I sort-of agree. I don't believe it was always the plan to fire Stuart at the interview round. For comparison, Syed (in s2) was fired just before the interview round, and it would have been equally entertaining to see him taken apart.

I also find it entirely credible that Stuart's speech in the ep10 boardroom is what saved him. It's exactly the kind of thing Lord Sugar falls for. I suppose my theory is that Lord Sugar changed his mind. I don't know if we have to suppose there was new evidence that persuaded him.

I keep going back to Miriam and Paul in s1. There Lord Sugar fired the competent woman because he saw something of himself in the man. It was clearly the wrong choice to just about everyone who watched it. Apparently, Lord Sugar realised it himself quite quickly, and phoned Miriam in the evening to apologise, and then fired Paul first in the next episode. So there is some precedent, and if Lord Sugar was more angry with himself this time, perhaps it's because he was annoyed with himself for falling for it yet again.

This is certainly a possibility.

You really would think he'd learned by now, though, wouldn't you.

Apart from the case you mention there was also the Sophocles debacle to remind him of placing too much emphasis on the pleadings of chancers.

You mention series 1, & the funny thing is, if you watch the first few min of the opening episode, Lord Sugar mentions he doesn't like Schmoozers & BS, yet LS almost always falls for it. Stuart this series, Michael series 4, Paul series 1.

ignore

Ha ha - I was thinking this morning of him saying 'I don't like schmoozers' and yet his tendency to fall for a hard luck story or someone who is just like him is legendary.

How many of the competitors in this year's Apprentice DIDN'T pull at least one and in some cases both?

Would it be that Stubaggs made a serious comment on his CV about one of his 'competitioners' that got both the interviewer and AS fired up???

it would have done the same for me, that's for sure (hence NO future role for Mr Stubaggs in MY company)

You think it was ok for Staurt to try and influence listners about politics when he was on there about his role in the apprentice?

What and who is morrally wrong, didn't quite follow that bit?

As for Sugar, I've never really seen him talk up Labour in this programme, he's said that he's off to have meetings with the PM or words to that effect before, but I read that as him bigging himself up rather than promote Labour.

I do agree, there must of been something else we didn't get to hear of. Nothing was shown on the show with the interviewers but maybe it was legal related and they couldn't show it. It certainly was a short Claude interview with him.

Also he did look very sheepish on TAYF show with Dara, something wasn't right with him on this I thought, he didn't seem his usual self. Maybe I am wrong but I think there was something they left out.

Seeing as Christopher's criminal record didn't come to light by those who check out the contestants, I doubt Stuart's CV was given much more than a brief look through!

It's possible that things came to light during the interviews. Lord Sugar may have been shown film of what Stuart said and how he acted. Put the parts of the jigsaw together and you have the bigger picture and that picture shows up Stuart for what he is; one spoilt brat who wants to be his daddy.

Actually I think what we saw was pretty much what happened.

What we didn't see was LS's personal realization that the positive image he had of Stuart (that made him fire Liz) was not being reported back to him by his advisers.

I think it was LS's own realization that he had made a wrong assessment that made him so angry in the end.

That was because he got the conviction after the checks were done. I'm pretty sure they do quite thorough checks on the candidate's CV's because they don't want complete fantasists and it makes them look stupid if someone is shown to have pulled the wool over their eyes from the start.


I fear we will forever remain in the dark over the real reason. There are several that are credible and, as you say, it could be a collection.

It could even be that after falling for Stuart's plea last week he asked to see some samples of footage from the tasks.

I agree that it was Stuart's speech last week that saved him.

Absolutely, I think that it's as simple as that.

Stuart Baggs, Stuart Braggs and Stuart Blaggs. The guy is deluded. That's what got him fired.

A year hadn't passed when they filmed the final task - check out Melinda's (think that's the right now, how soon we forget )hair (blonde one, bit insane, looked like Gok Wan)

.
deleted as the message went through twice...gremlins at work

.
I would NOT employ Stuart if he was the last man standing.

I do not trust him for one second to do any job properly.

Too much me me me for my liking . Stuart is the centre of Stuart's universe and I say....LET HIM STAY THERE

interesting thread, good to find a measured discussion about this on the internet. i have a few things to add:

1. Stuart started BlueWave when he was 14, then incorporated on his 18th birthday. Therefore I would suspect his dad registered the company for him initially, because he wasn't old enough. When he turned 18, they would have dissolved that one and started another BlueWave under his name.

2. If you look at www.gov.im you can find reports and reviews about the isle of man licensing procedures and telecoms industry. these reports do indeed mention BlueWave by name, as one of about 5 or 6 licensed ISPs. BlueWave is talked about in particular because unlike the other it doesn't rely on Manx Telecom's infrastructure - they set up their own wireless WAN
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/governmen...inalreport.pdf

3. there is no disputing that BlueWave is/was a 'fully licensed telecommunications company.' they are a legitimate business with legal permission to provide all the services they offer. yes they don't have licence that covers cell phones etc. but that's different. do a google search for 'fully licensed' - it's a very common phrase which just means 'we are legit.' it's like saying you're a 'fully qualified' surgeon. the word 'fully' is a bit redundant but you're just reassuring people that you have the proper credentials, not saying you can perform brain-surgery. furthermore, if you pause the episode (approx 29 mins in on iPlayer) you can read the rest of the page on his CV - it's perfectly clear what services he provides - ie. IP-based services. there's even a paragraph at the bottom saying they have plans to enter the mobile market currently sitting before the telecoms commision. there is no deception.

now, let's remember that BlueWave is stuart's REAL-LIFE business, not some hypothetical padding on a CV. they had absolutely no right to insinuate on national TV that his company wasn't the real-deal. you cannot blame him for defending it - i mean what are his business customers going to do if they hear he doesn't have a license.

