Not doing a poll, but if there's someone wanting to do a poll, go ahead.

I think Liz's firing just tops everyone else's, as:
* Lord Sugar himself admitted it was a wrong decision afterwards
* Liz did not perform particularly badly in the task
* Stuart - who was agreed to have been fired instead - was fired immediately after Liz the next week
* Stella hated Liz, and admitted she was better than Stuart

Others, I think, are less obvious - Katie's from series ten was quite unjust. She had been the standout contender up til' that point, and the only thing that stopped her was her business plan. She or Roisin would've won the job in the earlier series. Alex's from series nine was also unfair - reasons for his firing were only that he waited too long to become PM (despite volunteering three times prior), the poor product (which was Myles' idea anyway) and being brow-beaten by Myles. I mean, I doubt he would've won, but the reasons for his firing weren't fair.

If there's any firing you thought was particularly unjust or unfair, mention it here. I suspect high numbers of mentions for a few of these...

There have been many that I have disagreed with, but if I was asked what I consider to be the most unfair, there is one that I think has no competition, and that is Miriam Staley from Series 1. She was fired in Week 10 after the first ever shopping channel task.

On this task, Miriam was the Project Manager and also took the presenting role, whilst her teammates (Paul and eventual winner Tim) chose the products and fed her directions in the production room. Miriam was a fantastic presenter - Sir Alan was extremely impressed by her performance, and the TV channel said that she could get a job there with minimal training. Despite this, the team lost because the other team also did quite a good presenting job, and they just had better products. As the presenter, Miriam wasn't allowed to choose the products that she would sell, and Paul and Tim did a terrible job - they didn't really think about what would sell, and their tactics were just to challenge what Saira on the other team wanted. Saira cottoned on to what they were doing at once, and made sure that she got all the best products.

The fact that Miriam was fired when she was really the only person on her team to do anything good at all was an absolute travesty, in my opinion. I think that Paul should have been fired, but if Sir Alan had wanted to keep Paul, even firing Tim would have been far fairer than firing Miriam. There really wasn't anything more that she could have done on that task. Maybe she shouldn't have been Project Manager, but at the time they picked the PMs, they hadn't chosen the presenters, and when the time came to choose the presenters she was the only one who was any good at it. In addition to that, on the previous tasks it is my opinion that Miriam was generally a better performer than either Paul or Tim - she really only made one mistake in the whole process, which was spending too much money on cheese in Week 8.

There have been many unjust firings since then, but I don't think any of them have reached the Miriam standard of unfairness. She is the only other candidate (besides Liz) that Lord Sugar has later admitted was the wrong decision.

Other contenders that haven't been mentioned:
Shazia from Series 4 (seemed to be the only person on her team to bring any organisation to the laundry task)
Sara from Series 4 (clearly a stronger contender than her team made her out to be, especially when compared to Michael Sophocles)
Raef from Series 4 (ditto)
Kimberly from Series 5 (I didn't think she was that amazing, but I'd have liked to see her kept over Philip)
Jordan from JA1 (he lost control of the first task, but he was clearly a very intelligent young man and I really would have liked to see a bit more of him)
Edna from Series 7 (slightly unusual one, but I just think she showed more talent than Zoe)
Harry H from YA2 (horrendously unfair firing based purely on a ludicrous format twist)
Rebecca from Series 9 (very strong saleswoman, I don't understand why she was fired over Francesca)
Ella Jade from Series 10 (she didn't do very well on that task, but on previous tasks she had been very strong, and she certainly wasn't in the same league as Steven and Sarah, the two who had gone before her)

I thought you'd mention Miriam's...
I agree, hers was unjust. It really was a toss-up between the two for me.
For the others you've mentioned - I agree with some, disagree with others. Raef's firing was unjust not just because of what happened, but because of the actual overall result being unfair.
Edna I'd disagree with. She'd shown no skills throughout the competition I was aware of, whilst Lord Sugar gave Zoe some credit for admitting to her mistakes.
Rebecca was excellent at sales, but she didn't get on with her team. They had it in for her from the beginning. Not helped by Nick dobbing her in as the "motivational speaker" person - hence, why she was fired.
Ella Jade's firing was similar to Katie's - they'd both been very strong until the task that best suited their business plan. Ella Jade was quite good until then, but she really shot herself in the foot in the boardroom, then added insult to injury by begging LS to stay.

