We've seen probably every side of Susan that there is, both positive and negative. She's been so over-the-top and yet compared to others she's looked quite good. lol

With the strangely real edits everyone is getting, it's making the winner very hard to predict. We've been given plenty of reasons why each of them shouldn't win.

Except Helen...



Unless you count when she started hysterically laughing at "See their light" XDDD

Eh. Susan and Felicity bought the top hat for £349.99; the other team for £360. Why isn't that touted as the task-winning tenner? (For example)

The emphasis on Jim's winning tenner because originally he made the deal for meat at £180.

He then went, after a 'negotation', to the person taking the money and said £170.

Because of the original price being 180, he technically cut the 10 pounds off that would've caused the team to lose.

... And she found somewhere to buy the hat for less than the other team paid. Yes, he negotiated it down. Fine. But if she hadn't bought her hat for £10.01 less than the other team, they would have still lost, even with his trimming £10 off. My point being that he cannot solely be given all of the credit for them winning.

He got a tenner off in a butchers shop.

Geesus. Where do I sign him up for my company??

But it's only a deal if he also promises to bully staff, force his poorly considered ideas down others throats (at the expense of my business) and launch into arrogant tirades at me, his senior manager who keeps him on the payroll.

BUT HE TAKES A TENNER OFF IN THE BUTCHERS!!

^^

What an overreaction. I've yet to see him bully people or force ideas down others' throats.

Thing is he has been one of the strongest contenders this series if not THE strongest and has been treated like that up to now by LS ('how is it for you to be on a losing team for once', Karen and NIck ('Jim saved the day' or words to that effect).

The others were quick to pick up on this and started to take his word for gospel, thinking they couldn't go wrong with Jim.

I'm curious to see what will happen now that LS has started to take him on and told him in front of the others that he has his card marked. I bet a few of them are most likely to turn on him now.

Not a lot of strong and independent characters in this series.

The thing is Susan didn't even negotiate hard for that price, she asked, and she got. The guy was easily pushed into giving her a discount.

He hasn't bullied anyone. God if you think that's bullying, you really haven't experienced it. He is forceful without doubt and maybe people don't want to challenge him. That's not a bully, that's a good businessman. Business is business, it's not personal. The other candidates seem to respect his opinion.


This ^^

Strong and independent doesn't equal good. Most of his ideas have been crap.

Come to the forefront until he's accused of having been responsible for the aspect of the task that was most criticised by the experts.

I won't call him a worm or a snake or a weasel because that would be an insult to those creatures.

Lord Sugar has had his card marked since he menaced his way out of being called into the Boardroom before.

Jim comes across as one of those nasty individuals you wouldn't want to work or have anything to do with because they're so insecure that they rely on putting other people down and making them look and feel bad to make himself look better and to feel better about himself. Coupled with his unpleasant appearance, he's neither use nor ornament.

oh my

That's not how I remember it. The first shop she went to wanted £365. She pushed for a discount and couldn't get one, so she walked away. Second shop was £350, and she pushed again, but was only able to get 1p off. Neither guy was easy. She saved £15 by (a) being willing to walk away; (b) having a second shop researched so she could afford to.

(As contrasted with the tea shop, where it seems she felt she couldn't walk away because she'd only found one source.)

(I say "she", but I don't know who researched what. As PM she'd told them to find 3 sources for each item, but obviously they fell short of that.)


Agreed. And it's partly because he usually talks sense.

He's a strong candidate. I suspect losing a task and getting taken down a peg or two in the boardroom would help him in the long run - as happened to Claire in series 4, for example.

After watching the episode back, I can confirm that it was vincent that came up with the concept of something that would satisfies all dogs and Jim came up with the name 'everydog' to go along with Vincents concept.

Therefore

1. Jim wasn't wrong to say that he came up with the name 'everydog', because he did.

2. Jim was right to defend himself in the boardroom as Lord Sugar for some absurd reason though that the person who came up with the name must have came up with the concept which ultimately lost the task.

3. Jim wasn't at all being dishonest, just defending himself against what Lord Sugar had 'wrongfully' accused him of.

+ overreaction much

thank you! case closed

it seems some people cant see for themselves and have to follow lord sugar...shame

Agreed. I'd add that Vince also had all this correct, and was therefore right to support Jim, and arguably right not to bring Jim back to the boardroom. Even though doing this made it look like Vince was under Jim's thumb, which was bad for Vince (seemed to be the main reason he got fired), and also made Jim look bad.

(However, Jim does have that dexterity with words which some people mistrust. He finds the angle which makes him look good, and (I suspect) keeps quiet about the rest.)


I'm usually a huge supporter of Lord Sugar, but on this occasion I think he got it wrong.

It's Lord Sugar's show. If he doesn't like someone then I think that person must have done something to deserve it, and if they can't sweeten up the Sugar then they are majorly screwed.

He sets out to intimidate, over-rule and control. So yes, thats his 'fault'.

I dont think they are all scared of him. I think some of him know that all they have to do is allow him enough rope to hang himself, while they can sit and knit at the gallows

He was so patronising to Vince and Melody this week and yet he was like a frightened kid in front of LS.

I suspect Jim has already hit his career ceiling. He might seem to be a guy who is good with his words, and he's been able to use this skill to effect on a number of occasions, but in the medium to long term this is the personality trait which usually turns colleagues away. He is coming across as a 'me first, you who' type. LS is not going to spend his time arguing with a supposed partner, that's a fact.

For me, Tom is a far better prospect!

All the remaining guys are better prospects than Jim! He's all mouth and no substance - even LA can see through that...

Corporate bullies will often use the " well they all agreed with me " argument. Some of them genuinely believe it because :

a. they fail to hear or recognise anyone else's points. They don't really respect the contributor so the idea is deemed to have no merit and is not worthy of attention
b. they misinterpret silence as consent - it is equally likely to represent lack of consent.

We've seen plenty of this from Jim so far. He's also come out of client presentations in two separate episodes insisting they have gone well when the client has clearly raised serious objections to the ideas presented. Nick has picked this up each time it has happened.

The "we all agreed..." justification is also put forward as a last resort by the weak and incompetent - sorry Vince.