She was a nasty piece of work! Vile woman 
Who was the 'middle aged woman' on you're fired?
3 of 4
Originally Posted by tiggerspp:
“Oh really! You are seeing what YOU want to actually. She was sub team leader and he was happy enough to blame her for the failure of the sub team yet when it came to the crunch he would rather talk to Neil and treat him as the sub team leader ..... and then after only a few words from her... I could understand it if they had argued for a few minutes or more, but after one short sentence..... why was that I wonder? Hmmmm
”
“Oh really! You are seeing what YOU want to actually. She was sub team leader and he was happy enough to blame her for the failure of the sub team yet when it came to the crunch he would rather talk to Neil and treat him as the sub team leader ..... and then after only a few words from her... I could understand it if they had argued for a few minutes or more, but after one short sentence..... why was that I wonder? Hmmmm
”
I think the problems between Zee and Leah were personal and probably started way before the beginning of this task and the decision about team leaders.
Zee asking to speak to Neil rather than Leah may have been an indication of sexism but it might also have been an indication that the "relationship" between Leah and Zee was so fractious that Zee wanted to speak to someone that would at least entertain his point of view.
Don't get me wrong, Zee comes across as an arrogant idiot and refusing to try to sort out differences with one of his team looks petulant and unprofessional but Leah isn't blameless here either. If you know that the team member speaking to you has you pegged (rightly as it turned out in this case) as a bullsh*tting idiot and is therefore not likely to want to give you a fair hearing, it is actually reasonable to ask to speak to someone else instead without it necessarily being all about gender bias. It may well have been but it didn't have to be.
I thought she (the lady on the panel) was spot on. She said it as it was and how refreshing to hear that. Too often the panelists make "nice" comments trying hard not to upset the loser. Everything she said was spot on and Zee just couldn't respond to her (bet Napoleon would have!).
I also think Dara struggled to contain his obvious distaste for the dillusional Zee.
I also think Dara struggled to contain his obvious distaste for the dillusional Zee.
They only invited her on so she could cast her feminist ways and exacerbate an issue that may not have been true
Originally Posted by The Rhydler:
“They put her on the show because she's obviously a militant feminist and the BBC were shamelessly exploiting a sexist angle for the show tonight”
“They put her on the show because she's obviously a militant feminist and the BBC were shamelessly exploiting a sexist angle for the show tonight”
She was on the show because her job is sourcing any stock a hotel requires .
She was overly hostile. Once she'd made her point about how little she'd thought of Zee, she ought to have lightened up a little - but alas she couldn't.:sleep:
Originally Posted by The Rhydler:
“They only invited her on so she could cast her feminist ways and exacerbate an issue that may not have been true”
“They only invited her on so she could cast her feminist ways and exacerbate an issue that may not have been true”
Are you Zee in disguise
Originally Posted by Dave_King:
“She was a nasty piece of work! Vile woman”
“She was a nasty piece of work! Vile woman
”
Yes I hope they never invite her back on.
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“She was embarrassing. A chip on her shoulder a mile wide.”
“She was embarrassing. A chip on her shoulder a mile wide.”
Yep, I found her very embarrassing indeed.
Originally Posted by tiggerspp:
“Oh really! You are seeing what YOU want to actually. She was sub team leader and he was happy enough to blame her for the failure of the sub team yet when it came to the crunch he would rather talk to Neil and treat him as the sub team leader ..... and then after only a few words from her... I could understand it if they had argued for a few minutes or more, but after one short sentence..... why was that I wonder? Hmmmm”
“Oh really! You are seeing what YOU want to actually. She was sub team leader and he was happy enough to blame her for the failure of the sub team yet when it came to the crunch he would rather talk to Neil and treat him as the sub team leader ..... and then after only a few words from her... I could understand it if they had argued for a few minutes or more, but after one short sentence..... why was that I wonder? Hmmmm
”
Editing? Have you considered that? Maybe he HAD spoken to Leah and she was just a bitter witch?
