|
||||||||
'Lord Sugar' this and 'Lord Sugar' that ... |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,978
|
'Lord Sugar' this and 'Lord Sugar' that ...
Can't they just say 'Yes, I thought that ...' Or, 'well, no actually, my take on it is this ...' without all the constant 'Yes, Lord Sugar, no, Lord Sugar, three bags full, Lord Sugar nonsense. It all comes across as terribly sycophantic to me. That goes for all Apprentice candidates btw, young and old. Are they told to do this for some reason (respect, perhaps?) Personally,I'd refuse. I'd be polite and respectful but certainly wouldn't keep mentioning his name all the time. Too kissy-assy for my liking
Does that get anyone else's wick? I wonder does it get on his wick? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,601
|
Yes i am inclined to agree. I'd do the same and have always said the same.
I would never use his Lord title because i disagree to it. No one should be a Lord. I know there's different meanings to the word to, but to me Lord means God and no one on earth should be compared. So, i'd refer to him as to his previous title. ''Sir Alan'' That'd piss him off for sure, and i'm sure he'd get rid of me in week two for some reason or another. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: A true B Blocker!
Posts: 4,990
|
I dont think he takes it too well if people forget the 'lord'....I know somebody who used to work for him and he told me a couple of stories about Lord/Sir AS. So would say they are told to refer to him like this rather than being big suck ups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,168
|
I have worked with many Knights of the realm.... And not one of them them insisted on being addressed with his title like Lord Sugar does.
Mind you - as they were all senior military officers, they were called plain "Sir" by their uniformed underlings anyway.... |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
a. There shouldn't be Lords
b. It's a joke that Sugar was ever given the title anyway. Jumped up crappy businessman who made his money in property, and can't even pronounce 'resume.' |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,538
|
Its like they are all creeping around him. When he first comes in and they all say "Good Morning Lord Sugar" in harmony is rediculous. I remember one episode a few years ago in the days when he was known as Sir Alan one candidate said to him Yes Alan and it was treated like he should be prosecuted for calling him Alan instead of Sir Alan. As if he would be fired for it! Even the chap concerned looked really worried about it. Personally someone should call him Al one day. That would be funny!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
I'd call him 'Sugar-Babes.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
The only people I ever remember forgetting his title were Melissa (who called him Sir) and Jim (who just called him Sugar!) Interestingly, both of them went out in the episode they did that... Coincidence? Well, probably, they were both on the way out anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 109
|
I don't think it's just a matter of personal vanity from Lord Sugar - it's probably the producers' decision that the contestants have to address him with his title all the time. After all, the show is premised on his status as an imposing figure of authority, and having them constantly address him like this reinforces that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 696
|
Do they call him "Lord Alan" on You're Fired as well? That would really be ridiculous. Another thing that really gets on my wick is that fake laugh they all do to some awful jokes, one day I hope his jokes are met with a stony silence. Quote:
I would never use his Lord title because i disagree to it. No one should be a Lord. I know there's different meanings to the word to, but to me Lord means God and no one on earth should be compared.
Not that I agree with big ol' Al being a Lord anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,523
|
Quote:
a. There shouldn't be Lords
b. It's a joke that Sugar was ever given the title anyway. Jumped up crappy businessman who made his money in property, and can't even pronounce 'resume.' Sugar wasnt honoured with a peerage he was given a job advising the last Labour government and to give him a platform he was appointed as a peer rather than honoured with a peerage for any particular achievement as usually happens to particularly distinguished people such as former PMs etc.....appointed peers to shoehorn people into the government are a relatively new phenomenon from the last couple of governments so it is particularly silly and vain of Sugar to get carried away with being addressed by titles and it shows a total lack of class and coolness and reflects a slight chip on his shoulder about his working class roots as if he wants to 'rub in' how far he thinks he has progressed.Silly. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 696
|
Quote:
Sugar wasnt honoured with a peerage he was given a job advising the last Labour government and to give him a platform he was appointed as a peer rather than honoured with a peerage for any particular achievement as usually happens to particularly distinguished people such as former PMs etc.....appointed peers to shoehorn people into the government are a relatively new phenomenon from the last couple of governments so it is particularly silly and vain of Sugar to get carried away with being addressed by titles and it shows a total lack of class and coolness and reflects a slight chip on his shoulder about his working class roots as if he wants to 'rub in' how far he thinks he has progressed.Silly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5bW-DCghMU |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: the back of beyond
Posts: 6,900
|
Quote:
The only people I ever remember forgetting his title were Melissa (who called him Sir) and Jim (who just called him Sugar!) Interestingly, both of them went out in the episode they did that... Coincidence? Well, probably, they were both on the way out anyway.
