Now, I normally like our Baroness Brady, but I thought last night she had a real streak of unpleasantness to her. Quite a few of her comments were harsh, and I think cross to the levels of unfairness. She seemed to have quite a personal issue with Jenny, as much as Vana did really - 'The thing about Jenny is that she always has her excuse ready'. Well, surely that being a problem depends on what the person is actually saying to excuse themselves? Maybe there's bits we haven't seen, but I haven't seen any of that in the past two weeks. We didn't really see her on the first task (but normally if we don't see someone on the first task, it means they were quietly getting on with things) and on the second, she did a good job on the photo shoot and was actively praised by Charleine in the boardroom. There didn't seem to be anything for her to excuse herself from on either of those. And on that one I thought that a lot of what Jenny was saying made sense - she had done a lot of work to try to source various things, and I thought a lot of her instincts were spot on. If Vana had let the English sub-team look for the mirror, Jenny would probably have found it; she could have called her dad who might well have been able to give them a good lead.

Karren didn't seem to recognise any of that, she just complained that 'after Jenny was told she couldn't buy the mussels, she didn't ask to speak to anyone in charge'... well, I actually think that's rubbish. She was given a very good reason for why they couldn't buy them - they were the only mussels that the restaurant had left, and they'd have had to take all of the mussel dishes off the menu if they'd sold them. If Jenny had been more persistent, either they'd have wasted an extra ten minutes and still not got them, or they'd have had to pay so much money that they'd be compensating for every customer who might order them, plus however much extra for the restaurant's good will. And you can guarantee that in either of those instances, Jenny would have been the one criticised (and I probably would have agreed with that criticism had it happened).

I also thought she was unfair on Elle. I thought generally Elle was a really decent sub-team leader - did a much better job than Vana, probably would have been better as PM generally. She ignored her instincts on the boat, but Vana had told her to buy it. Admittedly Elle did lose her cool for about a minute, saying, 'Help! I don't know what to do!' but that was the only time that happened all day, her instincts were right and Vana overrode them. I think Elle should have been recognised for trying to do the right thing. I felt like Lord Sugar started to realise that, but Karren didn't.

Really disappointed in her, I think usually she seems a lot more fair and reasonable than that.

I suspect there will be a rule that says you can't phone your dad because he's an antiques dealer.

She certainly couldn't have bought from him, because he could have sold it for a £1, or recommended a friend who would have done her a special favour.

Isn't there no contacts with family and friends (or the internet) rule? Good old Yellow Pages (or similar) does seem to be acceptable though, or do the producers give them the numbers of a few establishments who are willing to have a film crew descend on them?

Even if that was the case (and if it was, they ought to have clarified it on the show) it still doesn't make Karren's comments fair or reasonable.

All down to the edit. I suspect that both Karen and Claude had things to say about all of the candidates, we just get to the see the ones that will help sink them or throw them a lifebelt.

There's definitely a rule about not getting any help from friends/family members/prior contacts during tasks. It was a big scandal in the press during Series 5 when Debra (allegedly) secretly called up her mates to get them to buy stuff during the Shopping Channel task. It makes sense, because otherwise it'd turn into a Celebrity Apprentice USA task and the candidates who live in the South East would be at even more of an advantage than they already are.

Another thing is Karren is held up as a "business superwomen" and champions women in business, I suppose it annoys her when she see's this "shower of sh*t" that are supposedly Britain's best and brightest young business women.

There is a rule about not contacting friends, family or former colleagues, certainly during tasks as it would give some an unfair advantage. They also aren't allowed to use the Internet to research products (to find out what they are in the first place) or best prices.

I agree about Karren.
I think she sometimes seems harder on the women as she finds their bitchiness and responsibility dodging rather embarrassing as a woman herself. I'd feel exactly the same if I were in her shoes, in fact i feel the same just watching them from home.

I think most of the candidates probably got a roasting from Karren, it's just that they showed her comments about the final 3 because they were the final 3.

Nice to see her getting at the girls a bit, it's usually the men who cop it from her

The way I understood Jenny's comment re her Dad was that he was an antique dealer - and because of that, she knew that there were antique shops in Canterbury (in fact there are Loads of antique dealers round that part of Kent) where they might have been able to get a mirror. Vana refused to even let her go and try a few phone calls. I'll bet that they might have got one had the PM not stuck to the "That's a French item!" Line she spouted.

I don't think there's any rule about using your own knowledge - just contacting friends and family to tap into theirs!

She seemed to have a right one on her last night , she looked a bit of a state at times too, maybe she had had a bad week at home that week

I thought both Claude and Karren were unfair on Jenny; Claude says 'she's not very good' however he only followed her on shampoo task where she did lead the digital billboard which was deemed as a better part of their overall campaign. I think Jenny's point on the manure was that Ruth didn't contribute much however her name was attached to getting that which meant she avoided criticism. Jenny had been given the lace to source which turned out, couldn't be source in UK and her advice on this was helpful for the others. I thought it was weird that Jenny was criticised for making excuses and Vana was criticised for not making excuses; I actually thought that Jenny owned up to the errors she made. It does show that sometimes, there is favouritism for particular people and if you are not favoured, whatever approach you take will be wrong.

But Claude and Karren both spend more time with her than we do. We only see them in short 30 or 40 minute packages per episode before the boardroom...they spend days at a time

I think your points about Jenny are valid and her firing was unjust. She had contributed a lot in previous tasks and wasn't useless on this one. The team leader on that task was more at fault. I expect we were shown Karren's criticism of Jenny because she was in line to be fired.

