He fell flat on his face in the interviews anyway, his answers were junk - but he was exposed as deceitful and that's an automatic fail in any company. There's overhyping yourself, they all did that, but he had written factual inaccuracies and then didn't back down. Worse, the likes of Liz had been fired because they let him do this act in the boardroom. LAS was angry with himself more than anything. The firing was the most cringemaking and unpleasant of any I've seen on The Apprentice, it was personal and nasty but Stuart brought it on himself, and I say that as a previous fan.

Asking the guy his name well into the interview was a pathetic attempt at oneupmanship, as if to say I'm the brand, you're a nobody. Only a ******** would do that, the comeback was obvious, if you don't know my name you're not paying attention.

Good to see how this has all played out to the public.

Let's hate the guy for daring to lie on his CV and act like a buffoon for our entertainment.

All in the name of SA's brand of products, brought directly by the BBC.

Stuart must have been let through the selection process for his entertainment value alone.

And while he may be an habitual fibber, he made us all laugh.

But for AS to fire him as he did?. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!.

If AS really was "taken in" by Stuarts BS, then that really beggars belief, as after all, does he not always stress that no one can "pull the wool over his eyes" and "I've heard it all before" in every series?.....

While Stuart should have gone much earlier in the series, he deserved a little more respect in his firing.

Rant over....

To survive in the sort of environment he wanted to work in by applying for this process Baggs would have a lot more than "you're full of shit" hurled at him. Yes it was OTT in its context but Stuart is the one who will get the PR off the back of all this. I have found his dealings with the other contestants hugely unprofessional throughout (Stuart's attempts to poach customers on the tour task made me cringe a lot more than last night), so you could say that karmically he has been retributed!

There was a major difference with what Lee lied about and what Stuart lied about!

Lee tried, failed and admitted that on his CV he had tried to add to what he thought were poor academic credentials. He completed a term, whilst indicating on his CV that he had finished a two year course. Although dishonest and ill judged Lee's lie didnt help him to remain in the competition over anyone else did it? He never bragged about it at all. It only came up in the interview, and he held his hands up and apologised to Lord Sugar. Who actually said it was more impressive that he hadnt achieved the certificate he indicated he had.

Stuart on the other hand, wouldnt admit to severly misleading the type license he had until hard pressed by the interviewer. And worse still he still tried to blag his way out of the lie with Lord Sugar in the board room. He was already caught out FFS. Stuart used his "background" on a number of occassions to blag his way into the next week, and with a smile knowing exactly what he was doing. Besides i find it extremely hard to believe that somebody described as "bright" in this field by many of the interviewers, would then struggle to know the difference between what type of license he indicated he had and the actual license he had. At one stage in the BR last night when being pressed on the accessability of the license he actually said "the cost of it is irrelevant" Still not prepared to hold his hands up then. Well yes it is relevant, and obviously it was to Lord Sugar and the interviewers!

I dont blame LS for losing it and firing him first, he shouldnt have been there. Liz should have. Although seeing "brand" being verbally beaten to a pulp last night was amazing!

Ultimately, the show is out to capture viewers, if it wasn't for the presence of the likes of Baggs, a lot less people would watch. The producers will have been well aware of 'anomalies' in his CV. That's exactly why he made it through to the interview stage instead of Liz. My take on last night, http://j.mp/gZpyoQ

Bloody hell, if you think being told "You're full of shit" on a TV show is bang out of order and a disgrace, then god help you when you start work yourself.

Technical - not really. He put a few buzz words over, but never gave any really impression of technical competancy.

He got fired because he was a ********.

Successful - I don;t think we ever got to the bottom of that

- Director of a £3m turnover company, we did not get any info on that at all, so we are none the wiser
- The Telecoms company was mentions seperately to the above. Looking at the web site, they are nothing apparently more than another telecoms reseller. Good on him for setting it up, or his partners he did it with, although I of M is a odd place as Manx Telecom is the incumbant supplier, although backed by BT it is not BT as on the fence of being in/out of the UK.

Bluewave Comms website is still lying/very vague about its licencing ststus
http://www.bluewave.im/about/


"The company is licensed in respect of fixed and wireless IP communications Island wide"
and
"BlueWave Communications Ltd is licensed and regulated under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. We are registered with the office of the Data Protection Supervisor and information collected from our customers is used in conjunction with the Data Protection Act 2002."

--

I've not enjoyed a firing of "Baggs, the Brand" so much, since the odious bitch Melissa got the chop.

--

Stella will win.

Although 'Light Entertainment', it is a business show...


... I look forward to seeing "Baggs, the Brand", on Live at The Apollo, if he is that funny.

In case anyone wants another view of it. I think I might put it in repeat all day

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLVJ0mUa3xI

Actually - more than one of the interviewers commented on his technical knowledge in positive terms - so I don't think those are/ were in doubt at all


Considering the emphasis they put on the relatively minor licensing issue - don't you think that this would have been a bigger and better "lie" to pick up on? I can't help thinking that if he wasn't pulled up on it - it might just be true - after all a 21 year old claiming to run a £3M turnover company isn't exactly the usual sort of thing one would expect is it?


I do hope so - I find Chris shallow and boring in comparison

Not really sure.

