Her new teeth are absolutely hideous and barely fit in her gob.

she may have said a couple of insightful things, but they are far outweighed by the sheer number of petty comments and irrelevant observations. Susie last year saying something about "do parents want their kids safe" or something like that - clearly thinking off the top of her head, and Karen decides this is good stuff to bring up in the board room?

Does it really matter what she looks like. Yes it's tv but her role is not one where she has to be glamorous, it's about being observant. If she was a judge of a model show, or some makeover reality person like Gok then I would get that she needs to represent what she's preeching. But, she meant to be the eyes and ears for Sugar (with Nick) so as long as she's presentable then her present look is fine. I think both her and Nick look fine (in relation to their job role). There are plenty of average looking people on TV where the dress sense isn't anything special but... that's life, not everyone can be fashion's gift.

It was more along the lines of "do French people like children". It was a ridiculous thing to say, even if she was thinking aloud, and Karren was quite right to bring it up in the boardroom.

Of course she was. Just like Nick and Lord Sugar have their say. I don't know why people think Karren has to be drop dead gorgeous; Margaret wasn't and Nick and Sugar are hardly pin-ups. All of them are/were just smartly dressed. Surely that's enough?

I think Karen looks fine. In fact I never notice what she is wearing. She seems to do a good job of staying in the background and reporting to Sir Sugaryness. Why are people on here being so nasty about her? She's a business woman not a page 3 model.

Her wit is not as dry as Margaret's but she is very astute. Shugs would not trust her if she wasn't.

What Karren’s observations most importantly failed to capture was that Susan was mulling things over in an almost empty room and not in front of customers. Karren’s unnecessary attempt at a second coup in the boardroom should never have been made. She was unable to influence LS or make make him take his eye off Susan for a moment as was demonstrated by LS by the end of the series and proved of worth only recently.

Karren will have rectified her mistakes if she is able to confine herself to making pertinent comments and hold herself aloof from making those that are purely personal, poorly observed and inconsequential.

I do think it's odd how looking smart, and appropriate somehow become 'glamorous' and 'slave to fashion.' One of the reasons UK companies have so few women in the board room is because there is still this antiquated view out there that your appearance is somehow nothing to do with the rest of you.

Yes, UK companies have so few women in the boardroom because women just don't try hard enough with their appearance. It couldn't possibly be because there's a self-perpetuating boys' club in many companies, or because studies have shown that women are automatically perceived as either nice or competent (as opposed to men, who are automatically perceived as both), or because many older men in particular still see women's place as being in the home. It's because women just don't try hard enough.

I mean, how much effort do you think most men in the boardroom put into their appearance? I doubt it's anywhere near as long as the average woman in business. But, of course, it's the women who have to try harder. Men shouldn't be expected to put effort into anything other than business, but women should be expected to be flawless in every aspect of their life. I mean, really, how do you expect attitudes to change if you keep suggesting that women have a duty to get a 'makeover' and wear 'top drawer' clothes that add 'personality' (what does that even mean? the clothes I own that add personality would not be close to work-suitable.)

At the end of the day, the average woman in business probably already puts way more effort into her appearance than the average man (God knows the businessmen I know aren't exactly top of the pile, looks-wise), so suggesting that businesswomen don't try hard enough with their appearance and that they should if they want to make it to the boardroom is actually kind of insulting. There is an entrenched preference towards men in business - not necessarily a conscious one, but one that still holds sway over many decisions - and something tells me that this is not going to be suddenly rectified if women get up an hour earlier to do their makeup.

Well said.

why was she quite right? What did that comment have to do with anything business related on the task? It was just a silly speak before you think question that Susie was prone to. That's just a part of her character, I really don't think it would have cost the team any money. And as pointed out, she was in there on her own just running through whatever popped into her head - something not uncommon for a 21 year old to do. Completely irrelevant observation from Karen - now if Susie had decided no and forced through a decision that centred around the wrong conclusion - it would have been valid

Karen brought it up in the boardroom, related it to nothing and just said "that was really stupid, wasn't it?" As if she has never said anything dumb in her life - this is the same Karen Brady that said on bidding for the Olympic Stadium for West Ham that she saw it as an all-sports arena, including sports like Cricket. If she had any sense about her, she may have realised there are already enough world famous cricket grounds in the capital, why would they decide to play in a ground that wouldn't even have a proper pitch?? Now that is something that would be fairly detrimental to the long term outcome of such a big move. So perhaps she should take some of her own advice

I'd be worried if a 12 year old said such a thing, let alone a 21 year old. People try to excuse Susan for her inexperience and youth, but at 21 I'd expect mature thought processes, not child like simplicity. Hence it was appropriate Karren criticised her for it. Thinking aloud is not an issue, but such childlike thoughts were.

IIRC, the "almost empty" room contained her teammate, so it wasn't irrelevant to the task. What was she to think of her project manager talking such nonsense in apparent seriousness. She wasn't just musing the possibility, she genuinely didn't seem to know, or at least thought it was conceivable that a nation of people would not be lovers of their children. It's excusable she didn't know that the French are traditionally seen as being big on family life, but wondering whether they might not like children was a bizarre thought. It had to be commented on. It's not just a question of the decision she finally made. She was either showing ignorance or extreme immaturity in arriving at it. Neither good traits for a potential partner for His Lordship.

Re cricket at the Olympic Stadium, it's a possibility, and it doesn't have to be international cricket. Presumably she didn't follow Susan's self brainstorming method by asking "do the english like cricket". Lords is in west London and The Oval in south London, so there could well be demand for a new large venue in the east. Essex might want a London base for county cricket, for example. It could be used for T20 competitions.

but none of that affected the business, and as I gave an example of, people say stupid things all the time - are you sitting there telling me you have never said a stupid thing in your life past the age of 12?

