In the real world no decent interviewer, nor those on the program, would behave like that. It is for the purposes of your 'entertainment'. Interview like that and you firstly won't find the best candidate. Secondly you run foul of both the employment laws and the slander ones too. They avoid this by means of the contract the candidates have to sign, which waives all rights.

Sugar's cut throat business world?? You have any idea of what he does? Apart from property it's selling to the corporate and govt and related customers. Viglen got a massive contract in the dying days of the last Labour govt. To which party Sugar was one of their biggest donors. The Coalition govt froze IT contracts. Sugar's 'cut throat' response was to whine and try and use twitter and Facebook about buying British. Not once mentioning the biggest Viglen contract in history. £6 billion of tax payers' money, early March 2010.

http://www.viglen.co.uk/viglen/about...?ID=2391&GUID=

Agree with Tercet above, as in any real job interview, you wouldnt bother with the silly "grilling" that the candidates recieve, as any good interviewer would just decide that the person wasnt suitable and wind the interview up.

No "real" interviewer would waste their time in trying to humiliate a candidate for a job.

Reality TV vs reality......

Claude's job is just to be the "pantomime villain" of the interviews. In real life he isn't like that - witness the genial smile on his face when he left the boardroom and acknowledged the candidates. The Rottweiller bit is just for TV and anyone who thinks it is anything else is being naiive.

He is instructed to be 'bad cop' for the purposes of the show. In real life, you know in the first 5 or 10 mins whether the person is any good or not. You'd wrap the whole thing up as quickly as possible and move onto to the next one. My take on last night. http://j.mp/gZpyoQ

Unless it's a technical role, you need a 1 hour exam for that

RE your blog, I think Jo's problem was she felt compelled to point out (to interviewers) how shit she was

What was strange though I thought was that in the interviews claude was the biggest p**** there, and Bordan came across as quite friendly.

Then in the boardroom it was the other way around, Claude generally had nice things to say whereas Bordan was constantly negative.

Just thought that was interesting how they both changed.

Stella breezed through no problems. I loved the reacts of teh otrhers as she sat their calmy whilst they were shitting themselves and finding it tough. I think Stella has nothing to worry about on her CV and is confident in her ability which is why it was easier for her.

I still think Chris will win as LS likes him and that he looks at things with a diiferent angle.

What surprised me more than anything was how Jamie, impressive throughout, failed miserably at Interview !

I do agree with Jamie that how pushy (or, put another way, just interested) your parents are makes a big difference - witness the parents that push their kids into extra tutorials for 11+ etc, and comparte with parents who don't give a ****! (Whilst my parents were never "pushy", they made it very clear the importance of a good education).

But whether to mention is interesting - he was trying to use it as a point of "look what I've done, despite..." and felt sorry for him that it backfired.

That's not true. 3m turnover means nothing. It's the profit that matters.

Eaxctly, the company I work for turns over 15m, but profits have been just a a few 100k of late! Damnabit....

Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

There's nothing real world about The Apprentice, it's an entertainment show which is a vehicle for advertising Sugar's various businesses.

As far as I'm concerned the low point of the interviews was Clive ignoring Stuart's outstretched hand and ordering him to "sit down" without even looking at him. The epitome of arrogance and rudeness.

It's 'entertainment'.
Ritual humiliation has always found a ready audience so, if you don't like it, don't watch it but bear in mind that millions will.
The whole 'Apprentice-experience' is tosh. If it were an effective way of recruiting then all companies would work this way. None of them does, as we know.
It's TV!

Its not THAT cut-throat mate. You dont go around belittling and insulting people in the work place! That's not how it is, despite how the BBC want to portray it. If so, Sugar would have allowed Debra Barr to disrespect Nick Hewer - no probs!

Claude sees it as a yearly chance to do his hard-man act on telly and you can't blame him.

How about, if you dont like it, watch it and then complain about it.

I'm not switching off my fave show just cos a couple of arseholes want to make a pretty successful 21 year old look like a con-artist.

The guy was a pillock.

Far too much mouth and no where near enough trouser.

He might have made a good candidate if he'd had a few years to grow up but at the moment he's just a waste of space.

You know how it works, it's the same every year. Even the contestants know exactly what to expect.

Personally I think Baggs is a con artist and a bit of an arsehole. So I'm glad he got his commupence.

A pillock yes, a prat, a buffoon - all in the name of entertainment.

But that doesn't mean he deserved to be fired in that manner. He did not.

What if you're wrong? And his comeuppance is unjustified? Will Sugar be karmically retributed?

Thanks, saved me typing the same post I've put on several threads already today!

My other point was more general - that I would like it if the 'interviews episode' took a different format - either one interviewer at a time seeing all the candidates or following one candidate a time round the 4 interviewers. It felt a bit jaunty to me I think it'd be fun to follow them one by one through the day to see in what order their interviews go well/bad/how they recover or disintegrate etc

Rhydler, I thought you said it was your fave show. Why do you like it so much if you are offended by abuse, bad language and offence being caused? Honest question.

That's what happens every week!

No it isn't. This is the only firing in the series which has wound me up because it wasnt honest or right. The only time I've ever really gotten angry before this was the firing of Raef in 2008.

Its my fave show but I have a hard time handling the Interview episode as it usually results in false information being fed to Sugar who then overreacts

The firings aren't hostile weekly. Not what I meant. But the way they treat each other isn't pretty. All the swearing and moaning and back-biting.

It's not an edifying spectacle at any time. I find it entertaining but it doesn't often show people at their best.