Well, no obviously not. Then they could claim that as there were four skeletons in the team, they'd fulfilled it. Obviously when asked for a skeleton, it means a skeleton replica.

But for something to be anatomically correct, it needs to be built. If I worked in a biology lab and someone told me to procure a skeleton for the demonstration tomorrow with all the new students, and five minutes before it started I brought in a box of paper, saying, 'This can make a skeleton, but we've got to build it up first,' that would not be what was asked for. It isn't anatomically correct whilst it's still only materials, it has to fit together in the way that real skeletons do. Even if they did bring actual bones, it wouldn't count if they were just lying in a box together.

If they'd built it, I think the paper skeleton would have counted - although they'd still have lost, because in the time it would take to build they wouldn't be able to procure any other items.

It wasn't obvious and the product specification didn't state it had be fully made up, only anatomically correct, which - when fully made - it would be. All the candidates had to do was get the item.

It wasn't for a biology lab, it was to present to Lord Sugar having claimed a discount on the asking price - simple.

It wouldn't really have been anatomically correct though would it.. I thought it was two-dimensional? Real skeletons are 3D.

Yes, it would be when made up. That's the key difference. It wasn't made up, therefore it wasn't anatomically correct.

What was your thoughts on the rope, out of interest? Technically, they brought him everything that they asked for - only they brought him too much. Therefore, it was ruled as an incorrect length.


I hadn't thought of that... I'm not sure if that would have made a difference.

Even if they'd have made it up, Sugar would have ruled it out. But the packet said anatomically correct, and the shop assistant confirmed it. The spec didn't say it had to be brought to them made up.


The length of rope was specified, so they had to get that exactly right.

Maybe someone should ask him that. He uses Twitter a lot...

I still think some of that team should have kicked up a fuss with a producer about that. All it required was an anatomical skeleton. Rules on reality competition shows need to be clear they cannot have ambiguity and "assumptions" built in.

Is Sugar an Executive Producer because if not its not really up to him to come up with rules and the like.

Yep those were two of the worst firings ever IMO. Michael should've been fired in Marrakesh, it was sickening that both Raef and Sara were fired over him.

As for the Felipe skeleton thing, I completely disagreed with Lord Sugar (and his cake analogy). A flatpack bed from IKEA is still a bed. I think at worst Felipe should have been called out for being a bit cheeky, but also praised for thinking outside the box.

That's the thing, though. At other times he probably would have accepted it. He does seem to change what he sees as acceptable week by week.

He's arrogant and has got a huge chip on his shoulder.

His delusional notions about himself are nauseating.....anyone who sets any store by the government cronyism that the House of Lords has become is clearly out of touch and an inverted snob.

If and when peerages counted for anything they were awarded in honours lists twice a year...Sugar and Brady and the like have been appointed as peers to do a job for the government ,they were political appointments,they were not honoured with them for their achievements......Sugar can't tell the difference and thinks he is part of the aristocracy.
Deluded and very uncool.

Mr Sugar is one of those aggressive, fame-seeking types who knows how to keep himself in the spotlight. Mind you it's not all been plain sailing. He got in trouble for his comments about the sex discrimination law making it illegal for women to be asked at interview whether they plan to have children. He was quoted as saying "You're not allowed to ask, so it's easy – just don't employ them. It will get harder to get a job as a woman."
He also made the top 10 worst technology predictions ever when in 2005 he incorrectly predicted that the iPod would be "dead, finished, gone, kaput" by the following Christmas. I am sure if Phillip Schofield asked Mr Corbyn whether Mr Sugar was the right person to host The Apprentice the answer would be No.

To be honest, I agree with Lord Sugar on the sex discrimination thing. I know women of childbearing age who find it harder to get jobs because employers think that they're immediately going to go off and have children. They're not allowed to ask about it, so they make assumptions. Things would be fairer in the workplace if they were allowed to ask.

This is such a stupid thread, and one that isn't even about The Apprentice in the first place.

Lord Sugar no longer believes Labour's liberal lies and try-to-please-everybody attitude in life.

Shock. Horror.

I think that this forum is fairly open to threads that are not about The Apprentice per se, but the people involved. We've had threads on here about the rubbish that Katie Hopkins talks, a condolence thread for the death of Stuart Baggs and discussions of those candidates that have gone on to do Celebrity Big Brother, amongst other things. Besides which, the discussion has progressed into some quite intellectual analysis of Lord Sugar's character, which is relevant to the programme.

I think we're generally a very approachable forum, people are able to raise things without getting shot down and given that it has nearly filled up too pages, people were clearly interested enough to have this conversation. So I'm not totally sure what your point here is.