So fed up of that sort of pathetic reason for the firing each week.

Glenn's in particular, it's rubbish! Just because other engineers haven't worked well for Sugar, Glenn's out? Irrespective of the task?

What's the point of the tasks, if Sugar is just going to decide it based on whether he likes the person or not?

Come on BBC, the programme has lost it's way now.

I think Sugar sees some potential in Susan so he let her off, Jim he knows he can't work with but kept in for the interest value, and that left Glenn who didn't really defend himself to the hilt.

Surely it's Lord Sugar's decision who to fire, on whatever basis he decides each week? After all, he is the one spending huge amounts of cash supporting a business venture / employing them etc.

I usually give Sir Alan the benefit of the doubt with his firings as he knows far more about it than I do; however this weeks did seem completely unfair. Glenn didn't seem to be particularly responsible for the failure. The main issue was the name, which was zoe's fault, and the cover, which was Jim's.

I think it's fair enough at this stage in the competition, if he feels it outweighs his inclincations for retaining the others in the firing line. Of course it would be a totally unfair argument if it occurred in the first few weeks (unless coupled with completely obvious and inherent incompetence).

Engineers don't do well in buisness ??? hmm, not sure James Dyson would agree...

I didn't think Glenn deserved to go this week but I don't see anything wrong with Lord Sugar's approach.

Viewers often weigh these things up subjectively - ie. who did what in the task but in reality there is still the element of the 'job interview' about this show and Lord Sugar has every right to judge people on how he could work with them. That's why Zoe absolutely should have gone last week IMO (although she was fine this week).

The engineer comment might have been unfair but Glenn still had 7 tasks to shine and, let's face it, he was average at best.

I think that by this stage LS has a short list of who he can work with and none of the three present in the boardroom at the death fall into this category.

As such, it didn't really matter who got fired.

I think Zoe should have went. Why Jim brought in Glenn instead of Zoe was strange, the main problem was the name which Zoe suggested.

I agree. I think he's 'toying' with Jim - he'll stay in for a while yet for a more spectacular fall. Susan still has the opportunity to shine. In the interests of justice Jim should have gone.

It's clear that some of the candidtates have the odds stacked against them because of their CVs (see also Edna) but I doubt a candidate who excelled on the show would be fired purely on the basis of their work experience so the show hasn't lost any integrity in that respect.

I agree with this. I was ambivalent towards Glenn, find Susan annoying but I think Zoe should have been in the boardroom and Jim should have been fired. He is intelligent and always has a decent input on tasks but he uses that to his advantage, and isn't often right/correct. I don't agree with the bullying tag that seems to pop up in some threads but he is very manipulative. Not always a bad thing but in this process it could prove to be. Right now I'd back a Helen vs Susan/Tom final two.

Exactly. Glenn had plenty of chances to prove he was more than just an engineer and didn't.

He worded his reasoning badly, he was just a statue really, absolutely useless so he should have said something like ''You're a bit too ornamental for me Glenn. I want a business partner not an ornament so Glenn, you're Fired.

The consensus is that the name could have worked, but Jim destroyed the concept. Jim picked Susan because he thinks she is weak, and Glenn because Glenn can't fight that hard. Zoe might have been vulnerable given sugar's comment of last week, but she was always going to be a tougher fighter in the boardroom, and he, Jim, would have taken more hits.

in the event , on what he said tonight, Nick would have backed all of Zoe's arguments - which would have left Jim sinking.

Was an easy decision of who to bring in Zoe is mouthy and would take him on, He thought the others were weaker

he has to give one reason for the camera's doesn't mean that's the only reason.

Also why is that a bad reason anyway? If I was hiring someone and I knew I wouldn't get along with them, id choose someone else who I could get along with

I agree with the point made ......... why bring Glenn on in the first place if 'no engineer has ever made it on the other side.'

Its a ridiculous argument. Because it implies he was never going to be given a fair shake.

Agree. It does spoil my enjoyment when LS fires someone for no real valid reason.

Well I agree that if it was a normal company hiring process to find a PA or similarly close-working "right hand man" type role, or company partner etc; whether you could "work with" the prospective candidates would indeed be a critical factor in who you eventually hire.

But "The Apprentice" isn't a normal hiring process, despite what the TV show's blurb and weekly introduction might say. it's basically a public competition, and Glenn's arguably had his time totally wasted, if he was never going to be seriously considered, just because Sir Alan doesn't like engineers.

Can't really blame folks like Edna and Susan who are clearly on the show just for exposure/publicity of themselves and their existing one-man-band businesses, when the BBC and Sugar aren't going to take people like Glenn seriously.

In fairness to Sugar, I think that he's quite prepared to consider engineers/lawyers/people with degrees/people in advertising, but he sees the traits in some people that he's seen in others of their ilk.

I don't think his decisions always make sense but I feel he is prepared to give these people a chance.

It might be better if he kept quiet about his prejudices rather than air them and make it appear he's acting on them.

He is looking for a business partner, he has every right to fire anyone he thinks he will not be able to work with. If the reason is a crooked nose or an attitude doesn't really matter.

That's the reason why Jim is still there. He may not like how Jim behaves towards his contestants (and he made it quite clear that he doesn't), but he is still weighing up, if he will be able to work with him. He sees something in him and is pondering if he can use it to his own advantage. Same with Susan and Zoe.

The fact that Lord Sugar didn't gel with Glen was the reason for him to go, not that he was an engineer. But he could hardly say "I don't like you, you are fired"?

Didn't you know? You can walk on water when you get your BEng.

It's not the best reason for firing (some people seem to think he was stereotyping the entire profession when he actually said something like "the engineers I have worked with aren't good at business", depending on the sample size it's not an entirely baseless stereotype), but if he didn't like him (he didn't seem particularly good), he's gone.

So I don't know why there is so much indignation and the wheeling out of a few examples of business-minded engineers as a suggestion that the entire profession is great at it (basically, going to the other extreme of what they are criticising Sugar for in the first place)!

Slightly less offensive than saying: You're a nonentity. You're fired. ???

Glenn (and Edna) had as much of a chance as anyone else. If they had excelled then the CV issue wouldn't have come up. They didn't.


My bigger issue is with the argument that seems to resurface every week whereby if someone has a stupid idea then someone else ends up in the firing line for not stopping them.

There's a fine line between being a pushover and hiding behind someone elses mistake. I'm not a major Susan fan but I couldn't believe the others were trying to pin the 'hip replacement' debacle on to her for being the one who was opposed to it.

He prob thought he hav a better chance against the meek mouse than the snapping alligator.