Last post until next year.....

I thank all the candidates for their bumbling, their ignorance, and some classic cock ups.

Hope its the same next year!!....

Her face said it all as she crumpled under the questioning - she had been caught out in another fantasy. She never employed anyone at all, it was not good business, she had just paid students back handers. A muppet, should never have been in the final 4 IMHO.

What's all this "...might as well of got...." ?

Susan is a business woman and I believe she showed that she has something special, Helen may become a business woman in the future but Susan has already achieved that.

Helen came second so she did very well indeed. Nothing to complain about.

Yep. It was made a meal of in the editing but it is actually acceptable practice.

Just some rather gullible people on here wanting to pin something on Susan!

It is not acceptable practice to HMRC and you have to fiddle the books to make the money disappear legitimately, if you have a business with accounts that is.

However, when one states 'I employed 15 people' the inference is that this is a business employing 15 people, not that on a couple of occasions the business had some students paid cash in hand for a day or two work.

There is a world of difference, and in this case it was said by the candidate to 'big themselves up' and did not stand up to scrutiny - well it didn't stand up to this business owner's scrutiny.

After the "Final Five" programme I commented on a thread that I thought that Susan and Natasha had both had to struggle in life and should both be congratulated. From the information we were given it seemed Susan's struggles were concerned with moving countries and an implied poverty. Natasha came from a impoverished family on a council estate but through hard work she had got a scholarship to a good sixth form and had basically worked her way to a better life.
It seems that Susan's back story was a little light in some areas as a fellow poster found out that she went to a fee paying independent girls school.
My posts received a lot of abuse for suggesting that Natasha's struggle was in some way equal to Susan's. In view of the news that Susan actually had a pretty privileged upbringing and a few other things that have come to light, is it any wonder that some people on DS feel that they have not been told the truth. It doesn't mean we hate her.
I realise that many posters wanted Susan to win so much that they do not take very kindly to any criticism of her, no matter what. I have criticised Susan, but it is not because I hate her, it is because I feel very let down by her story.

"Employed" is the past infinitive tense denoting an activity which occurred in the past at least once.
"Employing" is the present continuous tense denoting an activity still ongoing.
"Employed 15" does not imply "Employing 15".

"I was beautiful once" does not imply I still am, though some might say so.


In rural Shanghai Susan did not have an outside toilet, just a hole in the ground. Her house was not under-heated, there was no heating at all, no electricity. To offset against material underpivilege Susan has her mum, and it could be that Susan has many memories which warm her heart.

Throughout her traumatic interviews despite limitations of language she appeared quite cheerful and affable, which bodes well for future business challenges and setbacks. Had Natasha made the interviews she would have presented a different figure from Susan, although both survived struggles against underprivilege.

Who knew that in England, having mobility and private education means privileged? I didn't until now. Thank you. I think I'll go and write "PRIVILEGED!" and underline it repeatedly in my C.V. now. I will also advise friends and relatives not to apply for a place on The Apprentice because their backgrounds, similar to Susan's, would be ripped apart. A good thing that Tuan Le escaped from a such line of questioning and mistaken assumptions, but I had better informed him that he's privileged, even though his family were refugees and worked all hours to pay for his education.

Seriously though, I didn't realise until I read all these threads how little some know and understand our history, our culture, filial piety and how important our education to us. For example, it's easy for some to recognise and understand Natasha's background because it's a common story in England. It's like that for me with Susan's story. It's such a very familiar story among East Asians that some reactions here to Susan's story took me by surprise. I also viewed Susan's bragging about paying off her mother's mortgage differently from you. You see it as "She had earned enough to pay it all off" and I see it as "She managed to exercise her filial piety that quickly, the lucky b**ch" and "She's gained her independence quicker than expected". I think it's best for me to say no more because I feel I'm talking to a wall.

In short, I would be a lot happier if you and others had stuck with criticising Susan's personality, actions during the series, business proposal and whatever she did on TV. I understood and agreed with those who mocked Susan's "brainstorming session" (Are the French fond of children?), but when they criticised Susan's background? I disagree. At times I felt offended, frankly. Sticking with what they see or know than criticising something they don't understand is a lot fairer and more sensible.

For the record I didn't expect or want Susan to win because I had a bet riding on Tom.

Perhaps you didn't understand my post. Cultural differences aside. We were told one backstory that has turned out to be a lie. Private education is a privilege no matter where you live or how hard you work for it. That was not the story portrayed on the "Final Five". We were given a story of poverty and continual hardship which simply is not true!

Then, we have to agree to disagree respectfully. I simply cannot imagine having the gall to call anyone privileged when they work hard for something they eventually get. You might as well say Natasha is privileged too.

