|
||||||||
Why Stuart Was Really Fired...What Didn't We See? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 598
|
There must be more to it than the license.
He's not been invited back for the final!! |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 23,261
|
Quote:
There must be more to it than the license.
He's not been invited back for the final!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 50
|
Quote:
Of course, it may be that he hadn't been aware of the lie that Baggs told about a competitor and that could still come back to bite him.
Now that it's out in the open the competitor may take legal action against Baggs and there's no way that Sugar would want to employ someone who could be ending up in court in short order. It certainly seems more likely that this was the reason for Sugars wrath plus the fact that Stuart had made him look a right pra** for getting rid of Liz instead. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6
|
What I find interesting is that BlueWave Communications Ltd was registered on the 25/04/2007, the day after another IoM company called BlueWave Communications was dissolved. Coincidence???
BlueWave Communications was originally registered in 2003 - when Stuart would have been 14! |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 698
|
Quote:
What I find interesting is that BlueWave Communications Ltd was registered on the 25/04/2007, the day after another IoM company called BlueWave Communications was dissolved. Coincidence???
BlueWave Communications was originally registered in 2003 - when Stuart would have been 14! I don't know why they didn't just get his dad on the show instead
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 646
|
Personally, I don't buy this sudden discovery about Stuart which LS seems not to have known about. I'd wager that LS was never going to pick Liz for the final, and also that he already knew about Stuart's ISP/telecommunications licence gaff. He decided on that basis to let Liz go for the reasons he committed to the week earlier, knowing the interview stage was going to tear Stuart to pieces. There have been numerous instances in the past five series where LS has referred to candidates external experiences in specific terms. As for the telecoms licence matter, there are different classes of use, and given that we didn't see all of Stuart's CV, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd made claims to providing approved telephony in the CV or during the series verbally. He's probably fell on his sword legitimately on this point, but the edit never clears these points up as it should. For the record, this is what Bluewave say about themselves today: Quote:
BlueWave Communications Ltd was incorporated in 2007 with the mission to provide robust and cost effective communications solutions to the Isle of Man. The company is licensed in respect of fixed and wireless IP communications Island wide. We are also authorised by Ofcom to adopt numbering from the NNP ("National Numbering Plan"). Whereas this is what his site said on 25th May 2007:At the heart of our business is a next generation wireless network. In addition to providing the standard portfolio of communications solutions, we have also introduced some truly revolutionary services that were previously unavailable. At a time when operators are keen to remove their universal service obligations, we remain committed to offering our range of communications solutions to as many people as possible. In 2009 we commenced offering our fixed wireless broadband product specifically to underserved areas in the north of the Island. In addition to our own network we also facilitate mast sharing across the Island. This allows other communications providers rapid turnkey coverage of the Isle of Man whilst eliminating the environmental impact of new sites. We have a fully certified NARC tower climber in house, registered with the Department of Home Affairs for climbing on Government sites. 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. Quote:
BlueWave Communications Ltd was launched in 2005 to provide reliable and cost effective communications services to residents and businesses of the Isle of Man. We currently hold several licenses to provide advanced telecommunications services to the Island, and our range of products and services is constantly being expanded. Also, an original news release for his web site (as of 28th May 2007) said this:We run our own communications network Island wide completely independent of any other provider. In addition to providing services already available on the Island we have introduced some truly revolutionary services that were, until now, unavailable. In addition we are also an accreddited .im domain name registar. BlueWave Communications Ltd is licensed and regulated under the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. All information collected from our customers is used in conjunction with the Data Protection Act 2002. Quote:
23rd July 2006 - BlueWave Communications Is Now A Government Licensed ISP If you look at his current blog of the same news item, he has changed the wording from what it said originally. It's clear he knew exactly what the scope of his licence was, allowing VIOP only, not telephony!
BlueWave Communications has today been issued with a licence from the Isle of Man Government Communications Commission to offer IP related services including IP Transit, Broadband and VoIP. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,460
|
Quote:
What I find interesting is that BlueWave Communications Ltd was registered on the 25/04/2007, the day after another IoM company called BlueWave Communications was dissolved. Coincidence???
BlueWave Communications was originally registered in 2003 - when Stuart would have been 14! .
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 12,779
|
Quote:
There must be more to it than the license.
