The You're Fired audience usually get it right and they too agreed she shouldn't have been fired. On the other hand, they were overwhelmingly unanimous that Vincent should've been.

It's just a pity that we don't know if they thought he should have been fired for not bringing Jim into the boardroom or for other failings.

Given that Sugar did everything other than surrounding Jim with flashing lights and a giant finger with 'Bring Him' written on it that has to be a monumental tactical error.

OTOH I was impressed with Vincent's response when asked about this which was that Jim didn't come up with the concept and performed strongly in all other aspects of the task so he didn't think it was either fair or sensible.

As with most candidates I was much more impressed with Vincent after seeing him out of the highly contrived setting of TA.

Certainly if you get warned about a behaviour, then repeat the behaviour on the next task, and you are in the boardroom, you are liable to be fired for it. As happened to Ellie. (And Alex, for that matter; Alex had far fewer chances to shine.)


I really dislike it when they do that. Especially as they almost always lose, and bring down their team with them. (Zoe being a notable exception.) Also, when Lord Sugar picks the leaders, it means we don't get to see who volunteers.

When the issue is whether candidates are self-starters, having Lord Sugar promote them would only cloud the water. Ellie shouldn't have pushed herself forward, not wait for Lord Sugar to do it for her.

I agree, I think she had something to her. A sort of level-headedness. She didn't seem full of herself or foolish, like most of them are. Jim needs to go, I don't get why everyone likes him so much.

Ellie deserved to go. She just was not forceful enough and was constantly moaning.

She didn't seem to do a lot. Then she whined in the boardroom about how no one let her do a lot. No reason to keep her in really.

You can't keep someone on TV for several weeks with a face like that.

I liked Ellie and I really wanted her to shine through, but she just didn't. She should have seen the writing on the wall after she escaped from having lolled about doing nothing for three hours in the previous task. I found it quite surprising that she didn't have a strong voice in the tasks - judging from her background, I'd have had her down as a much stronger character than she came across.

Good detective work, I am in fact Ellie's sister I must confess! Obviously I am going to be biased. On the other hand here are the facts from a behind the scenes point of view:

The show is heavily edited to fit in with LS decisions and his reasons for firing people i.e if you are fired for making foolish decisions, they will show you making several foolish decisions and cut out any good decisions you made. Hence, if you are fired for not doing enough, as it was in Ellie's case a lot of the good stuff you have done on the series is cut out. For example, Ellie offered to be PM on both episode 2 and 3 and it didn't show it. She also helped deliver the pitch that won them the apps task by doing the question and answer session, which is the hardest part of a pitch. This essentially won them the task that week and it didn't show it. She actually did a lot more than some of the other contestants but it has cut her out of it.

On the beauty task, it was Felicity's decision to make her stay up in the room for all that time as someone had to stay there. Tom was told to escort people up there and he failed to do this. Ellie rang down several times but Felicity insisted she stay up there and then accused her of moaning when in the boardroom.

On You're fired there was more hired cards than fired so despite her being edited out, people still didn't think she deserved to go. There was a huge gasp of disbelief when she was fired. It is very rare to get hired cards in a majority and only happens about twice a series, if that.

On the other hand... she probably wasn't pushy enough and people didn't listen to her all the time, she stayed true to herself and maybe because she had a good time and wasn't being bitchy or making a fool out of herself than this is not as entertaining for the show.

ROFLMAO!

And you think we see all those who volunteer normally?

Look at the post above this one. According to that Ellie did volunteer for PM on a couple of occasions but that didn't make it to the edit.


You can only have one PM per task and so you're not going get everyone being PM before Sugar starts assigning the job.

It's beyond stupid to select out everyone whose idea of teamwork is to quietly get on with what they've been asked to do in favour of those who make a lot of noise and argue with the PM.

How did Carlisle156 work that out?

Can you get forum support to confirm that you are, in fact, Ellie's sister as the information you provide is extremely interesting but without confirmation people are not necessarily going to take it seriously.

I find it eminently believable, BTW.

I was wondering why the show was very bashful to show us the process of the pitch that the girls won, when if a major contender had landed it you know we would have seen it in-depth. It reminded me a little of when they completely edited out Gerry's contribution to winning the massive pitch on the "design a pet product" task in Series 3, and they she got ditched the next episode. I had assumed at the time it was to do down Natasha, because at the time she seemed like a more likely person to be booted soon/be deemed an irrelevant or pure comedy character, but Ellie pulling them through would also make sense.

Have a look on twitter, I've got the same username which is how I think they worked it out! If you have a look you'll notice Ellie and Gavin are both following me hence proving I am genuine.

I don't use twitter but I think that gives us enough info because some people do and I dare say it will be thoroughly checked.

Thanks for the info.

I wouldn't trust the producers of TA as far as I could throw them. I think they are a thoroughly dishonest bunch. I don't doubt that some people will say "Oh, it's OK, it's just a TV programme" but I don't think that gives them a free pass to so completely distort our views of real people.

Sadly, this entire show now seems to be about "distorting" the views of the public.

I am not saying the previous TA series were free of this, but it does seem the norm now, rather than the exception.