Never had a corporate job, I always assumed people would be backstabbing ar********, I guess the show exxagerates it more in the way they set people up. Put people in high pressure situations and get the worst out of people.

Cant stand the way people jump on each other and badmouth each other as well.

Anyway, was Uzma victimised and blamed for everything that went wrong?

She seemed to get blamed for a lot of stuff, blamed for the flatpack when nobody else would grab the bull by the horn or come up with any ideas, then they tried to crucify her in the boardroom over it.

Then this task the pm just didnt like her, was very short with her and got her to do stuff outside of her skill and disregard ehr suggestions about store layout.. Then blamed for the task..

It's like the show is all about friendships, you like someone, you put them in a position so they can excel and look like the good guy. If you dont like someone put them in the cellar or doing tasks that they're not skilled in so you can hang them out to dry.

both

she hadn't shown any qualities over the 4 weeks really to suggest that she deserve to say

but neil obviously made a very strategic decision with how he handled her role within the task knowing if they failed he had her as an obvious scapegoat. she was already in a clearly vulnerable position from the first couple of weeks and as project manager he was able to marginalise what her contribution to the task was so he could turnaround and blame her if he needed to.

A bit of both.

Neil had no choice but to bring Kurt, and there was the possibility that Kurt could be excused because although his figures were out, he was essentially right about the shakes being good sellers. Neil was then at risk for being the PM and then giving Kurt free rein of the task. So bringing Uzma was a good move to shift focus from himself.

In saying that, I don't see who else he could've brought back. She big upped herself (like last week), that she was all over this task, she would sell sell sell. Then she started fiddling with the display so they were late in opening, when sent to sell outside she looked uncomfortable, and never seemed to get into gear.

I can't make up my mind if Neil is a numpty or an evil genius. He never made any decisions that he couldn't blame on someone else. When it became clear that Uzma was slacking on sales there was no reason why he couldn't give her five mins with Kurt to see how to make a smoothy and then switch Kurt to front of house, but he left her flapping in the wind.

Uzma had to go, but I felt so did Neil. What exactly did he do other than shout at people mainly Uzma?

I thought Karren would have stuck her oar in because it did feel like Uzma was being picked on for being female, and Neil really talked her down.

Also, if you are on the sub team, you are in a bad position anyway. Natalie didn't really do much either and she should have been taken in!

I'm just watching her on Daybreak. She talks like someone out of TOWIE and looks the part as well

She was basically useless, she upped herself last week about being a brilliant designer and failed, you could argue that what was produced had little to actually do with her design and that it was a bad team leader that let it evolve into a "box on wheels" but still she kept on about it, even to the point that when it was delivered she was still taking credit for it. This week she was going on about "indoors, outdoors, I'll sell sell sell" but totally failed and kept running back to Neil for advice, it was time for her to go.

I think she should have been giving one more chance and Sugar should have made her Project Manger in the next task to see how she fairs. She was useless as well but from last night she showed along with Zee that they wanted to get their points across but Neil just shot them down without listening to them. Neil was a horrendous Project Manger only thinking off himself and not listening to the team apart from going with Kurt. Lets be honest here this was Kurt as PM not Neil, and for someone who claims to be so great he was such a pushover last night.

I thought Neil came over as pretty sexist actually. He never gave her a chance to speak and when she did query or ask questions, he ignored her or gave sarcastic responses.

She'd hardly "shone" in the contest so far, but I do have to say that Neil seemingly deliberately froze her out of the task, so that if the team lost he had an instant candidate to throw under the bus... not sure if it was just personal dislike or a sound strategy, but it worked.

From the edit, it's been hard to see just why everyone took against her so quickly - as I say, she was never a candidate for the final win, but didn't seem to deserve the scorn heaped upon her almost from day 1... and she looked amazing on YF compared to how she looked on the show itself!

I'm sure she was made to look worse than she was, but equally there must have been a reason why three PMs out of four chose to bring her back into the boardroom.

Uzma (like Luisa) was great at bigging herself up, but did she ever really show anything that would suggest to Sugar that she was the next big entrepreneur? Not that we saw.

Contrast that with, say, Jordan, who was a composed and smart PM last week, or Leah, who we have seen make a big sale in just about every task so far,

That's made me think.

The beer task was nearly the same style of management, and I couldn't make up my mind whether Kurt or Neil was running the team, they got lucky that the girls team made such a mess of things. I was calling Kurt "Neil Jnr", but now I'm more leaning toward Kurt being the leader and Neil being the echo.

In summation, they are Bert and Ernie, but without the charm.

