So as I thought, you are expressing an opinion, which is no better nor worse than my opinion.

I think Stuart say that a Rival going bust just to try and get busness himself and was good Busness was bit of a stupid thing to put on a CV and to say it, what a plonker

BTW you're not The Brand are you?

I agree - but the way it was edited, that wasn't the issue that LAS took umbrage about.

I wish, then I'd be a proprietor of a fruitful ISP providing company

Well, I think that I'm very much right.

Mmm, worse than his employee Lee McQueen doing a reverse Pteradactyl impression right in Paul Kemsley's face.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

However I was unclear if it was your opinion or something you knew because you were on the team. Hence my request for clarification.

I say it as someone who knows a bit about television production

Yes.

So do I though.

Surprises me then, that you can't see the obvious. They wanted 'The Brand' on last with the most screen time cos he is the star of the series.

I think they focused on the ISP lie and the fact that he lied about another company to make the point. But never forget that we only see glimpses of what really goes on. Putting it into context, a lot of what Stuart says is embellishment and he does not seem to know where to draw the line. His behaviour towards his peers in previous weeks would not be tolerated if he was dealing with true proffessionals. Last week he did a good job of talking himself up but, as Liz said, he has no substance and this was proven when he had to deal with the sort of respected senior figures that he would have to deal with if he got the job. He was exposed. LS's reaction was right because he believed that Stuart was an honest person with integrity and just a maverick attitude. To find out that he had had the wool pulled over his eyes is not only humiliating but massively disrespectful.

He only slightly had the wool pulled over his eyes, looked to me like they tried really hard to find something to nail on stuart, a quibble over licensing? Is that the best you can do Borden?

They deviated from their format without explanation. The extra time Stuart got was to answer the criticisms that had been made about him. They didn't show noticeably more highlights or do more funny stuff. ISTM it wasn't about entertainment but about giving Stu the airspace in exchange for something.

I agree - but I have to say the edit last week showed him to be totally taken in, which reflects pretty badly off him.

Jamie was criticised for 'a blame culture' - ie blaming other people for his shortcomings. But if LAS is saying he fired Liz cos he fell for Stubag's field of ponies, isn't he doing the same thing?

I fail to see why they would make a 'deal' with Baggs, they dont owe him a thing nor do they care about him a jot.

And one more point - What if Jamie was telling the truth? What if his parents did show him little support? What if his partner really IS like that?

He might be blaming them...but they could be to blame!

It wasn't the fact that it was a technical detail on the licensing that got him fired. it was the fact that he failed to hold his hands up and say "yeah, I over-egged that a bit". It was like blood from a stone getting to the truth. He was sat with someone who knew exactly what the license was, had spoken to the authorities and yet Stuart still persisted that he was right. He does not know when to stop and that is what makes him unsuitable for the job.

I thought the firing of Stuart was really out of order. I had my hand over my mouth. I couldnt believe that he was treated so badly. I wish him well in the future and look forward to reading about him when he has made his first million!

Perhaps because what Viglen Man said about him could be construed as defamatory and they don't want to test it out?

I doubt Baggs stopped being pushy after he was fired.

Good point about Lee's CV. On the one hand, Stuart's firing WAS a disgrace. But on the other, he should've been fired weeks ago.

Yes indeed - but Sugar accepted that as a fair point so he shouldn't do it himself!

Ah well, I guess we'll never know.

Its so unfair, more than thing happens to you, people think it you...you can be innocent twice you know.

Agree with the OP. I dont think there was ever a case of Baggs winning-everyone knew that-even him. But Liz sacking last week and Baggs this is arguably one of the more cynical ratings related decisions in the shows history. Baggs is brilliant telly. How many candidates have put outrageous statements on their cv's? Most of them because most of them have to be hugely up themselves to try and get on the show in the first place. The manner of Baggs dismissal was overly harsh and wasnt visited upon a host of other candidates who did the same thing.

Love the show-by far the best reality show-but the decisions relating to Liz and Stuart were more X Factor than Apprentice.