You can watch the other series on YouTube. Series 1 and 2 have been uploaded by the BBC, so they have the full episodes in one long video, and good quality. The other series aren't such good quality, but you can still find all the episodes, and Young Apprentice too.

While re-watching the old series, I have thought about this thread (which was the first DS thread I posted! Strange looking back at it now) and I have changed my mind on a couple of the people.

I am changing my Series 3 winner from Tre Azam to Lohit Kalburgi. While Tre stood out more, I think that Lohit was a really excellent candidate. He was there not for the cameras, but for the job, and he generally did very well on the tasks. He isn't very memorable because he had a bad edit due to not being very entertaining, but I would have been very happy with a Lohit win.

I am changing my Series 4 winner from Lee McQueen to Sara Dhada. While Sara was always my personal favourite, I think at the time I made this I was wary of choosing someone who was fired as early as that - plus I hadn't really realised how good she was at the tasks. In a series with very weak people, Sara shone out as someone who was bright, clever and a genuinely nice person, and I felt that she got a very raw deal from the other candidates.

In Young Apprentice Series 3, I am changing my winner from Sean Spooner to Ashleigh Porter-Exley. I wasn't so sure about Ashleigh when I first watched it, but looking back I am so happy that she won. She was bright, spunky, honest, had a good head for figures and was, in Sugar's words, 'a grafter'. I also really admire her outspoken nature which has become clear on the interviews she has done since the show. I still think it's a real shame that Sean went out so early as I think he really had potential, but Ashleigh was a very worthy winner. (This also means I agree with Lord Sugar about all of his Young winners.)

Incidentally, tonight I watched the episode where my most controversial choice, Laura Moore, was fired. I got so much negativity for that choice that I have questioned it myself, but I still stand by what I said about how I think that she should have won. Even though she moaned a lot on the tasks, and also had some terrible weeks, I think she was young enough and had enough potential to be a great apprentice, and would have really learned from Sugar - more so than people like Liz and Stella, who were just overqualified in my opinion (though after Laura I would still choose many of the others over and above Stella, Joanna being the next in line.)

[quote=george.millman;65651737

Incidentally, tonight I watched the episode where my most controversial choice, Laura Moore, was fired. I got so much negativity for that choice ...[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the internet. Somebody will always argue about anything. Stick to your original conclusions which you reached before worrying about what others think. (and that's a view that Lord Sugar would probably endorse)

Oh, I do; don't get me wrong. But I think it is important to listen to what someone else thinks, even if you don't agree with them. I got a lot of negativity about my choice of Tre, and I thought about that and realised that there actually was someone I would have preferred to win. I didn't change my mind just because of what the others said, but that was the catalyst for me reconsidering it.

Nice! I think that's a cool approach - know your beliefs, and have conviction in them, but always remain open to re-evaluating them. Sure, 90% of the time you're going to keep them, but wisdom's knowing how little you know. Always listen to opinions - even if you don't share them, you'll understand them better.

On which note - yeah, I could see the Laura Moore thing! Still don't think she was a winner (although in that series, who was?), but I liked her a bit more as a candidate. When I'd watched the series, I went off her in episode 2, and only started to like her a little the week before she got fired. Still don't think she was a golden candidate, but I'm a little more happy with the stuff in between nowadays. Although, like you, I was annoyed at the time when she was fired - if there was any week she shouldn't have been fired, I'd have said that was it.



... Did I just say "know your beliefs," in a discussion about a reality show? All right, just checking.

I think it's important to remain open to other people's opinions; I hate people that don't. Take someone like Peter Hitchens, for example - the majority of the time I don't agree with his opinions, but some of the time I do, and even when I do agree, I really object to his style of debating. He has this way about him that says that he is always right, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.