... but he scared me a bit too
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,481
|
Quote:
Its like they are all creeping around him. When he first comes in and they all say "Good Morning Lord Sugar" in harmony is rediculous. I remember one episode a few years ago in the days when he was known as Sir Alan one candidate said to him Yes Alan and it was treated like he should be prosecuted for calling him Alan instead of Sir Alan. As if he would be fired for it! Even the chap concerned looked really worried about it. Personally someone should call him Al one day. That would be funny!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
Sugar wasnt honoured with a peerage he was given a job advising the last Labour government and to give him a platform he was appointed as a peer rather than honoured with a peerage for any particular achievement as usually happens to particularly distinguished people such as former PMs etc.....appointed peers to shoehorn people into the government are a relatively new phenomenon from the last couple of governments so it is particularly silly and vain of Sugar to get carried away with being addressed by titles and it shows a total lack of class and coolness and reflects a slight chip on his shoulder about his working class roots as if he wants to 'rub in' how far he thinks he has progressed.Silly.
People have been given peerages for just doing a political job (as "working peers") for as long as I can remember, not just former PMs. The Lords is stuffed with undistinguished ex-ministers and ex-MPs. Giving unelected people a peerage to get them into government goes back at least to the Thatcher government, probably earlier. Ironically Sugar's advisory role didn't actually require him to have a seat in cabinet, so he didn't need a peerage. Maybe it was his price for joining in? |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,051
|
He has been given the title and is entitled to use it. If I was in a job interview or trying to persuade an investor to put money into my company, I would show him/her the respect of using the title s/he preferred, be it Sir, Lord, Lady, Ma'am or Doctor. I do not seriously believe that anyone in those circumstances would refuse to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
Plenty of actors & musicians have been given knighthoods and cringe if you think they want to be called 'Sir Paul' or 'Sir Mick.' Even if they like being a Sir (and I know a knight) the more they insist on people using that title or any other, the bigger a dick they are. (the one I know would never want you to call him Sir).
Also have you ever noticed Lord Sugar moves like a Thunderbirds puppet? |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,645
|
Probably wouldn't last long if you told him to F off
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6,808
|
i can't understand why a person who appears to take such pride in his working class roots cares so much about this silly title. a true worker and man of the people would either reject this anachronistic title or certainly not expect others to address him in this subservient way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: the back of beyond
Posts: 6,900
|
Quote:
Plenty of actors & musicians have been given knighthoods and cringe if you think they want to be called 'Sir Paul' or 'Sir Mick.' Even if they like being a Sir (and I know a knight) the more they insist on people using that title or any other, the bigger a dick they are. (the one I know would never want you to call him Sir).
Also have you ever noticed Lord Sugar moves like a Thunderbirds puppet? ![]() Yes, he does a bit! think it is the way he moves his head, cant put my finger on it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
Nice to have the title, bit arsey to insist upon it. Like someone who earned a doctorate who insists you call them Dr Whatver. Just comes across as twatty, I didn't make the rules!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Plenty of actors & musicians have been given knighthoods and cringe if you think they want to be called 'Sir Paul' or 'Sir Mick.' Even if they like being a Sir (and I know a knight) the more they insist on people using that title or any other, the bigger a dick they are. (the one I know would never want you to call him Sir).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,255
|
Quote:
a. There shouldn't be Lords
b. It's a joke that Sugar was ever given the title anyway. Jumped up crappy businessman who made his money in property, and can't even pronounce 'resume.' |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
You was spot on there....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,293
|
Quote:
That has been particularly funny this series, because it's the complete opposite to how Ashleigh talks. 'He were... she were... I were...'
It grates on me so much, both of them mangling the English language so badly! I know people can't help their dialects, but as an English teacher I just can't get used to hearing it - nails down a blackboard time for me! Just goes to show that your environment has a stronger influence on how you talk than your teachers do - despite most teachers using the correct conjugation for the verb "to be" themselves, they clearly can't over-ride the regional variations outside of school because some people will only ever hear and say it as "I were, you was, he/she/it were, we was, you was and they was" like Ashleigh, or hear and say "was" for everything whether it's singular or plural like Alan Sugar does! I hope I don't sound like a grammar snob - I don't mean to - but when you teach and love English and see it for the powerful tool it is when used properly, it just sets my teeth on edge when dialect (as opposed to accent - that's different) leads to incorrect conjugation of the common 'helper' verb "to be". And, like it or not, outside of one's locality/local dialect, it does mean you stand out like a sore thumb - and, by extension, rightly or wrongly, it can lead to incorrect assumptions (about class, education, presentation etc) when grammar comes out in such mangled terms when among people who use "I was, you were... etc" correctly, It might be fair, but then since when was life ever fair?! |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14.



... but he scared me a bit too
