DS Forums

 
 

Sir Alan rant, justified, deserved?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-12-2010, 03:03
JTW
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 41,094
Yes, I must admit SA has been a wide boy in his time and has probably told many lies to get where he is today! So maybe a tad hypocritical. I will give you that!
You were right on another point that you made in another post about not getting caught out.

However, I feel in the interview process and the firing itself, it was like taking a sledge hammer to crack a small nut in the end. And all in the name of entertainment and to potentially ruin a youn person's career whose only ambition seemed to be making millions for the very person who trashed him to pieces.
JTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-12-2010, 03:05
Darcyprincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,673
Your wrong Darcy, I never felt sorry for him at all all through the show and felt he should have been fired way before the finals. I also felt that SA should have had some words for his bullshining way before the finals.

But it's the very fact that he reached the finals is where I am peed off about how edited and all for entertainment at someone's expense, especially a young person, that this all got to.

Why did it even get this far if Stuart was so obviously a bullshiner and liar?

So if you and others are telling me that they waited until he got to the finals to kick him hard, then surely that in itself is manipulative editing?

So my point still stands that if these candidates are vetted and CV's looked at, then why wasn't this big lie picked up on before?
Yes, I do agree with you 100%. Stuart should have gone last week or even before then. I am sure that Sir Alan wanted him out the week that he and the other lads won the task with some luck on their side and the girls failed theirs so it was even more shocking that he got rid of Liz last week when he could have and should have fired Stuart. So I do agree that Stuart was set up for this to make good tv. You could say that Stuart was used as a scapegoat to make good tv but you could also say that Sir Alan wanted to teach him a lesson that he would not forget. But I really cannot feel sorry for Stuart with the way that he has acted!
Darcyprincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 03:09
Darcyprincess
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 22,673
You were right on another point that you made in another post about not getting caught out.

However, I feel in the interview process and the firing itself, it was like taking a sledge hammer to crack a small nut in the end. And all in the name of entertainment and to potentially ruin a youn person's career whose only ambition seemed to be making millions for the very person who trashed him to pieces.
Yes, Stuart did talk a lot about making Sir Alan millions and would have liked to have worked for him but I also think that Stuart will revel in the publicity that he has had, good or bad. I dont think that it will do him that much harm anyway!

Like all RTV programmes they are soon forgotten and people move on to the next show!
Darcyprincess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 03:16
JTW
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 41,094
Yes, I do agree with you 100%. Stuart should have gone last week or even before then. I am sure that Sir Alan wanted him out the week that he and the other lads won the task with some luck on their side and the girls failed theirs so it was even more shocking that he got rid of Liz last week when he could have and should have fired Stuart. So I do agree that Stuart was set up for this to make good tv. You could say that Stuart was used as a scapegoat to make good tv but you could also say that Sir Alan wanted to teach him a lesson that he would not forget. But I really cannot feel sorry for Stuart with the way that he has acted!
Cheers for that Darcy.

I think we're in agreement with the editing and stitching up.

And I hate to say it, but perhaps I am becoming a soft touch in some respects, because I did feel sorry for Stuart, because I sort of bought into his fantasy that he wanted to do his level best to make millions for SA....lol.

At the age of 21, seriously, what other life experiences have you had and ambitions that you want to achieve? But that very fact that Stuart seemed to be putting so much effort into being the Apprentice and lying and bullshitting his ass off for, just seemed sincere to me.
JTW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 11:07
Styker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 28,296
Unless there where other anomoalies that where not broadcast, it was not justified imo.
Styker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 18:10
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
They might all be liars JTW but the trouble with Stuart he still tried to blagg it and change the subject and starting asking what his name was.
I don't think he was trying to change the subject. He wanted to assess who the interviewer was and how much they knew about the subject, because he wanted to get into some of the technical details of the various kinds of licence available.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 18:49
viewaskew
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,962
The whole licensing issue was totally blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding/phrasing of words!

It was a horrendous way to talk to anyone - never mind if the guy had been a dick - nobody should be talked to like that in such a demeaning and vicious manner! It was rude, unprofessional and unjustified.

I'm sure Stuart is probably breathing a sigh of relief that he doesnt actually have to endure Lord Smart Arse any longer!
viewaskew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 19:05
neo_wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria
Posts: 8,294
The young man lied, when questioned he lied again and only backed down and told the truth after trying to pull the wool over the interviewers eyes; he's an insidious creep so representative of the 'management speak' bully boys and gals encountered in society today, under educated, full of crap and with little real knowledge of anything, good to see the back of the squirming little oik.

Save your sympathy for the idiot who failed to check the C.V. in depth; I feel sure he or she will have had a right good blasting over the affair and rightly so.
neo_wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 19:34
jaycee331
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,171
To begin I do think Stuart was portrayed at times to be an immature fantasist. IMO he did have to go.

But the way it was done last night was ridiculous.

The slip up's that Sugar's "technology expert" made were real clueless Muppet territory..
"Of course I know what an ISP does, it’s an Internet Service Protocol". Oh dear... it really isn't. ISP is an Internet Service Provider. IP is an Internet Protocol. Can't believe that survived an edit.

