Perhaps someone can enlighten me on this... I don't recall there ever being such a huge difference between the two teams in the results than there was last night. The losing team didn't even make £2,000, the winning team made over £30,000. Has there ever been a task where the difference has been greater than that? I can't think of any offhand, but there have been so many series now I may have forgotten about one.

Could well be

Though, didnt the half-caste girl in the last series pull off a stunning deal? My memory fails

Possibly, but you do realise that that is an offensive term, right? I won't make a thing out of it as I've heard people use it before who don't realise, but you might want to think about editing that post.

It's not offensive. It's a well known term for mixed race.

Explain how its racist Mr PC?

I can't think of a bigger margin of defeat in a direct sales task. I think there have been bigger gaps in tasks in recent years where teams pitch to retailers/distributors for orders, but not where the candidates have been selling products at retail themselves. Details elude me, though. Maybe the one where Liz Locke sold a massive order of baby product to Kiddicare?

Not racist per se but it's an archaic term that has it's root in Latin, the caste bit meaning pure, so half caste was a suggestion that the person was half pure and a dilution of a particular race.

Some people still use the term but it's one of those that has gradually fallen out of favour and been replaced with mixed race or dual heritage. Just my 2 cents worth.

I honestly wasn't aware of the terms fall from grace, I actually thought it was a polite way of saying mixed race. No-one's ever told me off for using it.

There may be one bigger, and as I said in my previous post this was selling to trade rather than selling direct to consumers, but season 6 episode 4 (Selling to Trade): Synergy £76,518.90, Apollo £122,625.60 - margin of victory about £46k (although less in percentage terms than this week, which was basically 23 to 1), Liz Locke alone secured a £99k order for the Baby Glow.

Just my 2p's worth, but while there are far more derogatory terms it's certainly not one I'd feel comfortable using. And, obviously, just because it's well-known doesn't necessarily make it 'right'. I'm sure we can all think of many other well-known words which are pretty much incontrovertibly regarded as racist, sexist or unacceptable in some other way.

Obviously, I don't know any of those words myself ...

Oh right, okay. I couldn't remember what the difference was, but I remembered that the other team did very well on that task as well so I presumed that the difference wasn't that great. I guess it was then.

I studied a poem called Half-Caste by John Agard for GCSE. He finds the term stupid because it implies that someone is 'half' something, and I think that's offensive. I wasn't trying to imply that The Rhydler was being deliberately racist, I've come across people before who didn't realise that that is generally regarded as an offensive term (though not as offensive as some), so I just thought I should mention it.

On another point, is The Rhydler referring to Gabrielle? She and Bilyana were the only ethnic minority women last year, and Bilyana was the first to go, so it's obviously not her.

What about Series 7, Week 8: Venture £200,000+, Logic £14,000
Or Series 7, Week 9: Venture 800,000, Logic 0

Boardroom sales records right there!

I guess it must be Gaby, although my failing memory can't think of the deal being referred to.

Despite the numerical difference, I think last night's defeat was even bigger because of the ratio of the teams' sales. Losing 120-70 is a heavy defeat, but it doesn't feel anywhere near as bad as 33 to 1-and-a-bit.

Certainly didn't mean to imply that Rhydler was being racist. There are many words which can cause offence to some (but not necessarily all) without intention. And my opinion is just that - a personal opinion. But - and this is the PC police in me coming out - if I'm unsure about whether a word may cause offence, I try to make a point of not using it. There are many, many ways to insult someone without racist or sexist epithets!

Gabrielle - thats the one, I just remembered her doing a huge deal in the last series and getting pats on the back.

I know you weren't implying anything, so that's cool.

Thing is, I think someone who has two parents of differing ethnicity would have no choice but to concede they are made up of the two etnicities. Like if you're 'half jewish' or a 'half sister' to someone - this just isn't offensive.

The whole issues of 'caste' in terms of status I understand that perhaps there could be an issue there, but that's just in the Hindu faith is it not?

what about mudblood. I expect that is offensive too.

Thanks TXF. Am I right in thinking 7.9 was the biscuit task? That was a travesty in so many ways because of the ridiculous promises Jedi Jim made to secure that one whopping order from Asda. We'll do a multi-million pound TV campaign! We'll get every celebrity who's ever lived to endorse it! We'll pay people to buy it! We'll donate all out first-born!

It was completely unrealistic. They were trying to sell crappy quality biscuits, not Ferraris. Jim was a fool for trying it, but not as big a fool as the producers for allowing such a big loophole or the Asda buyers for actually swallowing his blarney!

Emergency biscuit, anyone?

I haven't watched Series 7 in ages. I knew Helen did some amazing deals, but I couldn't remember how the other team did. But yes, I concede that I should have remembered the biscuit task! I guess that was the biggest defeat ever.


Maybe you can say in in India, I wouldn't know what is politically correct to say over there.

I think to a certain extent it's all about context. I'm British-born by birth but Malaysian Chinese by ethinicity. I'm married to an English wife. So our kids can factually say to people that they're half-Chinese or half-Malaysian or whatever and that's okay, but I would be uncomfortable if other people started labelling them as such. I don't want my kids to be referred to as 'the half-whatever one' in the playground. If someone wants to use that term while trying to describe their ethnicity or physical appearance to someone else, that's okay with me, but for one kid to call another one that, no way. It would be like my eldest son, who's pretty smart, calling some other child the 'half-stupid one'. I wouldn't accept that.from him.

Older people see nothing wrong with using many terms which are frowned upon today. Where is it all going to end because it seems what is OK today will not be in a few years.

If it is said offensively, any term can be racist, so if it is used, judge if it is meant to be and if not, recognise it for what it is.

I was pleased about the win but not pleased that gobby Neil was the PM and well done Jason.

Yes - I can understand what you are saying.

But by the same token, if someone asked you where you were from, what would you say?

I'm not mixed ethnicity. I would expect my kids to say that their dad is Malaysian-Chinese/Chinese/Asian/whatever and their mum is English (actually half Australian, which is always funny when it comes to sports). That's factually accurate. The point is there's a big difference between an individual referring themselves as [whatever] and someone else describing them as such. And even then it depends on context. If you are helping someone fill in the Equal Opportunities box on a job application, say, that's one thing. A bully calling another kid a [whatever] in the playground is very different.

Context is everything. The problem with forums is that context can be easily misread - that's my own personal reason for steering clear of such terms online. I can use other words to describe people which aren't remotely offensive. Last year's Gabrielle was always, to me, 'the creative one' or 'the architect' or just 'Gabrielle'. To be honest, describing her by her ethnicity never really occurred to me.

Obviously, I would have used Gabrielle if I remembered her name.

But I understand your points. Well said.

You mean you don't watch every episode with the candidates' photos and profiles printed out in front of you? That's just me?!?

De[ends if you measure the winning percentage, count the money difference or treat selling something against nothing literally, as a win by infinity %. This must be the biggest percentage win where the other side sold something?

In percentage terms (where losing team not selling zero), I believe that's the case. As I said elsewhere, even though the £ value was smaller, losing 33 to 1-and-a-bit must feel so much worse than losing 120-odd to 70-odd. As Alex(?) said, it was an utter annihilation. Endeavour lost out on product selection, they were hammered on accessory sales and they were utterly destroyed on high-value sales. Other than that, they were brilliant.

Yeah one is the biscuits. The other is the trip to France IIRC, where they had the folding car seat. Helen made a major sale to the online store, and Susan sold millions of those little wire hanger things that could hold your ipod.