It normally irritates me when people talk over Lord Sugar in the boardroom, but on this occasion I really felt for Lauren, because she was not given a single opportunity to defend herself. Daniel and Pamela both were, but every time Lauren spoke up she was instantly talked over by Pamela, or from Lord Sugar himself. Luckily she wasn't fired, but I thought it was really unfair that she wasn't given the opportunity to speak up for herself.

I suppose she may have said something that was cut out of the final edit.

The way Pamela cut into her almost as soon as she'd started speaking suggested it had been edited a bit strangely. Apparently those things go on for hours...

I have noticed the nastiness of Pamela since the last 2 episodes. Tonight, it really showed that she is actually quite unpleasant. I actually think that Lauren talks sense most of the time. So, I don't get it when Pamela said that "she could not understand Lauren".

The Boardrooms have become more and more just a platform for Lordalan to spew out unfunny one-liners and insult people. People used to get much more of a chance to defend and explain themselves than they do now, but I guess they think we don't want to see that now in the edit. Would probably humanise them too much.

Yes, I thought Lauren didn't get a chance to speak. As for Pamela, I really didn't like her in this task at all, rolling her eyes at everything. I'm glad she got fired. I mentioned in another thread that Lauren did a fantastic job as tour guide last week. She's seems very competent to me and yet is accused of hiding by Lord Sugar and playing a game by Pamela.

Even the most unpleasant candidates have my admiration for being able to resist rolling their eyes when he makes them all be quiet so he can botch one of his scripted zingers.

"You were selling graffiti art, and the writing's going to be on the wall for you today! How ironic! Because graffiti is on walls! And you were selling graffiti!"

I'm not sure I agree, because Pamela and Daniel were both given ample chance to defend themselves.

She didn't seem as articulate or persuasive as I expected her to be and considering her profession this was a little surprising. Pamela was incredibly immature by cutting in at every opportunity, though.

Spot on, and put far better than I could do.

The task was lost the second Pamela wouldn't change her mind on the "relationship" game and her attack on Lauren (and LAS's dumb comments) lacked any credibility.

More like calculating. She couldn't afford to let Lauren defend herself as there was no substance to her accusation. In fact Lauren did get some defence in. She commented that she couldn't be both negative and sitting on the fence (haginve been accused of both).

I don't know why they ever do market research because the PM always seems to ignore the result. On You're Fired Pamela even said that sometimes you have to ignore market research. No one pulled her up on this (they were too busy taking the p!ss out of Daniel's Relationship Guru questions).

The last two episodes really showed Pamela's true colours as passive aggressive and negative, I can't stand that type of personality as its difficult to call them out on it because they haven't actually done anything.

I like Lauren I often am thinking something and she says it.

I don't understand why Pamela's defence was so bad. Yes, it was her idea (broadly) to have a relationship-themed game; but she didn't have any input on the questions which Daniel did all by himself. The questions were the absolute failing point of this task.

Also, Pamela AND Lauren when first talking about the market research - they went to a group of basically adult gamer-boys. Not the target market for a jokey product like this at all. Why they didn't try and sell it to Ann Summers or somewhere like that is beyond me.

Honestly though, we see that Daniel's background is in a pub quiz company. His background is literally in a company that works off quiz questions, so to **** up in that way so badly - right or wrong answer questions for a mass audience based just on his own opinions - is to me unforgivable.

Yes, Pamela was a bit of a bitch at times but she could have come up with a much, much better defense for herself on this task. Lauren though, I do think she was talked over and didn't get a chance to say anything. I hate how they bullshit in the boardroom so much now as well 'Yes Lord Sugar I'll take on board everything you said to me' sounds like absolute fake bullshit from everyone this series, except the times Rosin and Lauren said it. You'd think Sugar would have less patience by now with bullshitters who bullshit to his face, but it seems he just sees that as 'sales skills'.

The biggest mistake was sticking with the relationship game when they were told that is was a bad idea by virtually everyone in the focus group, but I'd hazard a guess that at that point they had little choice but to stick with it because of the time constraints (and it's not the first time that apprentices have ignored a focus group)!

The second one was making Daniel do all the questions on his own. running a pub (general knowledge) quiz company doesn't qualify daniel to be an expert on relationships, and it was wrong to have just one person doing the questions. At the very least they should have had a woman helping him to balance out the male/ female bias, and having 2 on the questions would have probably led to far more sensible answers to the questions. at one point we saw Daniel clearly asking for help from the 2 women working on something else (which could have been done by one for at least some of the time, and he was basically ignored! From what I could see of the questions, the problem wasn't actually with them - it was with the suggested answers.

Pamela deserved to go simply because she refused to listen to the advice coming from others, and the big one was giving Daniel that task to do on his own!

I was really annoyed with Pamela accusing Lauren of not saying anything of any substance when all she could continually say was "see, this is what I have to work with!". I definitely think Lauren talks a lot of sense and would like to see her go to the final.

I thought Pamela came across much better on YF. I don't think she was so much nasty as maybe a bit immature (a bit like Ella Jade) in dealing with a tough situation.

I also thought she did a decent job defending an indefensible position (largely of her own making). As PM, it had been her choice and hers alone to run with the concept. She didn't really do much in the way of selling (we didn't see her sell, but we know Mark sold at least £600 and Daniel's sub team about £250, so there's about £200 unaccounted for between Lauren, Pamela and Mark). And there wasn't a particularly strong reason for bringing in Daniel and Lauren other than "they didn't like it" and "they didn't sell much" - the latter of which accusations could easily have rebounded on her. She should perhaps have attacked Daniel more, though.

I don't understand why Lord Sugar kept Lauren in the process if he steadfastly feels that she totally lacks the entrepreneurial spirit.