I'm glad that you can see my point. I agree that she certainly wasn't a 'golden candidate', but the problem with that series was that most of the candidates were either not very strong (Stuart, Sandeesh) or completely overqualified (Liz, Stella). I would never back Laura to win on the new format where they start a business, but as an apprentice, I think she would have been one of the ones who could really benefit from Sugar's expertise, and was bright enough to get there. The result of Sugar's decision with Stella shows that she really didn't understand that she would be an apprentice, a job that she was overqualified for, and I think the same problem would have happened with someone like Liz, although I don't think it would have been quite as much a disaster as it was with Stella.

I think it's a shame that Laura didn't get a second chance to be PM; maybe if she had she'd have been able to prove herself a bit more.

Laura makes sense if you run with your argument about others being over qualified/too old. I don't think we saw enough of her to know how good she was - she could certainly spot problems Stella didn't though. Problem is once you start to argue that X went too early, you open up the question who else went too early, and the unknowables about what happens if they stay. I think Liz was by far the highest flyer that series, but he didn't have a job for a high flyer, he couldn't put one into it, and in so far as Stella was one, it didn't work.

Series 3 and 4 and 5 I thought were very similar watching them back. There's no real explanation offered why one finalist beats the other, and its arguable that the weaker finalist wins each one, as he struggles to find any reason that holds up at all. The decisive factor seems to be whether they fit his work culture (anti-culture?) better, whether they fit the job on offer, whether they will cause any issues, who needs the job more, and perhaps whether they remind him of Katie or Michelle. Series 5 going on the tasks, is a triumph of the make it cheap and nasty, and sell it expensive school of business. Series 3 is simply inexplicable apart from Simon having some tiny property experience.

Series 4 is probably the silliest - which team wins in the final is pretty arbitary. Bland and indistinctive, beats imaginative and professional smelling, on a spurious argument about costs thats ignored elsewhere when he feels like it. Lee over Clare ignores her record, better instincts, equal, or better, selling and better presenting talent, and her role propping Lee up in the final task. Lee is pretty inconvincing on grounds of intellect, or CV, or business instinct, and he actually scores one of his bigger task successes when Sara and Lucinda are doing his analysis for him. He wins though because he is a blokey salesman and can sell to blokey buyers - which I can't see Sara or Lucinda or Helene doing - and because Alex and Claire are probably seen as bigger risks.

Young apprentice has the same problem as the recent adult series - the business idea can trump task performance Young Apprentice added to that by deciding who gets to the end on a pretty arbitary decision who won the last task. Ashleigh does well, and has a bit more of an idea than who she is left up against . Whoever gets paired with Patrick though is doomed. Change things and pair her with Maria, though, and she's up against someone who says she has an existing business that could be expanded, and Ashleigh never comes up with any real proposal. Decide it on task performance, and quite a few people who were not there for the last 4, come into play too i think.

True, but you could say that for pretty much anyone. In this series, take Raleigh and Joy, for example. Hypothetically, either of them could have done well on the job, but they don't get my vote because even though they didn't prove unworthy of it, they also didn't prove worthy of it. To me at least, Laura was there long enough for me to see something in her. Whereas, someone like Shazia, even though she was only there for two weeks, did at least prove herself to be very capable, and I would have liked to see more of her. Same with Sean Spooner.


Hiring Simon appeared very silly at the time, but actually I wonder now if that was the right decision. He has been one of the more successful out of Sugar's winners, so maybe Sugar saw something in him that the viewers didn't. Series 4 hardly had any potential winners in there, other than Sara and possibly Shazia. By the time it got down to the final two, there was very little in it between Lee and Claire, it could have gone either way. In Series 5, I can see why he chose Yasmina over Kate. I would also have chosen her. I really liked Yasmina, she had a level of honesty and integrity to her that I really admired. Kate appeared too good to be true, and actually if you cornered her and tried to make it appear that she wasn't as good as she appeared to be, she had a nasty streak to her.