The blurb about him is that he 'is a director in a £3m turnover company', without much other detail. This was described seperately to the Telecoms company, which 'he set up'. Would be nice to know what he does, his involvement, whether the company makes any moey etc...

There is little more to go on, from a viewers operspective, other than his runaway mouth.

Perhaps he is Director of Marketing Puff? Personally I am a manager in a tier 1 UK blue chip Telecoms company, with a multi-£bn turnover, and multi £bn profitability, however little of that has anything to do with me, and is more the rest of the people who work in the very large orgnisation'. I'm sure I could big it up in a 'Baggs, the Brand' sense, but it would be nothing other than incredible waffle.

"Baggs, the Brand" (ROFLMAO )will be certainly be declared 'FALSE' on snopes.com

Congratulations...you've kicked the chair away from under this thread

Correct. Also the lie/defamation regarding the competitors business. I can't clearly remember Lee's lie being uncovered but I imagine he wasn't defending it to the extent Stuart was. Also, don't think Lee spent ages convincing LS and anyone who would listen how honest he was in the way Stuart did. I posted last week that this might happen if anything was proven to be untrue on Stuart's CV because LS would see it as being taken in if so.

And this is what I suspect the truth of the matter is.

I think that Stuart was kept in long enough to make good tv for us viewers.

Do I think his sacking was disgraceful? Yes and no.

Yes, he needed taking down a peg or two. But I would rather have seen him being sacked for the way he spoke to potential clients and other competitors.

For example his interaction with the Tourist Information woman - "call the Police" and his relentless back stabbing towards other competitors. The way he butted in on Chris's sales pitch in Trafalgar Square last week was terrible.

OP I think they did choose to sack him in the most sensational way possible for viewing reasons. However, I don't think Stuart will do too badly out of appearing on this show.

Sugar was assuaging his guilt for firing a far more capable candidate, Liz, the previous week.

IT does,

the only thing I would say with how the op thinks is that it was not just the LIcencing isue "All of my advisors" who interviewed him, not just over the one point... no when he claims that he lied to media about a competitor going bust then .... quite frankly he even addmits then he is a liar... what did LS say .. if your not a liar... hes a liar. Fact = goonight "full of Sh8t". If it was just down to the licence its still proberly enough but he managed to even piss off Margret in 3 seconds....

I dont disagrea for one second he has something going for him but HE IS a liar, even by his own CV claims, at that point he was dead in the water with or withough the Licence thing to cement it.

It's only a tv programme and Stuart was kept in till the last for entertainment purposes. The production team obviously could see in him the potential for the comedy element and I must admit they got it absolutely right because he made great viewing each week. You just had to watch and wonder what on earth he was going to do and say in each programme.

but hang on, the application form asked for "what is your biggest lie", were they supposed to lie and say "i never lie"

firing someone for telling a lie, when you have asked them to describe a lie is very strange.

sugar just looked like an idiot out of all of this, and totally irrational in his decisions and thought process. his "angry" firing was just stupid, any number of reasons to send him home, rather than over the wording of the word licence.

Despite thinking Stuart was full of BS, and finding his arrogant manner irritating, I was shocked by the way LA fired him – “You're full of sh*t!”. Even my wife, who can't stand Stuart, thought it was harsh.

I also expected to hear that Stuart's company might not be doing as well as he'd claimed, yet all they could pick up on was an error in his CV about the licensing status.

Also, if that Viglen guy is so clued up on technology, why did he keep saying that ISP stood for internet service protocol when it actually stands for internet service provider?

It's fairly obviously not really about the lie, it is the context and your own business ethics, and your justification

- Why did you don't
- Was it misleading, breached regulation, was unlawful ?
- Realisation that it was not a good thing
- Realisation there is a dividing line between reasonable exaggeration and wilful lying - Emily Maitlis's Donald Trump Docu-view the other week was a good example of this
- How far you would go to fcuk over a competior today ?
- If I hired you, how much would you lie to me ?

On the London tour task, "Bagg's, the Brand", was seemingly prepared to do anything........to gain an advantage.

Really good point made by OP regarding Lee McQueen. To me that lie on the CV was just as bad if not worse than Stuart's.

Totally agree, expected him to be sacked but the manner in which he went was wrong, Sugar ignored any good comments made by his advisors and just let rip, it was nasty.

I wasn't the wording that bugged him, I recon, its the way he tried to squirm out of it, the way that it is explained to him by his advisor. Its the fact that he could have just been upfront , but instead tried to work a story that the guy saw coming.... he was trying to blag it.

And again? I dont get your point, LS asks him if he is a liar, he claims not, he might well say Im not a liar just after he has shown a few examples of lying by being honest about it but he still proves he is a liar/ full of sh*t, a bull sh*tter,

ITs like saying to LS "I never stole anything to get here", then later say " well I did steel this car, and a small pony" but I was even younger and well Im being honest about it now.

Only its not a lie. The Brand had everry right to defend himself.

If I said I had owned fully licenced public house then what does that mean?

A - Licenced to sell beers, wines and spirits?
and
B - Licenced to sell for consumption in all rooms and in the beer garden?
and
C - Licenced for on and off sales?
and
D - Licenced for live entertainment?
and
E - Licenced for the playing of recorded music?

Only a pedant would argue that fully licenced means all of them where as most people would regard it to mean A or A&B