4. have a look at the Viglen website. it's terrible, by 2001 standards. i think there is a streak of actual incompetence at play here - Sugar and Bordan don't really understand IT like stuart does, they probably don't realize how the internet is revolutionizing telecommunications. it's very plausible that the just made a huge gaff over the license issue.

5. he said he lied about a competitor going bust. ok, bad. the thing is, HE PUT THIS ON HIS INITIAL APPLICATION. they knew all along, he was upfront about it because he cleverly realized they would have dug it up anyway, but if they accepted his application then they couldn't really complain later. that';s why Sugar never made a big deal over that bit

6. Baggs was on Radio 5 yesterday morning with Jo and Jamie. he comes across brighter and more humble in an unedited context (he still boasts but it's usually in jest). anyway he didn't sound like he had anything to hide. he even let mr Internet Service Protocol off the hook saying it was probably just a slip of the tongue (generous. i think the guy was thinking of VoIP and thought you needed to do phones to be a telecoms company)

7. why he was fired without so much as a 'thanks for your effort, good luck'. as has been stated, even if he was wrong about the license, that's still hardly grounds for sacking. this is what i reckon happened: Stuart was one of the very few candidates who actually got what Alan Sugar was about and had a CV to reinforce the point. Therefore Sugar let him stay on the show. But here's the thing, Sugar's not ultimately looking for the next entrepreneurial genius. He's looking for a glorified project manager. What Stuart was offering - to start new companies, to play with millions in venture capital, etc. was in theory exactly what the Apprentice is about but in practice not what the winner would actually be doing, not remotely (although they don't like to let on). therefore Stuart just wasn't a fit for the role, and would need to be let go. Sugar planned to fire him in the normal fashion at this stage, but in the back of his mind he knew it was exposing the show as bullshit. when it got in the boardroom, Stuart didn't budge an inch, and flat out contradicted Sugar (not even trying to make a plea, just flat out 'not the case, you're wrong' which you don't hear often), at which point he snapped. so it was a combination of
- Sugar having already decided to fire him for unrelated reasons
- Sugar knowing in his heart of hearts that this was bullshit and feeling guilty
- Stuart standing up to him in the boardroom instead of going quietly
that made him lose his temper

Thing is The Brand is better off not having the job. He really is a 'brand' now with offers to do television shows and stuff. He may have been overly cocky and bullish throughout the series (although he was surrounded by prats), but the injustice of his departure has won him the sympathy card and made him the plucky underdog all of a sudden. In this respect, it's the ideal outcome for Baggs

8. What's all the fuss about Liz, honestly. She's just a bright girl with a business degree. She'll make a good business woman for a big corporation one day (wait, who am i kidding, she'll end up doing a crap TV show), but she's hardly set the world alight so far. yeah she got a big order for the baby vest thing, but to be honest Louise Woodward could have got a big order for that particular product. She had common sense and the energy to get things moving and a pleasant personality but demonstrated absolutely zero business insight. The pricing cockup on the bus episode, the blame was shared with Stewart but he HAD made some impressive business decisions/deals up to that point, Liz had just coasted by on general competence and now she'd made a fatal error the first time she was really tested (actually she had made a few errors on numbers before but managed to shift the blame). Don't get me wrong, good candidate, but she's not Jesus.

^^^

Baggs, is that you ?

I thought his dad had hired a PR firm.

The Brand-o Brilliant

Where in that report do they talk about Bluewave? I couldn't find it.

Hiya Baggs

Well whether it's Stuart or not I totally agree with what The Brando says above!

Another thing that Stuart did was formulate a brilliant strategy for the interview stage. Remember that by this time clever candidates would be preparing for the eventuality that they would be sacked, and this was their chance to control the damage should it turn out that way.

Basically, he gave the inter viewers a chance to more or less admit they were being dicks.

First he offers to shake Van Damme's hand, and he refuses. At that point, the whole nation thinks 'THIS GUY'S A DICK.' Of course Stuart KNEW he was going to be like that, but offering a handshake totally ruined the guy's 'game plan.'

Second when Mr Viglen drops the ISP-bomb, Stuart stops and says 'I'm sorry, what was your name?' 'You're CEO of Viglen?' Stuart gave him rope to hang himself and he duly pipes up and says 'i've been blablabla for 20 years, I know a thing or two about technology'. Hilarious. Turned a slip of the tongue into a serious reputational damage. Then Stuart goes 'It's good to talk to someone without feeling like I'm patronizing them for a change' LOFL

Third the whole 'hello Margaret' thing. I mean, yes, it was overly familiar, but no, the reaction wasn't justified. Once again the interviewer is forced to play their hand too soon. I'm sorry but Margaret is not a head mistress talking to a school kid, she's an interviewer talking to the managing director of a serious company. These days I find most places/institutions default to using first names, seems to be the done thing. At any rate, she could have said, 'Hello, Mr Baggs. I don't believe I've met you before.' and then just reported it to Sugar. but nooo, she had to be a cow. Also he didn't greet her like a 'long lost friend' - he said 'hello , margaret' in a tone of surprise. jesus christ.

if people are out to get you, never give them the luxury of thinking they've got the moral highground