He's not been invited back for the final!! http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12008388 (To be fair, I can't even remember Raleigh) |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,032
|
None of this alters the fact that Stuart, whilst entertaining in a "special" kind of way, was and is a total cock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,524
|
Wonder why stuart hasn't posted on here to tell us why... "StuartBaggs" was posting on here a couple of weeks ago but been quiet since
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
Wonder why stuart hasn't posted on here to tell us why... "StuartBaggs" was posting on here a couple of weeks ago but been quiet since
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 3,133
|
Quote:
Very doubtful that was him. Far too subdued.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 698
|
Quote:
Though, neither have Dan, Joy, Laura, Raleigh or Sandeesh, so no need to read too much into that....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12008388 (To be fair, I can't even remember Raleigh) |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
As I said in another thread, why would the BBC hold back the 'good stuff' ?
Sugar is a self-made man and, TBH, he probably simply isn't keen on rich kids playing at business if the truth be told. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,325
|
There is a lot of sense in this thread – people looking for evidence, rather than endless unfounded speculation.
My take – I said last week that firing Liz was most likely to have the ‘good TV’ of The Brand ™ being given a right going-over. Certainly the ‘full’ with regard to licensing is what the previous company did have and The Brand ™ does not. The Viglen guy saw a gulf of difference between being a telecoms provider and what StuBaggs does. If you work in PC World and sell wireless routers, you are almost in The Brand ™’s territory. We also have the issue of how much influence was wielded by Dad to get the business where it is. Difficult to assess that one – do his Dad’s friends make up 90% of his customer-base? Spreading lies about the insolvency of another company could have repercussions and again that could have been seen as a serious breach of business ethics amd arguably unlawful. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
Didn't Norman Wisdom live on the Isle of Man?
Perhaps he bought on air bed from Stuart's father. I don't think the BBC is being entirely honest with us. I smell a rat. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,478
|
Quote:
Didn't Norman Wisdom live on the Isle of Man?
Perhaps he bought on air bed from Stuart's father. I don't think the BBC is being entirely honest with us. I smell a rat. It does seem a bit odd that Baggs Snr was featured on Martin Clunes' "Islands of Britain" earlier this year too - where he was portrayed as a much bigger "fish" than "the final five" program did. Hmmm... |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,524
|
Quote:
If that is actually him, I'll eat my computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Staffordshire
Posts: 3,133
|
Quote:
Lol very true, but I'm still disappointed that his 'impersonator' hasn't had a bit more fun with posters on this forum, cos quite a few seemed to buy into it!
![]() Not that I'm condoning it, mind
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,156
|
Quote:
Yes Wisdom did live there, Jeremy Clarkeson still does.
It does seem a bit odd that Baggs Snr was featured on Martin Clunes' "Islands of Britain" earlier this year too - where he was portrayed as a much bigger "fish" than "the final five" program did. Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,561
|
Can anyone explain why Sugar said the Isle of Mann guy had 'never heard of Baggs' when that clearly wasn't the case?
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
Can anyone explain why Sugar said the Isle of Mann guy had 'never heard of Baggs' when that clearly wasn't the case?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,038
|
Quote:
Wasn't he giving Stuart a bit of rope to see if he'd hang himself? The actual lie would have come to light earlier, surely, because they'd have researched the candidates before the semi-final; but how Stuart dealt with it was crucial and he dealt with it badly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
Of course, it may be that he hadn't been aware of the lie that Baggs told about a competitor and that could still come back to bite him.
Now that it's out in the open the competitor may take legal action against Baggs and there's no way that Sugar would want to employ someone who could be ending up in court in short order. Secondly, the producers had the choice about whether to include that form answer in the programme. Had Stuart won, they could have edited it out, so it wouldn't be in the open. Indeed, I doubt Lord Sugar knew what the edit would be when he made his choice. Thirdly, Stuart didn't give any details. He didn't name the journalist or the company. I doubt there would be any real basis for a law suit. He could even deny he said it at all; that he invented a big lie for the show. |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
|
Quote:
I don't think so. First, I'm pretty sure Lord Sugar sees the applications of the 16 candidates before filming starts. He does his homework. So he'd have known about the competitor thing.
I still believe that something came to light between the anti-penultimate episode and the penultimate. There was no reason why Sugar would feel the need to berate himself to the extent he did in the normal run of events. The interviewers weren't even that derogatory about Baggs. There wasn't really anything spectacularly positive that Sugar could have been expecting from the interviews and the one negative thing that they focused on was really not that big a deal. So there must have been something pretty exceptional to cause Sugar to get so angry, admit his mistake - at length - and not just do the normal: 'come to the end of the road, I'm sure you'll do well, etc". Whether it will ever come to light is another matter. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:18.