Originally Posted by blondie_81:
“Just a little useless fact for you all: did you know that Miles Jupp, the man on the panel of 'TA: You're Fired', played Archie on the children's programme, 'Balamory'?!!!”
“Just a little useless fact for you all: did you know that Miles Jupp, the man on the panel of 'TA: You're Fired', played Archie on the children's programme, 'Balamory'?!!!”
My God I thought I recognised him
Originally Posted by Paace:
“She was on the show because her job is sourcing any stock a hotel requires .”
“She was on the show because her job is sourcing any stock a hotel requires .”
Which she barely spoke anything about. She was more interested in sticking the boot in, and again.
Originally Posted by SCD-Observer:
“Editing? Have you considered that? Maybe he HAD spoken to Leah and she was just a bitter witch?”
“Editing? Have you considered that? Maybe he HAD spoken to Leah and she was just a bitter witch?”
It is possible Zee is a sexist imbecilic bafoon, however, I felt the show was overly edited/manipulated to show Zee in a poor light. Your Fired was interesting because there's less editing & Zee came across as the imbecilic bafoon bit, but not sexist!
He was always going to select Leah for the boardroom because they clashed throughout the whole task. Natalie is coming across (editing?) as weak & I don't think it matters whether she is male or female. The perceieved weakness is why she appears to be being dismissed by others.
As for the woman on the panel; I like people who speak their mind whatever their opinions. It left footed Zee & it was funny watching him squirm. Moving on, I doubt Zee is going to lose much sleep over her comments....Afterall, he's no respect for what women say anyway
Originally Posted by tiggerspp:
“No she didn't like him because he was sexist!
He brought two women into the boardroom and let the two guys who messed up go.
He claimed Leah was in there because she was the sub team leader so if a member of the team messed up she had to carry the can as the leader yet when it was pointed out to him by that logic he should have gone as he was responsible for the whole team he had no answer.
He disregarded any contribution Natalie tried to make and then blamed her for being quiet.
And can you think of any instance in any episode where he has engaged with one of the women on a task... no neither can I!
The case for the prosecution rests!”
“No she didn't like him because he was sexist!
He brought two women into the boardroom and let the two guys who messed up go.
He claimed Leah was in there because she was the sub team leader so if a member of the team messed up she had to carry the can as the leader yet when it was pointed out to him by that logic he should have gone as he was responsible for the whole team he had no answer.
He disregarded any contribution Natalie tried to make and then blamed her for being quiet.
And can you think of any instance in any episode where he has engaged with one of the women on a task... no neither can I!
The case for the prosecution rests!”
As far as contributions go, Natalie did nothing. Neil and Kurt did a lot more, and made one mistake each as a result. I think it's a lot more valuable to have two people who are actually doing something and making the odd mistake than having someone sit around and do nothing.
It's as simple as that. As far as Leah is concerned, she was being a prick to him all day if anything, acting like she's the pm when he is. He brought her in for her antagonizing, argumentative, moaning attitude.
As far for ignoring women on previous tasks, there was only one other task where he was involved with women - in Week 4. In that one, he treated them like he did the boys...I don't see any problem here whatsoever.
I think he brought the right people in. The sexist angle was downright silly, desperate and quite frankly outrageous. I think Sugar realized this too from his look in the boardroom.
Originally Posted by fireemblemcraze:
“As far as contributions go, Natalie did nothing. Neil and Kurt did a lot more, and made one mistake each as a result. I think it's a lot more valuable to have two people who are actually doing something and making the odd mistake than having someone sit around and do nothing.
It's as simple as that. As far as Leah is concerned, she was being a prick to him all day if anything, acting like she's the pm when he is. He brought her in for her antagonizing, argumentative, moaning attitude.
As far for ignoring women on previous tasks, there was only one other task where he was involved with women - in Week 4. In that one, he treated them like he did the boys...I don't see any problem here whatsoever.
I think he brought the right people in. The sexist angle was downright silly, desperate and quite frankly outrageous. I think Sugar realized this too from his look in the boardroom.”