If I could throw in some more (sorry!)
Felipe's was definitely the most controversial. I didn't think it was the best move, but Lord Sugar was unfair by fining the whole team money for that one blunder, as it wasn't the most obvious of errors.
Pretty much any firing from series eight. Bilyana, merely for her behaviour in the boardroom. Duane, for being given a winner's edit then being fired for one small mistake. Katie, for being shown to be weak, then getting stronger, then fired. Jenna, for being an able candidate ruined by one thing. All of series eights' firings were pretty much for the tiniest of errors, though most of the time, the PM's brought in the wrong people.
Not a firing, per say, but the whole final of series seven was just wrong to me. Tom was one of the worst candidates that series, his business plan was poor but he won anyway. Helen or Susan should've won.
Going back much further, Paul in series three was not so much a bad firing, but for the wrong reasons. Fair enough, the cheese wasn't "high-quality", but it was popular in France.
Overall, LS does get it right most of the time. He just makes the odd blunder, I think.

I've only seen Series 4 once and that was ages ago, so I can't really comment. Generally he was just a much stronger candidate than Michael.


Series 7 is another one I haven't seen in a while, though I remember it a bit better. I think Edna was given a bit of a bad rap - I thought she was able to maintain her cool and professional demeanour better than Zoe was, and I didn't think she was unpleasant in the way that many seemed to. Though I realise that that's a controversial one.


I think she was a very strong, credible, professional businesswoman, who did not make the decisions that cost them the task. She did hire the professional speaker, but had she not they probably would have had to give even bigger refunds - if Francesca or someone had given the motivational speech they would have really sunk. I think Rebecca had shown a lot more talent than Francesca, who I really don't understand how she got as far as she did - she didn't seem do anything especially good on any of the tasks, and it said a lot that in the Final Five show, Lord Sugar and his advisors kept saying, 'Francesca is so fair' because they couldn't think of anything better to say about her! Rebecca (or many of the others) would have filled Francesca's spot a lot better. (That said, she didn't defend herself very well in the boardroom - she said, 'I've given up a lot to be here', which is a silly thing to say - they all have. That's not going to make him keep her.)


I disagree - that task had nothing at all to do with Ella's business plan. As Ella honestly pointed out from the start, her experience is in the actual filming and editing, not in YouTube or social media. Making documentaries is entirely different from making comedy virals. Besides which, virals do not normally become viral in the time scale they had unless they already have lots of followers. Besides which, they normally become viral by accident because of an unintentional humorous moment (like Charlie Bit My Finger), they are rarely planned. Besides which, that task was won on choosing the best YouTube ally, which was chosen by Solomon - we didn't see Ella even considering it, which leads me to think she was just left with the person that Solomon didn't want, and he'd grabbed the best person. I think she was doomed from the start on that one. Although I agree, she did embarrass herself in the boardroom. I just thought it was unfair that the triple firing was the joke candidates Steven and Sarah - and then Ella Jade, who up until that point had been nowhere near their level.


Now I didn't have a problem with that one. Firstly I didn't have a problem with why the team lost - the materials may not have been specified, but it did have to be anatomically correct, and the fact that what they handed in was just a box of materials meant it was not anatomically correct. Anatomically correct skeletons are built. In that way, I think Felipe's firing was justified, as he had pushed to buy it, and given that he was a lawyer, he should have understood that 'anatomically correct' also meant built. Besides which, he had been treading water for a few weeks and hadn't been majorly impressive. In general Daniel had performed worse, but on that particular task Daniel had been a pretty decent PM, and firing Katie would have been ludicrous.


Okay, yes I didn't think of Bilyana's. I would have liked to see her go further. Although I'm not sure it was that unfair; I think Lord Sugar could just see that they were never going to get along together, and that is a justified reason. (For this reason, I haven't included Karen Bremner from Series 2 - I'm sure a lot of people think that was very unfair, but I think that bright as she may have been, she and Lord Sugar were just not going to naturally gel.)


Yes, Duane's was harsh, but on that task it was a really hard one. That team was easily the better team and should have won, and out of the three people in front of him, there was more reason to fire Duane than to fire Ricky or Laura. If anything, Lord Sugar should have let them all go and made up for it with an extra double firing later - but I'm not sure if he's allowed to do that.


