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, 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!

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!

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.

Unless there where other anomoalies that where not broadcast, it was not justified imo.

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.

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!

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.

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.

And naturally you have the evidence to back this up, hmm?

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.

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 ....

I thought the abrasiveness was all for TV, meself.

Well said!!

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.

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