The point is the very word feminist strikes fear in all men.

If I interviewed a woman for a job, and I said, 'What are your ambitions?' and she said, 'I want to be in a management role in 5 years' that would be a tick, but if she said, 'i'm a feminist and I want to be a manager in 5 years' that would be a cross, because I'd be thinking, 'If she's not good enough, and doesn't get that promotion to management level, will she take me to an employment tribunal?'

You see, it's just not a good idea to say you are a feminist, because I've probably got a 15 minute interview before I decide if I want to offer you the job. It's only a word, but it sends fear in to many male bosses hearts.

Lord Sugar may have felt the same (none of the others put 'feminist' on their CV's).

The word 'feminist strikes fear in all men?' Utter tosh!

To be honest, some of the most committed feminists I know are male. Feminism is about gender equality; why would that strike fear in people?

We've no idea if she put "feminist" on her CV (or indeed, if the others didn't) - it's part of a website profile scrobbled together by a show researcher, probably in about 5 minutes (they've been factually inaccurate before and in Series 2 actually contained spoilers before someone noticed and hastily edited). She could fall anywhere from having included the SCUM Manifesto as a reference on her resume to mentioning an interest in feminism in passing via a pre-screening 5 minute telephone interview.

Would you want to run the risk of employing someone who might take legal action if things didn't go their own way?

Rightly or wrongly 'Feminist' is associated with people who can, to put it mildly, be very difficult to get on with.

Why needlessly open yourself up to such potential hassle if you don't have to?

I am glad she stayed she is the sort of Female I like.

I think you misunderstood.

It's the fired Jenny who has 'feminist' on her BBC profile.

I was simply trying to find a possible explanation as to why Jenny was fired ahead of Elle and/or Vana, when on the face of things they seemed more culpable.

I misunderstood nothing I was just stating that I am glad Vana stayed.

While I wouldn't go that far, I do like the fact that she actually openly mocks her fellow candidates in the boardroom Everybody does it at home, and she just joins along, lol.

Whatever you may think about her personality, she is certainly one of the strongest females this year (being strong is not the same as being mean and bossy bla bla bla...). Prefer that to shouty and catty Charleine, to be honest.

I think that's mostly in your head. You seem to have a problem there.

Not really.

Most people have not unreasonably asked, 'Why Jenny when the other two were worse'

Trying to work out Lord Sugar's reasoning, that's all.

Its probably all the stuff we have not seen that makes or breaks it, Claude and Karen are there watching everything and can give a much more honest answer than the BBC editing team with an agenda to make it look a certain way now they know who LS has fired but to make it not so obvious.

It's sad that business plans and all this stuff potentially of the outside of the show ruins the suspense of the storyline within. In the episode the edit sets up Vana as a divisive and wasteful TL; then pays it of with firing a random other person for little or no reason. It's a little too much wtf for my liking.

When Claude and Karren were swanning around in France, who was watching the bunch in the UK?

I can't imagine Lord Shuggs sitting down to watch hours of footage, so do Claude and Karren do that ... do 'minions' do it ... does the camera crew give a report ... or do they rely on feedback from the "not so unbiased" other members of the team plus edited footage?

(The same applies to any occasion when the individual teams split up)

Karren and Claude watch the footage (Karren corrected Elle about the number of times they went to the same shop).

Really? I wouldn't have thought there would be time for them to watch the footage. With the amount of footage that is captured on each task... at that stage it won't even be edited, and the boardroom always seems to be filmed quite soon after the task.

I think the producers who were there probably clarify things that the advisors didn't see.

Is that known for a fact? (Sorry, not trying to sound confrontational! )

Someone could have briefed Karren, but the question then would have been "who?"

Vana has been impressive up to this point, but she let herself down badly with her cattiness, and particularly by virtue of the fact that hours earlier she had given a "no cattiness" pep talk to her team.

Yeah Vana seemed to think that her behaviour over the first two tasks (sticking up for Dan, then sticking up for Natalie) gave her enough "the nice one" leeway to power-play more as Project Manager without looking like a bitch. Didn't really work.

The camera crew are the obvious suspects.

Yup.

However, I do sometimes wonder if Lord Shuggs has a 'minion' tagging along with the other groups to report back.

I don't. Too many people have got to the final with rubbish business plans for that. Also, generally the firing can be justified entirely from what happens on task and in the boardroom, and Lord Sugar's known biases.


No they don't. They can't. There's far too much of it to watch it all, and there's no time to edit it down to something reasonable. They do, however, take notes. As do the production crew.

Vana is pretty ghastly and the reason the US contestants are usually kicked off Celeb BB fairly smartly. She should have gone.

Yeah Vana suprised me - she seemed quite nice early on, but turned into PMzilla.

Vana's "I need you to do x for me" and "I want you to do y for me" really p*ssed me off. Why do some people feel the need to speak to colleagues like they're 3 yr olds?
It would get my back up and my feet dragging straight away to be patronised like that. Apart from that she was aggressive, humourless and sneering so yes, Vana should have gone imo.