According to Louise Mensch MP, Mr Alan Sugar works to the misogynist proposition that "he would have to be barmy to recruit women of child bearing age"

All things being equal, isn't it about time that the BBC recruited someone basically competent to become Chair of The Apprentice.

Unfortunately, in the case of Mr Alan Sugar, he failed to achieve anything at school other than a few mediocre grades at O level, before becoming a mere pleb of a Barrow Boy. He failed to make the grade for anything else.

In short, time for the BBC to say to Mr Alan Sugar... "You're Fired".

Certainly he is a dinosaur and women have been shabbily treated on the programme or, it appears, when they have worked for his raggle taggle group of awful henchmen that seemingly inhabit Sugar companies. Having seen the horrors that they are, while interviewing candidates, I certainly wouldn't want to work for any of them. It reflects badly on the BBC that it has kept on this programme with its evident misogyny.

The Apprentice is about finding someone who is a good businessman or businesswoman. Alan Sugar has ammassed a personal fortune of £770 million. How much more competent would you like the Chair to be?


Hmmmm, a £770 million personal fortune, or good O Level and A Level grades? I know what I'd choose.


No. You're talking rubbish.

Of seven series, four winners have been male and three have been female.

Please point out whereabouts the misogyny is evident?

A chair has four legs. Lord Sugar has two (I believe).

I also think it is time to put Sugar out to grass. He does not have worthwhile opportunities for an Apprentice hence the change in the 'prize'.

1. Tim Campbell quit to run his own business.

2. Michelle Dewberry left for personal reasons following a miscarraige

3. Simon Ambrose. He left in 2010 once he'd finished his training.

4. Lee McQueen, Quit

5. Yasmina Siadatan Went on maternity leave, then gave her notice in shortly before she was due to return

6. Stella English, Quit and suing him

7. Tom Pellereau - not actually employed

So 3/3 blokes quit on him but not for reasons associated with "being of child bearing age", I can't for the life of me think why he'd have made that comment

According to Wikipedia (always reliable !!!) The USA version has had it's share of complaints where the winners have been employed as a "spokeperson" for Trump on his projects, and been required to mainly appear at "promotional events".

Why are you giving Louise Mensch her full title, and not using Lord Sugar's title? Seems a bit disrespectful to me.

Bit snobby that isn't it?

Personally, I think Lord Sugar is perfectly well-equipped to continue fronting the Apprentice show.

Is she the one who constantly makes a fool of herself on HIGNFY (foreign chap asking) :yawn:

I've always thought Louise Mensch MP and her colleague should stop talking about stuff on telly and other pop culture stuff and do their jobs properly.

This was always about a one-year contract and nothing more. And actually, all three of the guys stayed with Sugar for an extended period of time.

Any MP who goes on HIGNFY gets the piss ripped out of them. It's the whole point of the show.

Yet made himself a millionaire and ran successful businesses, I mean if we just compare people based on school grades, Richard Branson has been a complete flop... if we ignore all those Virgin projects that have made billions and cover a wide range of different business areas.

For all his faults, Alan Sugar makes for entertaining TV with his grumpy and outspoken persona. If anything it's his obvious faults that make the programme so entertaining. I doubt the show would be quite as good with a different "chairman". Perhaps James Caan could do a reasonable job in his place but he'd be much smoother and less feisty.