director of a company with 3m turnover is meaningless.

He was 21 when the programme was made so he's obviously going to be 22/23 now.

Which is why it's odd that he would refer to himself as being 21:


I haven't got either the time or the energy to check now, but I'm sure his CV was more than one page, too.

OK, I see what you're getting at.

Don't forum support normally check when people claim to be someone with special knowledge?

You make a good point about the age.

The posts do sound quite convincing, but as he made a big thing on You're Fired of being a year older and more mature than at the time of the programme being made, I don't think he'd forget how old he was when he was posting on a forum.

Unless, as LS said, you can't believe a blahddy word 'e says!

I read elsewhere that there was a Bluewave Communications founded in 2003 on IoM that 'closed' it's license in 2007 and the next day / shortly after Bluewave Communications Ltd opened, which is your current company. (And please note, I could have the Ltd out of order, can't recall if it was the 2003 or 2007 company)

Therefore, I assumed per the above that the company had been founded by your parents as you would have been 14 in 2003. This would be in direct contrast to the statement you made that your parents didn't help you at all to get where you are. I admit I don't know how much of a company the 2003 Bluewave was and it would take some searching to find again where I read this, but perhaps you could explain what you know about the above?

If the above were true, could that mean that it was another factor not taken too kindly by Lord Sugar in firing you?

He clarified on Twitter that he was a "sole trader" (nb: different from 'soul trader') until 2007 when he incorporated. C'mon guys, stop nitpicking. Most companies run by ppl under 25 probably don't last more than 2 months, even if they eventually set up something better (eg. Microsoft). Most tech startups are web/software concerns with low risk and negligabe overhead, not proper hardware/service providers. And no company can afford to have a director on board who's a liability - even if it's a family business. Too much nitpicking

Not really.

He claimed to have done it all by himself with no assistance from his parents.

That seems barely credible as you'd need a substantial wodge of cash to start even a basic ISP.

Of course what I think he actually said was "My parents never gave me anything other than £10 to buy some yo-yos". (So, no pocket money,then?)

That does not mean that his father didn't guarantee a bloody great loan in order to get him started.

It's really (yet again ) the fault of the production company. If you're going to allow someone - especially someone who is only 21 - to repeatedly claim he is a director of a company with a certain turnover then you need to be a lot more specific about what that means. It could mean something very impressive or it could mean diddly squat!

And we just don't know.

I'm in this camp. To be fair I've only watched 50% of this series because of it having degenerated into another entertainment show.

Maybe it's rose tinted glasses but I'm sure the first series(s) were more serious with less sensationalism and more consistant and fairer editing. Actually didn't it start out on BBC2? So it moves to BBC1, they wind it up a gear and two things happen. The TV Wanabee's start to appear in place of genuine job seekers, and we get the X-Factor fixings where the big characters get kept in longer than they deserve. The prize has lost its cred too because such a poor record of hirings staying beyond the minimum, if at all.

Yeah say his father threw some clients his way, he's still got to build a business out of that and provide competent service. And the costs of setting up a wireless ISP on an island are not necessarily that high, a small loan and lots of hard work would cover it.

There's a difference between benefitting from your parents' connections and being a puppet.

I mean all the other candidates who worked for large companies, they could only achieve their sales etc. because they had massive resources at their disposal. It's not like anyone is going to hand Paloma Vivanco Lmt a $867000 phone contract indepedentant of the company she worked for.

This made me laugh! Just what category did you have TA in before you realised it was an entertainment show? Alongside Newsnight and Panorama?!

That's not the point.

His father (you?) could have guaranteed a loan, given him business, got friends to give him business.

But the bagginator was effectively saying it was all his own work and that his parents gave him nothing.

There's nothing wrong with his parents helping him in all sorts of ways but it should have been acknowledged.

Even AS is happy to state that his parents gave him some money for a van to get started.

Stuart's failure to acknowledge that his parents helped him in any way just added to the general impression of excessive hyperbole.

Not to my knowledge. If the person making the claim asks for them to verify it they do but otherwise I'm pretty sure it's caveat emptor.

That might be why O2 used to own Manx Telecom (are they an Internet Service Protocol? ), and used it as its testbed before it brought it onto the mainland (3G tests, LTE, etc)

Who cares? He should have gone last week and Liz should have been in the finals.

Although, Internet Service Protocol is incorrect.

Although best known as a PC builder, Viglen (and at the time Bordon) have some experience of creating internet businesses. It was the report that they were going into that market, that was the report in the Mirror's City Slickers column that led to trials and all those questions about Piers Morgan and insider dealings.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/01...ebiz_division/

Maybe Bordon just gets the cold sweats whenever anything internet is mentioned and mis-speaks?

NB. Neither Bordon or Sugar had anything to do with the insider trading, it was a Mirror internal affair, their staff profiting on news they'd been given legitimately.

IMO, it's this.

The guy just got the wrong word in the heat of the moment, because he was, to an extent, playing a character for TV, and had to sustain the momentum of his grilling.

I bet they both know what the term means, but if I was Bawden (or Lord Alan even, because his reputation suffers too), I would have insisted that the BBC edit-in a cutaway shot of Stuart and correct the spoken word/ phrase of Bawden.

Of course, that's cheating/ not representing the situation accurately, but then... welcome to the world of TV, complete with its 'story-telling' editing and manipulation to suit.