She was pretty poor last night - basically hanging around doing very little and looking awkward.
Was anyone else surprised at how dull and lifeless she seemed on You're Fired?

Clearly Uzma is no great loss to the process but it is mildly unsatisfactory that for the second week in succession, someone has been fired because Lord Sugar has decided (rightly) they cannot win rather than because they were culpable for their team's defeat.

She has a way of asking "can I just say something?" that almost begs for the answer "no".

the boardroom defence strategy isn't very good idea.

oppnent: Uzma, you were useless at this task.
Uzma: EXCUME ME.. How was I useless?
opponent: Because you did x, y, z.

Asking questions as a defence strategy isn't very good, it actually lets the opponent dig dipper. and plant the seeds of doubt harder.

She doesn't have much experience dealing with these cut throat types I imagine. A lot of candidates fall foul of this boardroom startegy, especially women.

You need to fire back with an attack, not ask a rhetorical question, because the opponent will just answer it.

I.e.

opponent: You were useless at this task.
Uzma: You can talk, you're the project manager and you've basically passed the buck on the subteam for everything. For all of Kurts faults - his idea brought in the most profits and you've subcontracted the management out to other people in the project.

the best thing to do is stay quiet and let the loudmouths battle it out in the initial process.

the two people kept in the cellar to do all the preparation got away scott free. Without taking any flack what so ever. The tall woman is good at sales (although she has an icey cold demenaor which isn't great for face to face retail sales). But I'm sure if Neil swapped Uzma around with her they would have sold more too.

Not sure I agree with that.

Staying silent in the boardroom didn't work for Sophie last week. She stayed quiet, avoided the arguments, but also didn't have an opportunity to present the case for her defence until it was effectively too late.

You also have to remember that the boardrooms go on much longer than we are shown on TV - 2 hours or more, I believe - so you have to say something sooner or later. I'd rather be on the front foot and pipe up and say my piece rather than wait for Sugar to ask me something I didn't want him to ask.

Jason and Rebecca only got away scott-free because their team won. Had they lost, they would undoubtedly have been put under pressure because of Jason's complete lack of process, or accused of hiding away to avoid selling. Depending on how the task pans out - and how the producers choose to present the broadcast footage - what may seem like quite a wise tactic up front can easily be made to look extremely foolish, depending on which way Sugar wants to take the boardroom.

As with anything to do with the tasks, it's never quite as simple or black-and-white as we are shown in the actual episode. How often have we seen PMs criticised for not spending enough on one task, and then seen them praised the next week for being cost-conscious and keeping their spending on a tight rein?

you;'re right. I misrepresented what I meant.

There are all sorts of candidates who just keep their head down and get on the with project, every year you see them dodge any flack. Even when on losing team - PMs never decide to bring them back. It's always the ones who are a bit loud and annoying, that annoy the PMs that get dragged into the boardroom.

Every series there's always one or two in the final four that were almost invisible for the start of the series because they didnt tread on anyones foot.

I agree. At the moment Leah's doing well on that front. She pitches in but doesn't get dragged into the cat fighting and ganging up and basically gives the impression that she's not interested in playing silly schoolgirl games. If she maintains that stance she could do very well.

She said they would see her in action in the task, the guy looked like he was thinking perv stuff, but it's true she did nothing... Alex was shouting all kind of things to sell the products and she was like "Oh my gosh this is so embarrassing".

I disagree. Leah tends to stay a bit too quiet. She is obviously very intelligent, but sometimes in tasks, she stays silent a lot and just rolls her eyes.

I still believe it should have been a double firing: Neil and Uzma. Both completely useless yesterday.

Uzma a make-up counter girl hopelessly out of her depth

Not even that. Uzma is an example of someone we'll no doubt be seeing more of -- people with successful online businesses who have no experience of direct selling (or buying, or working in a team, or giving or taking direction and so on and so forth),

I agree, the guy is just a pig the way he treats people when he has a little power, like PM . You don't manage people by telling them to shut up and ignoring any suggestions .

I'm no fan of Uzma from the way she behaved in previous tasks and yes she was out of her depth . You can't expect people to be good at every task and she looked most uncomfortable with a board around her neck selling in the street . I'm seen her make up channel on you tube and she comes across very well and confident .

Uzma said on You're Fired she did have some experience of selling face-to-face at shows, but I'm guessing the atmosphere there was very different to Alex's fairground barker style which she was clearly not comfortable with. She was trying to sell, in a quieter way, but it wasn't working in a street setting. At a show, presumably people are already interested in the product and her style of selling perhaps works.

I don't think Uzma has shone in the process. Possibly there was some scapegoating, but some candidates have managed in spite of that.