Fair points, I disagreed with those two.


Now I dispute that Tom was one of the worst candidates. He had a poor track record (only three wins) but generally he was one of the stronger performers on the team. I think it says a lot that despite being on the losing team for five successive tasks, he was not brought into the final boardroom on any of them. I'd say that depicts someone in a stronger light than being on five winning teams; you can be on the winning team by fluke, but if you're on a losing team and aren't brought back, you must have at least done enough not to end up in the PM's sights.

The final of that series was awkward, but for a different reason. It was the first business plan series, and it was evident that it hadn't really been thought through. Lord Sugar apparently hadn't looked at any of the business plans in advance, which meant that we had three very poor plans, and the one that wasn't (Susan's) wasn't quite ready for investment at that time, though he has invested since. Given the circumstances, I have no issue with him choosing Tom - which, contrary to popular belief, was not because of the nail file - the nail file wasn't even what he was offering, it was office chairs. Tom was chosen because as a young, enthusiastic inventor, he was someone who could be worked with to create a really great business, and the nail file decision was made after Lord Sugar had already decided to go with him.


Strongly disagree. The cheese had really not taken off in France, and it was a foolish decision to choose it - the French are so much more known for their cheese than the British, it wasn't even funny. There is a reason why French cheese is popular in England, and not the other way around. And the other reason why Paul was fired was because he didn't bring Katie into the boardroom, reputedly because they had started a romantic relationship in the house. Bringing back Kristina, when she had worked really hard to bring the task back, was incredibly unfair. (Having said that, on previous tasks Paul had been a very strong performer, he really let himself down on that one.)

There's so many.
But you have to remember that this show isn't fair. Alan Sugar can hire anyone he wants for whatever reason, and make up any reason he wants to hire or fire someone.
The tasks probably mean very little.

How can some of you even remember people from past shows? I never can!

I always wonder this, on forums like this one, x-factor, big brother etc... people seem to have such clear memories of the people who were on the show like 5 or 6 years ago.

Mine is more of a, might recognise them if I saw them again, type of memory. Of course, there's a handful of big characters I sometimes remember, but the rest of them just blur into one.

I know what you mean. Especially with Big Brother. For a very strange reason I can remember contestants from the very first 5 series quite clearly, but after series 5 I can't remember many of them, even less so remember what happened on the shows.
It's very strange that my memories of the first few series of Big Brother are much clearer than those that came afterwards.
People have even linked to photos of people who have been in it, I know that I actually watched the particular series at the time, but have absolutely no memory of the name or the face that's been linked to.

Anybody who was on a team with Michael Sophocles and was sent home before him.

Shazia, I still don't get how she went that week when Jenny C had made a horlicks of the whole task and you had Lindi and Jenny M overbidding and underbidding things and the 24 hour hotline.

My memory is just for faces I think. I never seem to forget a face, but there's people here would can name past apprentice candidates, tell you what week they were fired, how much money they made in a task, what Sugar said to them etc... I'd have no idea about any of that!

I am sort of the same with BB. I'm more likely to remember people from the first few series than the newer ones, only because I think I enjoyed those series more and was more into BB back then.

Everyone, ever was a stronger candidate than Michael.

Miriam could have gone earlier, during the Farmer's Market task when she overspent on ingredients.

The most unjust that in my opinion is Karen Bremner's in S2, fired for being a lawyer.

IMHO Ruth Badger and Claire Young should never have been fired. I can't recall the circumstances that they were fired.. but having followed them ever since the show they're clearly very good business women and I think would have been a great success working for Lord Sugar at the various points they took part.

I can't speak for the others, but I have seen most of the series numerous times, that is how I remember things like that.


Yes, Miriam could have justifiably been fired on that task, but it was really the only mistake that she made in the whole series. Nearly every strong candidate in history has had one task that they've messed up on, and that was hers. I cut her a bit of slack for that.