Now, on this I disagree. On Young Apprentice they mentioned their business ideas briefly, but they didn't go through them in detail like they had on the adult show, and I don't think that Sugar would ever have let them interfere with the right person to win. In Series 1, they didn't even discuss the business plans (or if they did, it was edited out, so one must assume that they didn't). In Series 2, there was very little in it between James and Zara - they were both as good as each other, and they both had weaknesses -, so Sugar used the business plans as a tie-breaker. In Series 3, I felt that Ashleigh was the one that he had in mind for the win regardless of her business plan. If you remember, she actually had two ideas, and hadn't decided which to go with yet. He stressed that she had won 'on sheer graft'.

Young Apprentice seemed to depend entirely on who made it to the end. There's always been some strong performers who just get thrown out for no good reason - either at the semi final stage or just before it. There's also probably some more credible business ideas among the people who didn't get to the final 2 .I don't think James was equally as good as Zara - he fluctuated between terrible, irresponsible or unworkable ideas and flashes of smart business thinking. Apart from her trip to Croydon, Zara just looked more capable, reliable, and acceptable. He had no idea at all what to actually do with the money, and was stupid enough to suggest Lord Sugar spent money on his education - when Lord Sugar doesn't value what he wanted to learn, all of them had the same need for money for fees, and his hyped educational achievement wasn't actually that notable. One candidate being describeda s a "Grafter" didn't make any sense in the context of the show tasks. What did he think other people had been doing all series except work hard alongside her? It better reflected her life story/CV, and her going into work early . Ashleigh had a stronger personal story and one that was most like his and some winners. Lucy was nothing like him in style or background, and had no real project either. Add a finalist with a more entrepreneurial recor, d and a better proposal and picking Ashleigh on such a weak proposal just looks odd.

The too good to be true argument was another Sugar excuse that made no sense.He's often suspected articulate people who could say the right things to him - since Katie and Michelle - and Kate could read him - possibly helped a bit by a psychology element in her degree. Its just odd to go around assuming that people are not as good as they seem. Worse, he tends to assume it with people from similar backgrounds to himself who have actually done very well in the educational system and then the corporate world - while he likes some of the dullards with a similar style to himself, and no qualifications, and trusts some of the privately educated articulate candidates. He's also defined away corporate experience as a negative - when actually its more often a sign of a high achiever who can perform in a testing environment. He ends up championing a management culture that just looks suspect , and many of the srongest candidates fit.

Not sure why you think of Yasmina as having more integrity - the cheap food and massive profit margins, defended while her team and customers advised raising the quality, and the winning inedible, cheap, chocolates defended as being popular, showed a strong business sense that seemed to meet with Lord Sugar's approval, but I don't think thats the word to describe those priorities.

Laura was shown up to be a whiner and moaner on the show (remember the battle on Old Compton Street?) on many tasks, so for me she would have already been fired earlier for being weak (as a business person).



This I don't understand. Is it about being blond These 2 women were nothing alike (on the show). Or do you mean that Kate lost series 5 based on looking like either of them (very slightly) and reminded him of being deceived?

Everyone knows that the wrong person won in the final of series 3 (but afterwards excepted that Kristina was better off in the end without the job), while the final of series 5 was very evenly matched (with supporters of both camps being able to live with the result). Also, Yasmina's integrity has nothing to do with her selling cheap food (otherwise, one could say that Stella loses her integrity by posing in bikini or standing behind a shop window like the red light sector over here in my country).





Nobody cared who won that final, the series was already tainted by then. It speaks volumes that there are people who are saying that Claire (a mini-version of Ruth Badger) was robbed (OF WHAT?!).