“As far as contributions go, Natalie did nothing. Neil and Kurt did a lot more, and made one mistake each as a result. I think it's a lot more valuable to have two people who are actually doing something and making the odd mistake than having someone sit around and do nothing.
It's as simple as that. As far as Leah is concerned, she was being a prick to him all day if anything, acting like she's the pm when he is. He brought her in for her antagonizing, argumentative, moaning attitude.
As far for ignoring women on previous tasks, there was only one other task where he was involved with women - in Week 4. In that one, he treated them like he did the boys...I don't see any problem here whatsoever.
I think he brought the right people in. The sexist angle was downright silly, desperate and quite frankly outrageous. I think Sugar realized this too from his look in the boardroom.”
Didn't the rest of us do this exact same discussion last night?
Anyway Natalie can hardly contribute when she was dutifully ignored by Zee form what we saw in the program. She tried to get involved, was utterly ignored and then you say it was fair enough she was hauled into the boardroom as she did nothing.... you're having a laugh!
As for Sugar thinking it was a silly angle I think you know if that had been the case Natalie would have gone. The fact he got rid of Zee means that by and large he agreed with her!
Originally Posted by tiggerspp:
“Didn't the rest of us do this exact same discussion last night?
As for Sugar thinking it was a silly angle I think you know if that had been the case Natalie would have gone. The fact he got rid of Zee means that by and large he agreed with her!”
“Didn't the rest of us do this exact same discussion last night?
As for Sugar thinking it was a silly angle I think you know if that had been the case Natalie would have gone. The fact he got rid of Zee means that by and large he agreed with her!”
Does that mean I can't discuss it some more or is it taboo to discuss things a day after they've been discussed?
Right because Lord Sugar is looking for the most politically correct sensible candidate. No, he's looking for a business partner and to a certain extent you need to be accepting and have sense but to a greater extent he's looking for the skills.
Anyway, Zee got fired only because he was incompetent as a leader and as a businessman - that's what the whole programme is about, not because of some silly accusation. And Natalie being a stronger candidate (from Weeks 1 to 3) is why she stayed. It's as simple as that.
Originally Posted by fireemblemcraze:
“Does that mean I can't discuss it some more or is it taboo to discuss things a day after they've been discussed?
Right because Lord Sugar is looking for the most politically correct sensible candidate. No, he's looking for a business partner and to a certain extent you need to be accepting and have sense but to a greater extent he's looking for the skills.
Anyway, Zee got fired only because he was incompetent as a leader and as a businessman - that's what the whole programme is about, not because of some silly accusation. And Natalie being a stronger candidate (from Weeks 1 to 3) is why she stayed. It's as simple as that.”
“Does that mean I can't discuss it some more or is it taboo to discuss things a day after they've been discussed?
Right because Lord Sugar is looking for the most politically correct sensible candidate. No, he's looking for a business partner and to a certain extent you need to be accepting and have sense but to a greater extent he's looking for the skills.
Anyway, Zee got fired only because he was incompetent as a leader and as a businessman - that's what the whole programme is about, not because of some silly accusation. And Natalie being a stronger candidate (from Weeks 1 to 3) is why she stayed. It's as simple as that.”
I agree that Sugar fired Zee because he couldn't do anything else and not because he agreed with Natalie's accusation (I really don't think he did but then Lordsiralansugarplum wouldn't know sexism if it punched him in the face) but I don't think Natalie's performance over the first three weeks had anything to do with it. Zee was just soooo crap that he had to go and Natalie now has a build-up of crap performances that mean she's not going to last much longer. It matters not who went first, the other one will soon follow.
Originally Posted by The Rhydler:
“It does.
But if I must address your points...
Hardly a fact, barely an opinion.
Leah messed by disobeying the PM countless times.
Natalie messed up by not doing anything.
Alex also messed up by not doing anything.
Neil and Kurt messed up by TRYING to do something.