Susan went to this private school at the age of 12 by her own admission. Either her mother or someone else paid the fees. Education is free in this country unless you chose to pay for it. It could be argued that educating Susan privately has given her further advantages, however, she has been the recipient of a privileged upbringing. Susan herself did not pay for this herself. She may have paid her way through university but not her pre university education. Natasha did not have this advantage but I was the one who was shouted down for suggesting that she may have suffered as much as Susan. I was not a Natasha fan.
If I had been privately educated I would consider myself to have had an advantage and been privileged. I don't know anyone who would not think this was the case.

I do understand why you think that, but it's what I have been trying to tell you - in our culture, parents are so set on giving us an education that they sacrifice a lot to give us the best stepping stone possible. When parents don't do this, they are seen as 'bad parents' by their peers, and in turn we are expected to work hard not to waste their "investment" in us. It's a mentality.

'Privilege' is a word that I have difficulties to associate with what I know. Privilege is something one has from birth or gains with no conditions attached. Our education comes with a lot of conditions attached. For example, we let our parents down or get punished if we don't get As or excel in as many subjects as possible. Like Susan's school qualifications. We're expected to study all hours to obtain top grades and other awards. After graduating, we are expected to repay our parents; sometimes for life. How is that a privilege? Excuse my ignorance.

I totally understand what you are saying about Chinese culture and I am not disputing this indeed I admire the way the families support each other through all the generations. What I have an issue with is that we were given one story - one of abject poverty and a life of struggle, but that appears not to be true. You cannot be struggling with poverty and yet pay £12,000 per year in school fees (out of earned income). Many single mothers are on benefits (like Natasha's mother). Very few would be able to raise that amount of money in school fees per year. In fact many would be struggling to earn that as an employee during the years that Susan was at school.

As I recall the final 5 program it seemed more a case that Susan's family were impoverished in Shanghai. The main problem Susan had on moving to the UK was that at the time her mother spoke little English and so had to organise her schooling herself. I dont recall any claim of impoverishment in the UK.
There was a big hole in the final 5 program - we don't know what happened in Australia or the circumstances that prompted the move to the UK. We also don't know how Susan's education was funded - maybe a scholarship, maybe her extended family clubed together, maybe her mum did well enough on her market stall to pay fees - but you have to remember we only know what the producers saw fit to tell us.

As I keep saying, the poverty was implied enough to persuade plenty of posters on DS to hurl abuse at the suggestion that Natasha may have suffered more! The impression given was that Susan had suffered from poverty and they did nothing to dissuade us to think otherwise
I am not concerned with who or how the fees were paid, (although as Susan arrived at 12 she had missed the cut off for any scholarships)
I would suggest that no matter how determined you may be, £12,000 per year is beyond most people (and she had a mortgage to pay)
My main complaint is that what was strongly implied on the programme was nowhere near the truth.

Then isn't your beef with the makers of "The final five", not with Susan herself?

Susan gave the interview and certainly seemed happy to give the impression I have outlined above.

If a mother works on a market stall, and a daughter moonlights selling on a stall during school and university, that is hardly a privileged life of ease. Is it possible Susan's mum worked all hours to pay the private school fees?

"Are the French very fond of their children?" hardly advertises life advantages gained from Eng Lit classes in the Croydon private school.

It's so unfair.

**Have.

Generation 2 then 3,4,5, etc.etc..............Loadsamoney!

Remember to put Helen Biscuits and Olde Englishe MyPy inside the box. A best seller yippee.

Susan was talking of having been poor as a child in China. I don't think it was suggested, either by her or anyone else, that they remained poor after they arrived in the UK.

I know plenty of people who I consider middle class: none of them could afford to send their children to a private school. What sort of income would you need, to pay for housing, utilities, food etc, and £12,000 school fees on top? By running a market stall?

It was revealed that 18yo(?) Susan worked for someone else on a market stall and sold £1000 worth in one weekend. After this revelation she promptly quit and worked for herself a la 18yo Alan Sugar. £1000 per weekend in thriving Greenwich is not to be scoffed at if it can be kept up all year. Another figure mentioned was £70K profits(?) over 3(?) years.

I would not demand a public audit of Susan's private finances as she is not a public servant funded by tax payers. They have no doubt been audited by prospective investor Lord Sugar just as successful applicants on Dragons Den had their claims on air verified afterwards, with in some cases investment withdrawn where deeds did not match talk.

Did Susan derive benefits from her Croydon private school to explain her business success, giving her an edge over council school Natasha? Did school connections open for Susan the doors closed to Natasha? Both went on to uni. It appears Natasha did 4 years in Hospitality with limited interest. Susan evidently graduated after majoring in market trading at weekends. Susan went selling duvets door-to-door in Knightsbridge with such enthusiasm that she later fell asleep in the limo. Back in the market she sold £1 bracelets for £5 with infectious enthusiasm. It appears Natasha throughout folded her arms and wrote figures in her book.

Could Susan have done what she did after council school? "Are the French very fond of their children?" is hardly Benenden-speak. Did schoolmates help Susan? Did Susan help schoolmates? Did the 15 youngsters Susan once employed include schoolmates?

Susan appears to be the daughter of her mum, her rock. The rest appears to be down to herself?