Ok he got this right some times, but in the boardroom, "Alan, all he's got is a broadcom license". Sorry a what? I think that was meant to be broadband license.

As for the whole license thing, it was not entirely fair to push him into a corner of admitting it was a lie. If I ran a broadband business, and I had a license to operate broadband (however rare or valuable that is or isn't) - then in the context of my business and what I do, am I not fully licensed? Besides, doesn't every large business stretch the truth in PR and marketing?

Did anyone else pick up on his company name off his CV and looked them up? He really does have an ISP business in IOM, it has been running since 2006. The Directors Blogg written by the man himself has news only yesterday of a new customer. He does seem to have a real, living business with a growing customer base, at minimum that makes him a small fish. Not a fish?

The guy who should have been fired was the guy making these remarks and assessments. Then Sugar picked them up and accused him of being a total and utter blagger wide boy. So to answer the OP - rant not justified.
So yeah, for other reasons I think he did have to go. All the same, it's a shame to see that the Apprentice has degenerated from it's roots to being just another entertainment show and produced as such.
jaycee331 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 19:58
m06een00
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,443
Yes, I must admit SA has been a wide boy in his time and has probably told many lies to get where he is today! So maybe a tad hypocritical. I will give you that!
And naturally you have the evidence to back this up, hmm?
m06een00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2010, 20:12
m06een00
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,443
Did anyone else pick up on his company name off his CV and looked them up? He really does have an ISP business in IOM, it has been running since 2006. The Directors Blogg written by the man himself has news only yesterday of a new customer. He does seem to have a real, living business with a growing customer base, at minimum that makes him a small fish. Not a fish?
Well his customers must be a right bunch of mugs. I wouldn't dream of buying a 2nd hand car off Mr. Baggs, let alone use his company for an ISP He has con merchant written all over him. And if he's running such a successful 'telecoms' company, then why ditch it to want to work for LS. It doesn't add up.
m06een00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2010, 00:51
Trollheart
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,922
I thought it was very unprofessional, and also very cowardly of the Dark Lord. He obviously realised he had made a mistake in choosing Stuart, some delayed-reaction sense told him he had only kept him in the process because he had, let's say, grown fond of him, and now realised that was the wrong way to do things, so he addressed the problem by firing him.

He's perfectly entitled to do that, but the manner in which he treated Stuart was almost like "Get thee behind me Satan!" Stuart's a lot of things, but the Devil he ain't. Sugar should have fired him if he wanted to, but there was no need to almost rant and roar at him for what was, in the end, SUGAR's bad judgement. I thought it was harsh, unfair and a very bad example for someone in his position to be giving.

In the event, I thought Stuart performed well on YF; he was able to take all the slagging and never got annoyed or upset. Compared to Sugar, he was a complete gentleman.

And I don't even like him! Well, I didn't ....
Trollheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2010, 00:54
Sara Webb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 7,251
I thought the abrasiveness was all for TV, meself.
Sara Webb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2010, 03:00
specialk78
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 141
I think it was the case of speaking too much on Stuart's behalf.

Alan has forgiven people in the past for telling a few porkies and coming clean.

He had a chance to come clean and say, I did stretch the truth a bit but you can take away from the fact that I have set up my own broadband company, which is stark contrast to what my peers have achieved.

The thing is he got caught lying and went into the boardroom and tried to still push the case, and I rememebr exactly after that moment Sir Alan just switched and lost his temper.

If you look in one of the previous series I rememebr once he even said "you know he bent the truth a little and made exaggerated claims, but so did I when I was young a foolish I did a lot of things I regret".

Also if you remember Chris in the germinator task the "head of communications" guy still tried to defend his product in the boardroom where as chris took on board what alan sugar said and still defended his position.

I think Stuart just messed up in that very narrow 5 second margin he was given to come clean, and you know in that situation where he has to fire 3 people, he's only looking for ONE tiny reason to get rid of someone, and stuart just blew it then.
Well said!!
specialk78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2010, 03:17
Button62
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,839
I find it most odd that Lee was caught out in a lie on his CV and ended up being hired.

I felt for Baggsy ... rather harsh treatment from SirLord Alan.
Button62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2010, 05:01
Rutakateki
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stockport
Posts: 2,072
Well said. Agree with all the posts supporting Stuart here- that firing really sounded a bum-note for me. If Lord Sugar regrets firing Liz- that's his problem. It's not Stuart's fault. In therapy terms, Lord Sugar was 'dumping'. I like some of Lord Sugar's cheeky comments to the candidates, but that was just rude, in my opinion. Too harsh, and unnecessary.

I grew to really like Stuart over the weeks. Sure, he can be daft on occasion (who isn't), but he's pretty smart, and came out with some of the best lines of the series ('Sir, you look like a sausage connouisseur!' ). I don't think I've seen him be malicious, which definitely puts him above some of the other candidates in my book. I'd buy him a pint, no problem

Stuart- I don't know if you're still reading this forum, but for me, you were the star of Apprentice 2010
Rutakateki is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48.