Bullshit point. You trust the sub-team leader to go off on their own, that has been stated countless times in the series. The PM can't spoon feed the Sub-team leader.
Mmm. There could be something in that, but she doesn't get herself heard, only in the boardroom, as Sugar said.
LOL, he was in Boys Vs Girls tasks for the first three weeks, and last week I can't recall him actively keeping away from the females in his team.
Now answer me this, yes or no, Leah STARTED the feud between them in tonights episode.”
“It does.
But if I must address your points...
Hardly a fact, barely an opinion.
Leah messed by disobeying the PM countless times.
Natalie messed up by not doing anything.
Alex also messed up by not doing anything.
Neil and Kurt messed up by TRYING to do something.
Bullshit point. You trust the sub-team leader to go off on their own, that has been stated countless times in the series. The PM can't spoon feed the Sub-team leader.
Mmm. There could be something in that, but she doesn't get herself heard, only in the boardroom, as Sugar said.
LOL, he was in Boys Vs Girls tasks for the first three weeks, and last week I can't recall him actively keeping away from the females in his team.
Now answer me this, yes or no, Leah STARTED the feud between them in tonights episode.”
You're incredibly disrespectful yourself. No wonder you like Zee.
Originally Posted by Agent F:
“There were a few examples in tonight's episode which indicated he didn't think much of the two girls - asking to speak to Neil when he was on the phone, completely ignoring Natalie when she was trying to contribute... I did get the sense he was a bit chauvinistic. There was no good reason to bring both girls back in tonight. Leah I could maybe understand only because they were at loggerheads but that was more personal than anything else. Natalie? That was just stupid, especially after both Neil and Kurt's major errors had been highlighted by LS.”
“There were a few examples in tonight's episode which indicated he didn't think much of the two girls - asking to speak to Neil when he was on the phone, completely ignoring Natalie when she was trying to contribute... I did get the sense he was a bit chauvinistic. There was no good reason to bring both girls back in tonight. Leah I could maybe understand only because they were at loggerheads but that was more personal than anything else. Natalie? That was just stupid, especially after both Neil and Kurt's major errors had been highlighted by LS.”
Yes Natalie did deserve to be brought back. She did NOTHING. At least Kurt and Neil tried, may have got something wrong, but I rather someone at least try and fail at something, than to contribute nothing, and then expect to get off the hook so easily. It was the right choice. So was bringing back Leah, who seemed to do her best to derail the task.
Natalie should have been fired IMO. Feel free to disagree, but she was and has been out of her depth pretty much in every task. Her PM performance was pathetic and worse than Zee's. Luisa pretty much called the shots and had control of that team.
I think Natalie is on borrowed time and one more inept performance will seal her fate.
Originally Posted by fireemblemcraze:
“Does that mean I can't discuss it some more or is it taboo to discuss things a day after they've been discussed?”
“Does that mean I can't discuss it some more or is it taboo to discuss things a day after they've been discussed?
”
Some more??? You are just repeating what has already been said. Try reading the thread first.
Originally Posted by fireemblemcraze:
“Right because Lord Sugar is looking for the most politically correct sensible candidate. No, he's looking for a business partner and to a certain extent you need to be accepting and have sense but to a greater extent he's looking for the skills.
Anyway, Zee got fired only because he was incompetent as a leader and as a businessman - that's what the whole programme is about, not because of some silly accusation. And Natalie being a stronger candidate (from Weeks 1 to 3) is why she stayed. It's as simple as that.”
“Right because Lord Sugar is looking for the most politically correct sensible candidate. No, he's looking for a business partner and to a certain extent you need to be accepting and have sense but to a greater extent he's looking for the skills.
Anyway, Zee got fired only because he was incompetent as a leader and as a businessman - that's what the whole programme is about, not because of some silly accusation. And Natalie being a stronger candidate (from Weeks 1 to 3) is why she stayed. It's as simple as that.”