I disagree that Young Apprentice entirely depended on who made it to the end - you could argue that for the third series, but not so much for the other two. The first series certainly didn't - Arjun, Tim, Zoe and Kirsty were definitely the strongest people. In Series 2 the semi-final had an unfair set-up which resulted in a lot of people going arbitrarily, but I don't think the actual result would have made much difference if Sugar had chosen who to fire himself - Harry H might have got into the final over James, but I think Zara would still have won. With Series 3 you have a point - there were some decent people who drew the short straw early on, namely Sean, Alice and Navdeep - but I was really happy for an Ashleigh win. I'm not sure that she had a 'personal story' - all she seemed to be saying was that her parents had had hard lives and she didn't want that for herself - but she had a personality that Sugar really liked, and so did I. I liked Lucy as well, but I'm glad that it was Ashleigh.

Steven would have been good in the final as well, but I have more sympathy with the decision to get rid of him because there was a double firing planned for that week, and with the three who were in front of Sugar, Andrew was doomed and it was on how well Steven put his argument forward and how well Lucy put her argument forward, as there was very little between them. And Steven knew the most about festivals, so he should have said no to the washing machine.


I can see his point with people who look too good to be true, as I don't really like them either. It's good if someone is professional and generally has good instincts, but if they are trying too hard to be absolutely perfect, it would make me think, 'What's the catch?' In the case of Kate and Yasmina, both had very strong business instincts, but Yasmina came across as being very genuine and someone you might actually want to work with. To me at least, Kate seemed to be trying to be perfect - and that's silly, because no one is perfect, so if someone is trying to be they're probably not right. Zara was good because she wasn't trying to be perfect - she had some bad weeks, and whenever she did something wrong she had no shame in holding her hands up and admitting that she was wrong. I think that it was very, very close between Zara and James, but the one thing that she had over him - apart from her business idea - was that she never let the pressures of being on the programme get to her. She handled it probably better than anyone else there has ever been on the programme. Even Stella let Stuart wind her up, and gave him a really evil look at the end of Task 7, which I thought was unprofessional. Zara never lost her cool, and with the stress of being on The Apprentice, I think that is a really admirable quality.

I don't think it's any wonder that Sugar doesn't trust corporate types, after his experience with Stella!



I agree with Sherlock. Yasmina had a manner about her that I really liked - she came across as being quite genuine. I know that she appeared a bit dodgy when she was selling cheap food, but I think she was only doing that because she recognised how to win the task, and sadly it was by cutting corners. I doubt she did that in her restaurant. Also, while the chocolates she made were disgusting, they were only prepared in a couple of days, and I think they could have worked if they'd had longer to come up with the various flavours. I liked the 'shocking chocolates' idea - there is a market for controversial flavours of chocolate; I've tried some of them. I think the fact that she did that showed that she had more creativity than Kate, whose chocolates I couldn't distinguish from any other brand. Yasmina's idea was more original, and tied in with something that is getting more popular at the moment, even if the exact varieties that they made within the time constraints needed more work.

The biggest shock for me was always Kate Walsh not winning as Yasmina was awful in every sense. Although suspect Sugar thought Walsh fancied a tv career for herself anyway

And for series 9?

I would say Luisa Zissman. I thought her business idea had more chance of succeeding than Leah's, and I don't think she deserved all the stick that she got.

So my views on all the series currently stand at:
Seres 1: Miriam Staley
Series 2: Ruth Badger
Series 3: Lohit Kalburgi
Series 4: Sara Dhada
Series 5: Yasmina Siadatan
Junior Apprentice Series 1: Arjun Rajyagor
Series 6: Laura Moore
Series 7: Helen Milligan
Young Apprentice Series 2: Zara Brownless
Series 8: Nick Holzherr
Young Apprentice Series 3: Ashleigh Porter-Exley
Series 9: Luisa Zissman

Funny that the vast majority of my preferred winners are female - out of twelve series, I've only chosen three guys. I didn't plan it like that, just happens that way...

Might seem a bit odd posting when the series isn't on, but here goes:

Series 1: Miriam Staley. That woman was class personified! She seemed to have fewer major 'flaws' than most of the others, which I felt lifted her above the likes of Paul and Saira. I think she would have trounced the interviews and bagged herself a place in the final had she not have been unfairly shafted the week before.