That wasn't the only reason Karen was fired. The mistake that she made was that for the second week running, she had been so confident that she was staying that she didn't say anything in her own defence, whereas Jo and Alexa made more of an effort to defend themselves. Also, she really hadn't done that well in the task. Her dinner jacket negotiation was awful - she spent ages trying to talk the guy down, and then it turned out that he didn't have what they needed in the first place. And she had been deemed partially responsible for the failure to get the tyre. Which isn't to say that I thought she should have been fired - Jo performed worse on the task, but Karen was far from fantastic. Her card had been marked from the first episode when she won as PM, but on very shaky ethical grounds which almost got them disqualified, she hadn't done very well on the task, she hadn't really tried to defend herself and Lord Sugar is sceptical about lawyers anyway. All these things added together meant that Karen was out the door, and I wouldn't say it was up there with the majorly unfair ones.

I concur with most of these, particularly those in S4 where detestable liars seemed to prevail over better candidates, Miriam and Karen.

Neither of them were fired

They both lost the final.

Lucinda springs to mind. Should have made it to the final.

Much as I liked Lucinda, I disagree. While she had many admirable qualities and she demonstrated she was an excellent leader, her ability to work within a team and adapt when she was in unfamiliar territory was terrible.

While not necessarily an unjust firing, I think Sara Dhada, from the same series, was fired too harshly. Sir Alan seemed angered with her and it came across as brutal which I didn't think she deserved.

Alex in season 9. Myles, Neil and to a lesser extent Jordan seemed to be conspiring against him by not letting him be PM. Then those 3 would be an absolute disaster the next week

Duane in season 8 was excellent before his shock firing

I have to go with Karen in S2. I know she didn't exactly perform well the week she went but for me Jo and Alexa were weaker than her that particular week. The task was a disaster from the start with Jo spending far too much time faffing around in the room instead of getting out there and negotiating and all Alexa did was write stuff on a white board which was absolutely pointless and wasted precious time.

Had they gone out sooner, chances are they would have had the time to locate the tyre. If it hadn't been for Ruth and Michelle that week, they would have lost the task by a huge margin.

Agree on both, Raef was fired before Sophocles & they were on the same team for the task Raef got fired on, Sophocles was lucky not to go for the Marrakesh task, especially as he claimed to be half Jewish & went to a Halal Butcher for Kosher Chicken.

Shazia should never have been fired, the mistake occurred after she left the laundry room was entirely Jenny C's fault, Jenny C got her comeuppance for the Marrakesh task.

Miriam & Liz the most unjust firings of TA didn't do anything wrong

We've now come to a point where Lord Suggs has berated an entire team repeatedly and fired Felipé over a "false" skeleton because "it didn't fit the specifications required" while, in the latest episode, a candidate was given praise for thinking outside the box for getting a toy dinghy instead of an actual dinghy for just £10, essentially Lord Suggs has made himself out to be rather contrary, and now in retrospect with that context, the firing of Felipé was highly unfair.

Yes, that is because the boat fitted the specification and the skeleton didn't. The only specification for the boat was that it had to be a certain size or over it - it fitted the minimum size required, therefore it was accepted. Felipe's skeleton was not anatomically correct as it was not fitted together, it was merely a collection of materials that had the potential to create a skeleton, but didn't in the form it was presented.

To be honest I don't see why people find that so hard to understand, I feel like I spend half my life clarifying why that skeleton wasn't accepted on this forum.

Liz Locke's firing, most definitely. She was a high-achiever throughout the show.

Miriam from Series 1.

An excellent candidate all round (certainly streets ahead of Saira), but more than that she was fired on a task (the TV Shopping Channel Task) on which it was generally agreed she had performed excellently.

There was one, relatively minor, subjective mistake that she made on the task and for some reason Sugar battened on to it and fired her. I think perhaps she was the victim of some female jealousy from Margaret Mountford, who pushed for her to be fired (following a task in which as I say she had done very well)

Paul from Series 2.

Was an extremely strong performer throughout the entire Series, but then was fired in the Interviews episode. A couple of the interviewers took a strong dislike to him, thinking he was just some brash salesman.

Then Sugar fired him on the basis that "you haven't really stood out/done anything throghout the whole series".

In fact he had done and contributed a hell of a lot. It was just that, ironically, he had won every task he was in/managed and never been taken into the boardroom so Sugar didn't know anything about him. I think even Nick Hewer said as much in "You're Fired"

Interesting! I do think he should have been fired, but maybe not as big a fall from grace as he had. I think the final that year should have been between Ruth and Ansell - but I would have fired Michelle first, and given Paul a 'with regret' at the end.