Have you actually watched the show other than this week? LS is 'that close' to getting rid of Natalie, he has all but said it in those words and if she had been wrong in his eyes about her claims in the boardroom regarding Zee he had the perfect opportunity to fire her. He didn't thiough did he?!
Originally Posted by j4Rose:
“You're incredibly disrespectful yourself. No wonder you like Zee.”
“You're incredibly disrespectful yourself. No wonder you like Zee.”
I think he is Zee
Originally Posted by Purple.:
“I found her a bit over-the-top, to be honest.”
“I found her a bit over-the-top, to be honest.”
A bit? It was like she was paid to make him look pathetic.
Originally Posted by tiggerspp:
“He disregarded any contribution Natalie tried to make and then blamed her for being quiet.”
“He disregarded any contribution Natalie tried to make and then blamed her for being quiet.”
Don't even go there. This is Natalie the harridan that wails like a banshee in the boardroom. Surely she could have done the same when the guys were not giving her the yellow pages and the phone. Also, Kurt didn't give her the yellow pages, does that make him sexist too?
Zee was a prize knob, very full of himself and all that, but he was not sexist at all. He chose not to bring Neil back in because they seemed like good mates back in the house. I'm sure previous candidates have done the same in the past. (That greasy Italian with the big nose did the same to save his friend a few series back). Natalie did the same with Louisa when she lost as pm. It was Uzma and Louisa that were shouting the cube box idea, both should have been brought back, but no she picked on Uzma and Sophie. Did anyone shout the racism card? No, so shut up with the sexism!
Originally Posted by mimi123456:
“A bit? It was like she was paid to make him look pathetic.
Don't even go there. This is Natalie the harridan that wails like a banshee in the boardroom. Surely she could have done the same when the guys were not giving her the yellow pages and the phone. Also, Kurt didn't give her the yellow pages, does that make him sexist too?
Zee was a prize knob, very full of himself and all that, but he was not sexist at all. He chose not to bring Neil back in because they seemed like good mates back in the house. I'm sure previous candidates have done the same in the past. (That greasy Italian with the big nose did the same to save his friend a few series back). Natalie did the same with Louisa when she lost as pm. It was Uzma and Louisa that were shouting the cube box idea, both should have been brought back, but no she picked on Uzma and Sophie. Did anyone shout the racism card? No, so shut up with the sexism!”
“A bit? It was like she was paid to make him look pathetic.
Don't even go there. This is Natalie the harridan that wails like a banshee in the boardroom. Surely she could have done the same when the guys were not giving her the yellow pages and the phone. Also, Kurt didn't give her the yellow pages, does that make him sexist too?
Zee was a prize knob, very full of himself and all that, but he was not sexist at all. He chose not to bring Neil back in because they seemed like good mates back in the house. I'm sure previous candidates have done the same in the past. (That greasy Italian with the big nose did the same to save his friend a few series back). Natalie did the same with Louisa when she lost as pm. It was Uzma and Louisa that were shouting the cube box idea, both should have been brought back, but no she picked on Uzma and Sophie. Did anyone shout the racism card? No, so shut up with the sexism!”
Good to see some proper perspective regarding this situation.
Originally Posted by don roberto:
“I thought she (the lady on the panel) was spot on. She said it as it was and how refreshing to hear that. Too often the panelists make "nice" comments trying hard not to upset the loser. Everything she said was spot on and Zee just couldn't respond to her (bet Napoleon would have!).
I also think Dara struggled to contain his obvious distaste for the dillusional Zee.”
“I thought she (the lady on the panel) was spot on. She said it as it was and how refreshing to hear that. Too often the panelists make "nice" comments trying hard not to upset the loser. Everything she said was spot on and Zee just couldn't respond to her (bet Napoleon would have!).
I also think Dara struggled to contain his obvious distaste for the dillusional Zee.”
Agree with you absolutely. I thought she was brilliant - very perceptive and direct. Love people like that. Of course she'll be hated by those who prefer their women to be silent and fluffy - and pretend to be 'nice'. More fool them!
This is business, not Disneyworld
3 of 4