Series 2: Ruth Badger. I never did understand the 'one-trick pony at sales' label she was given. Yes, sales was definitely her best ability. But she proved that she could lead effectively and would have made a better fit for Sugar's organisation than Michelle, who I found to be a bit too perfect and slightly wooden.

Series 3: Kristina Grimes. There weren't that many candidates from that series that I could relate to or found to be likeable, so I suppose I supported Kristina via process of elimination. Though it has been over two years since I watched S3, I cannot recall Kristina making that many huge gaffes, so I could also say that she was the strongest candidate that series. Though as pointed out before, it is more of an apprentice job and not a job for someone who already has everything, so I didn't hugely begrudge Simon winning, as he was likely a better fit for the job than Kristina.

Series 4: Lucinda Ledgerwood. Possibly my favourite candidate of all time. Very strong leader, nice person and was arguably the best of a generally unlikeable bunch, alongside Raef and Sara. Though I could have stomached anyone winning over that odious Alex or vile Helene.

Series 5: Kate Walsh. Was not a huge fan of either of the final 2, so it really boiled down to me being neutral towards Kate and disliking Yasmina. S5 was my least favourite out of every series, hence my less than enthusiastic choice of winner.

Junior Apprentice 1: Argun Rajyagor. Easily the most consistent candidate and head and shoulders above the rest. I don't remember too much about this one, so I'd have to re-watch to get a clearer view of it.

Series 6: Joanna Riley. Although she had an existing (albeit small) business, I saw Joanna as a rough diamond. For someone with little business experience, she demonstrated some terrific skills and huge potential. She might have been a bit fiery on occasion, even with that dreadful book-stand in Week 2, but that didn't make her a bad candidate. I think I'll give a mention to that ghastly Laura Moore and her arse-covering, given that she seemed to be a hot topic. She really was a passive-aggressive, sulky, annoying woman. She's one of my least favourite ever reality TV contestants, alongside Carole from Big Brother 8

Series 7: Helen Milligan. By far the most reliable candidate from her crop. Had a great composure under pressure and was generally solid throughout the process, with Week 10's 'Flip It' task being her only major let-down. If only she had pitched the bakery chain plan instead of that concierge service, she may have won.

Young Apprentice 2: Harry Hitchens. Did not understand how Zara was considered to be the strongest from this series. To me, Harry H was the candidate who consistently caught my eye by how well he did in the tasks. I think he was very unlucky to have lost both of his stints as PM, as he led very well in both. I found Zara to be a bit of a snob and overconfident at times, and I was pretty gutted that she was named the winner, but oh well...

Series 8: Ricky Martin. This is given how the final 4 did in the interview stage. I never did see why Tom was rated so highly. Whereas Ricky had a solid plan and the leadership skills to make it happen. My actual favourite candidate from S8 was Gabrielle Omar, what a lovely woman she was! I believe some candidates like Duane and Katie were fired to early, so we never really knew what they could have had to offer.

Young Apprentice 3: Lucy Beauvallet. For me, Lucy was a very consistent performer and came across as a bright, articulate, pleasant young woman. I did not begrudge Ashleigh winning, but I would have preferred Lucy to have won. Though any result was better than Maria winning!

Series 9: Leah Totton. A bit like Joanna, she showcased some good skills in spite of having little prior business experience. Everyone seemed to have wrote her off around Task 6 or so, but Sugar always seemed to be keen on her, given how profitable he knew her businesss could potentially be. On the other hand, I just don't think Luisa would have been as committed to the partnership as Leah. Though I'm possibly a little biased, given that I couldn't stand Luisa.

Having seen the first three series again recently and with me yet to add my winner from Series 9 and YA Series 3, I thought I'd do an update.