What is the point in keeping her on if he really believes this?

I felt that he suspected that, but wasn't sure yet.

What was the point in even allowing Pamela to be a candidate when one of the reasons you fire her is because she's only had a "proper" job for a year?

It's such a fake show now. Ever since they moved from being an apprentice to business partner, the show has become irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you do or don't do on tasks - if you have a business plan that Alan's interested in, he'll find ways to keep you. Just like if he's not interested, he'll find ways to get rid of you.

The show hasn't made much sense to me ever since the switch, and I find myself rolling my eyes almost every episode in the boardrooms. I think this will be my last series, can't take much more of the excuses to keep some people around/fire those who don't deserve it.

If they have to stick with this business partner crap, at least keep the plans away from Alan - he shouldn't even know what kind of business the candidates want to set up. His decisions should be based purely on the tasks - otherwise what is the point of the show exactly?

I thought Lauren was hard done by. I didn't think she had a gameplan, certainly not like Mark or, indeed, Pamela. Lauren is a solicitor & Sugar is silly not to realise that they don't usually go ranting at people, they have to be quite measured & I think Lauren is measured & thoughtful, instead of all guns blazing like Daniel.
Pamela just whined constantly through every task- glad she got fired.

I just re-watched Series 1 and I really noticed the difference in the boardroom. People say things in the boardroom in that series that would be really shocking these days.

In particular, there's an instance where Paul Torrisi is asked "who should get fired" and he says "I'm not prepared to say - you know what happened, you decide" in a rather abrupt manner. He gets away with it, but these days that would be a real shocker. It's clear throughout the whole of Series 1 that in those days at least you could talk to him man to man and actually fight back against what he says.

Whether or not that doesn't happen anymore, or the edit is now more heavily in Sugar's favour, is an intriguing question.

In fairness, Paul was very heavily criticised for that tactic. Sugar would snap, 'Well if you're not going to say who should get fired, where am I supposed to judge the bloody thing?' Paul responded, 'Judge on what I'm telling you,' and Sugar said, 'But you're not telling me anything! I'm asking who's responsible for failing the task!' Paul was kept on for much, much longer than he should have been, and maybe it's due to making a mistake with Paul that Lord Sugar has been a bit tougher on people who take that attitude since. (Also, Paul dropped the 'I'm not pointing the finger' approach when Miriam was fired - he pointed it squarely at her.)

But the fact that he got that confrontational at all just wouldn't fly these days. Directly arguing with LS is just unheard of now, whereas it happens a lot in the first few series. It isn't just Paul actually. Ruth Badger told LS he was wrong on several occasions (which he seemed to admire her for), Paul Tulip had a full-on argument with him after interviews (although he did get fired, that wasn't the reason), Jo Cameron got very sarcastic with him and survived for having spirit, and Adele Lock also get very fiery before she quit and was heard whispering "cheeky bastard" on her way out. They all have respect for him at that point but they don't hold him up as the omniscient giver of wisdom that the contestants seem to do these days.

For comparison, in Series 5 after the revamp of the show, Debra Barr answered Nick back, but not in a particularly angry way. LS went mad and threatened her with an instant firing. In Series 4 Simon tended to talk to LS man to man which didn't go down well.

Another direct comparison once again involves Paul Torrisi. After he was fired he had a right old rant about the injustice of it to LS, and although LS refuted it he didn't seem affronted by it. Jo Cameron also asked LS to reconsider after she was fired and was politely refused. A few weeks ago Ella-Jade did this (admittedly rather more desperately) and we now consider this to be the most embarrassing thing any contestant has done this series.

And now the whole ethos of the show promotes the idea that LS is above everyone else on the show and is beyond criticism. The "I won't be working, you will be working" quote, the way he now seems to constantly interrupt people (coming back to the topic of the thread), and the general negative air of most boardroom sessions. The show just doesn't treat the candidates with the respect that it used to.

I didn't feel that the boardroom session treated the candidates with respect at all around the Series 3/4 time. There were occasions when he walked in and he was already bristling and looking ready to fire someone. It got a bit lighter for a while, and now I think it's going back into that, though I don't think to the extent that it was for a while.

You make good examples there, but I do think it's less to do with era and more to do with just people that he likes or dislikes. I found Jo's pleas to be saved just as embarrassing as Ella Jade's, if not more so. In recent years there have still been people who have stood up to him - Melody a few years ago was very direct and outspoken, and just last year Luisa really played it on her own terms. I think sometimes people are assertive enough to get away with it, and sometimes they aren't. I also think, though this isn't true for every case, that women are more likely to do it and be praised for having spirit than men, who may be considered just to be irritants. Though as I said, that isn't always the way, Paul Torrisi being a prime example.

I suppose that's all fair enough. I'm probably reading things differently to you but the difference in the editing of the boardroom and particularly the candidates' relationship with Lord Sugar between Series 1/2 and now is undeniably drastic. I guess I didn't really think about the series in between all that much though. It's an interesting one.

Regards to the BIB: yes, this is very intriguing, because this is an example of how The Apprentice can sometimes get feminism completely backwards. Women are more likely to be praised for being assertive, and I find this means more likely to be criticised for not doing it, as Lauren was. I get the feeling that this overzealous support for women in business (not to mention Karren Brady being on the panel) means that Lord Sugar sometimes expects more from the women than the men, which is not supportive to women at all. If Simon Ambrose or Tom Pellereau had been women they certainly would not have won. Likewise if Syed Ahmed or Phillip Taylor had been women I think they would have done a lot better. Who knows?

I don't think LS has ever employed an 'in yer face' anyone, actually - previous winners, both men and women, have been of the milder, more balanced, even bland variety, with the exception of Lee, perhaps.