There must be more to it than the license.

He's not been invited back for the final!!

Now I am intrigued!!!

.

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.

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!

Exactly. The BBC would have known ALL about stuff like this.

I don't know why they didn't just get his dad on the show instead

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:

Whereas this is what his site said on 25th May 2007:

Also, an original news release for his web site (as of 28th May 2007) said this:

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!

Busted.

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)

None of this alters the fact that Stuart, whilst entertaining in a "special" kind of way, was and is a total cock.

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

Very doubtful that was him. Far too subdued.

If that is actually him, I'll eat my computer.

But Stuart said he hadn't been invited. For the others it just says they won't be there...which I guess is more to do with the fact that a year has passed and they either can't/don't want to/have other work committments.

I suspect the reasons would be that discussing anything related to how successful his company really is, or his other business ventures, would implicate other people (such as his father) and the beeb wouldn't want to go down that road.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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!

You're right, I think it would be incredibly funny. There's lots of potential fun and winding up to be done on here by someone who can get it just right.

Not that I'm condoning it, mind

I was trying to be funny but failed dismally.

Can anyone explain why Sugar said the Isle of Mann guy had 'never heard of Baggs' when that clearly wasn't the case?

I think he was emphasising that if Baggs was of the status that he claimed and his company was the major player inferred then the IOM guy would have said "Oh, Stuart..." whereas what he's likely said is "Wait there a minute whilst we check the records, ah yes, there is a Mr Baggs"

This was certainly my take on it. Had Stuart simply come out and said he was mistaken-an over-site, he'd have been 'in credit'. However, he chose to try and weasel his way out and missed appreciating the banana skin that had been thrown down, so he went 'base-over-apex' quite spectacularly.

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.

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.

Yes, I realised a short while after I posted that that Sugar would see the CV's and the production company would check the CV's of the sixteen selected candidates with much more thoroughness than those at the earlier stages.

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.