My winner from Series 1 is still Saira Khan. I maintain that when she's on top form, she is unbeatable and whilst she wasn't always on top form, I thought she was good enough to be my winner. One thing I will mention though is that I think that both Rachel and Miriam deserved to be in the Final Four at the expense of Paul and Tim and I thought both, particularly Miriam were extremely unlucky. In fact, Miriam should have definitely have got to the final and rewatching, I felt she almost was as good as Saira, but not quite.

In Series 2, my opinion didn't change much either. Ruth Badger was still my favourite from start to finish and I felt she was top former in virtually all the tasks in the second half of the series. In addition, she was amazing in the final. Whilst my opinion didn't change on most of the others, I do feel that Tuan Le and Samuel Judah were criminally underrated and, though I do feel both deserved their firings and neither were compatible with Sir Alan, I do think neither got the respect from their fellow candidates or from viewers that they deserved.

For Series 3, I'm changing my winner from Jadine Johnson to Kristina Grimes. Whilst I still like Jadine and she is a comfortable second for me in that series, Kristina was just exceptional from Week 4 onwards with one small blip for me. I thought she was flawless in the way she PMed in Week 5 and secured a deserved crushing victory. From that Week on, I felt she was the top performer in every task (bar one), including Week 10, where everybody else felt as though she messed up. In Week 10, she still got her strategy as PM spot on and still managed the task very well, even if she wasn't good on air, which wasn't very relevant to her business skills. The one task I didn't like her on was Week 8, where I felt she hindered the team's performance with game playing but I felt that she was impressive enough elsewhere to overlook this. Jadine was my second favourite for reasons outlined in my original post and Katie was third for general competence throughout, in spite of messing up on two tasks (5 & 6). The one candidate who really improved in hindsight was Lohit, who I felt should definitely have been in contention for the final, but sadly Simon and Tre were preferred. Couldn't stand Simon or Tre on rewatching.

My Young Apprentice Series 3 winner would be Lucy Beauvallet. Interestingly, she wasn't my favourite candidate watching through - this was Andrew, but whilst Andrew was pretty out of his depth by his firing, I thought Lucy was good enough to deserve the win easily. She was brilliant in Weeks 2, 3, 4, 5 and even 6. It was only Week 7 where she really messed up and I thought she was good enough in the final to overlook this, with some brilliant creativity. As I hated Ashleigh (I saw her a manipulative, blame-shifting, one-trick pony), I was extrememly disappointed by her runner-up spot and still reckon it was simply because she was too much like Zara. My final four that series would have been (in order), Lucy, Andrew, Navdeep and Steven.

Finally, my favourite in Series 9 was Jordan Poulton. I thought that if it was based on the tasks, Jordan should of won for my money - the only person with a 2-0 PM record, won 7/10 tasks and was always one of the best team performers (Apart from Week 6 and 7). However, if we are basing it off the business plans as well, then Jordan blatantly shouldn't have won as his plan was just horrific. Taking everything into consideration, my winner would have been Leah Totton. Though she wasn't always the best in tasks, I thought her business plan was exceptional and I was thoroughly impressed by how she knew her business back-to-front. For her obvious passion about her business as well, I thought she did deserve her victory. However, in the old format, I'd have chosen Jordan hands down.

My updated winners:

Series 1: Saira Khan
Series 2: Ruth Badger
Series 3: Kristina Grimes
Series 4: Claire Young
Series 5: Yasmina Siadatan
Series 6: Stella English
Series 7: Susan Ma
Series 8: Nick Holzherr
Series 9: Jordan Poulton/Leah Totton

Junior Apprentice: Arjun Rajyagor
Young Apprentice S2: Harry Hitchens
Young Apprentice S3: Lucy Beauvallet

Here's the link to my original post: http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...75&postcount=4

Series 1: Saira Khan
Series 2: Ruth Badger
Series 3: Kristina Grimes
Series 4: Claire Young
Series 5: Yasmina Siadatan
Series 6: Stella English
Series 7: I am not sure to be honest!
Series 8: Ricky Martin or Nick Holzherr
Series 9: Leah Totton