Did this comment affect team strategy? Did she bring it up and try and get people on her side to change things around? If I remember, it was just a cut scene, and the next we hear about it, Karen is banging on about it in the boardroom.

Last year her and sugar were so self congratulatory, Sugar had a few comments about being an amazing electronics and computer expert, and he once said of Microsoft "there is no money in software"

It was revealing of her lack of maturity and common sense, leaving aside lack of general knowledge which is understandable. That's enough reason for it to be mentioned. An immature 21 year old acting like that in front of colleagues is a potential liability. Why have observers on the task if the only criteria is the financial outcome. She was PM on the task so her every action is under scrutiny.

Why shouldn't she bring it up in the board room? Susan was acting in a very immature way. Karen merely reported back as she was paid to do. You seem to have a bias towards Susan here which is making your assessment of Karen very onesided. I believe that Nick would have reported in the same way had he been there.

Why a bias towards Susan?? I have absolutely nothing to gain from supporting her, I found her pretty irritating at times, but it is pretty clear everyone says stupid things all the time. I've given two great examples of Sugar and Brady talking absolute cobblers IN PUBLIC, so on what grounds does Brady have for bringing what was nothing more than a brainstorm session up in a board room?

Susan is typical of a 21 year old - I know this having been 21 and also having worked with 21 year olds. Comments like these do not mean she is untrustworthy and a liability. I take it then everyone else here was faultless at 21, always hit the nail on the head? I find that hard to believe that it applies to the last year let alone however many years ago you were 21

So what do you make of Brady's lack of common sense, or Alan Sugar thinking Microsoft wouldn't make any money? Everyone says stupid things! It was a fairly innocuous tv highlight, of which we see plenty every episode (which never get brought up in the boardroom, because they are largely irrelevant to the task)

It's water under the bridge as Susan may have been without Karren's approval but it was Lord Sugar's approval she needed. Susan continues to succeed and if was fine to read on here that Lord Sugar's offer to help her was provided by a public show of his involvement with her only last week.

A good point that emphasises how utterly irrelevant bringing up "a naive, stupid and untrustworthy comment" in the boardroom was

It is, just as it is equally pointless to bring it up as evidence in the case against Karren, which was what started these recent posts.

At the time it was part of the doubt about Susan's claims, and a foretaste of the naivety of her business plan which cost her the win. It's not for Karren (or Nick) to prejudge what Sugar wants to hear. They are supposed to comment on what they saw during the tasks, good and bad.


Hang on, "untrustworthy"? Naive yes, stupid possibly, but did anyone say it was evidence of untrustworthiness? Where did that come from?

That Susan went on to prove she was worth investing in (long after the contest was over) doesn't mean her mistakes aren't relevant, nor the contemporary report of them (which people are using against Karren here).

I’ve made no comment on Karren’s dress sense as frankly what she wears if of little consequence to me and doesn’t interest me nearly enough to take much, if any, notice. If her comments are prejudiced and unjust that is when I take notice and what Susan said was in the run up to the task not during it. Karren drew attention to it twice although it was nothing more than out loud ramblings and of no consequence to either the ensuing task or the clients to whom they later presented and the sales obtained and were overwhelming good if I remember correctly although I will admit the whole senario made good telly.

All that cost the finalists was LS’s desire to invest with Tom P thinking it would be the chair but was probably too costly as it appears to be his nail file. I really do hope Karren’s changed and move on from her past series contretemps with Susan but Karren like many may be caught in the trap of being unable to distinguish between outloud ramblings being something to be ignored when there's an inate ability to display superior business sense on show. What’s apparent to some is not always quite so apparent to everyone it would seem.

Err, who said life was fair?

But it's all part of the package! Anyway, isn't it nicer to look good?

Gosh, what a well-reasoned and insightful response.

I can't accept the idea that Karren should ignore such naivety no matter how well Susan was doing. She's supposed to be Sugar's eyes and ears, not an information filter deciding what to ignore or not. Susan's questions showed her naivety, and that naivety was still present later in her hopelessly optimistic business plan. If she really had had superior business sense her plan would have been better, surely? So her naivety was an issue, which means it was right for Karren to point it out. Clearly Susan is more the finished article now as Lord Sugar has gone into business with her.

Whether they really were ramblings to herself is debatable. I thought she was putting questions to her teammate (I forget who it was). Either she really didn't know about France or she was floundering. She appeared to come up with the talking to herself excuse in the boardroom.

A grimace or shrug of the shoulders would have been more than enough if Karren wanted to show her displeasure. She didn’t ignore it in any way or take a tea break to calm herself if she felt flustered at what Susan had said in a preamble to a task, out loud or to one colleague. Karren took it upon herself to give a full on character assassination to camera instead. Karren favoured Helen over Susan and reporting back in an objective observer capacity in the boardroom she wasn’t able to deliver either. She linked her second attack on Susan to ignoring the part she‘d played as PM to fawn over Helen and the excellent customer pitch she‘d given.

Karren showed no neutrality and although it’s fine to prefer one candidate over another it shows extremely poor judgement in any observer capacity to favour one in effort to denigrate the other. Regardless of Karren’s wish to report the matter, more than once as she did, she failed in her endeavours as it all fell on stony ground. Susan was Lord Sugar’s candidate not Karren’s and having seen Susan’s business plan, received reports about her interviews and her projections LS happily made his offer and has obviously followed up.