Thinking about it, there probably is a rule about not contacting people you know. I don't think that is fair though. There are many times when by luck, you'll have someone on the team who knows something - like on Series 9's away day task, Luisa knew how to run cupcake-making classes, which meant that they didn't need to spend any money on someone to run activities like that. The team were just lucky in that they could utilise Luisa's skills. I don't see why Jenny contacting her dad, or indeed just a supplier that she happened to know from before, would have been any more unacceptable than the other half of the team managing to procure the champagne flutes from a professional who happened to overhear them talking in the hotel. Sometimes good fortune just occurs, that's the way of the world. They'd be allowed to contact someone like that if they'd just found them in the phone book, so why can't they utilise the help of a contact that someone already had?

But anyway, that doesn't make a difference to Karren's comments. I think in general she was very unfair, and I find it very odd to think that she thought spending more time in that restaurant was a good idea.


Well if that's the case, they didn't show a very good edit, did they? If Jenny was worse than she seemed, they should have shown those things happening. From what I saw of Jenny, she seemed to be a pretty level-headed woman.

Not always easy to do the 'edit' with the amount of footage at their disposal, nor are they obliged to tell a story of the fired candidate at the expense of other footage of people that are remaining in the process.

I don't think anything suggested she had a personal issue with Jenny. Her statement on Jenny's excuses seemed to have little grounding, but I don't think that suggests there was a personal issue.

When was she unfair on Elle? Personally I don't think the girls team did a good job, particularly with the boat debacle, so it doesn't surprise me that she was a bit hacked off.

She certainly didn't strike me as bitter. Just a bit annoyed about how the girls had done in the task. She did praise the girls over the champagne flutes after all.

The difference is that over the course of the 12 weeks, there is usually at least one task which is designed to play up to the candidates experience and skill set. Sugar mentions it in the Board room afterwards "you are in such and such a business, this was YOUR task and your chance to shine" - usually followed by "why didn't you"? With the example of Luisa, quite a few will have had relevent experience there that they could apply in that kind of circumstances - like somebody that runs a wine Import business or Restaurant could have organised a wine tasting activity and ex Army could organise some kind of 'outwards Bound' or 'assault course' exercise.

Given that nearly all but one or two of the tasks take place in and around London, that would give anybody from that area, especially anybody that had worked there, a huge advantage. I mean, had i applied to go on this thing when it started, when i was early 30s, i'd have had 10 years experience working in London with contacts (and/or friends) in Publishing, Advertising, TV Production, Banking, Law, even a Jeweller in Hatton Garden, that somebody from Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow just wouldn't have in London. That would just have been my friends, let alone bringing my Dad and all his contacts into it!

Also, how could you manage it to ensure that no preferential treatment took place, a retailer letting a team have something at cost because they went to school with a Candidate's Dad for example? Or even, that a relative of the Candidate didn't pay them the difference between the RRP and discounted price without the TV Producers knowing? It could even be set up prior to the Candidate joining the show? They sound this contact out before hand "he you know i've applied for The Apprentice, there's always a shopping task, if i come to your antiques shop or Jewellers, you'll give me a good deal won't you, i'll take you out to dinner afterwards".

I'm not saying anybody would be dishonest enough to do that, or that it wouldn't get caught, but the possibilities for abuse are clearly there.

Yes, I didn't know about this thread, but I posted in another thread about how I noticed her criticising Jenny for thinking up excuses to bring to the boardroom with her.

I don't know if Karen got the memo but that's the whole point of the show.
Contestants think up excuses to defend themselves in the boardroom so that they don't get fired. They all do it. That's even what they're expected to do if they don't want to end up like Dan from episode one.

Elle was criticised for buying the dinghy (even though she was literally ordered to buy it by her project manager).
But if Elle didn't buy the dinghy then she would have been in exactly the same position as Jenny.
So what the hell are these contestants supposed to do to please these people?

Yeah, Karren was saying to her that she shouldn't have ignored her gut feeling, she didn't, to not get the boat would have meant ignoring her PM and she'd have been in the doghouse for that too,

That has made me think actually, i wonder if there are rules in place about going somewhere 'ad hoc' where you already know somebody that works there - or even owns it? For example, i know a couple of restaurant and Hotel managers in London (and a couple of other towns) - if i were on, would i be allowed to say, I know the manager of such and such, they'll probably have some Mussels they'd be willing to sell us or they'd probably be willing to take a couple of crates of this new drink we've made off our hands as a favour for me. Not organising it in advance, but just turning up on their doorstep.

Or if you know somebody from one of the outside agencies they draft in to judge the work - like I know people that have worked at Arc (the ad agency they used last week) for example.

I'd imagine you must have to declare anything like that beforehand or if they walked into the room - similar to (though obviously less important) them checking through the witness list at the start of a Trial to ensure nobody on the Jury has a prior connection.

You're right, she so obviously wasn't ignoring her gut feeling because it clearly showed her in the taxi troubling herself about it. She told the PM that she didn't want to buy it because it's not worth it, but the pm ordered her to buy it.

If she didn't buy it then Sugar would have certainly used that against her in the boardroom and probably fired her for disobeying her pm and telling her that he couldn't work with somebody who directly went against an instruction he had given them. He's been very critical of contestants in the past who disobey instructions given to them by their pm.

What about last year, when Daniel went into the Jewish butcher's shop that his family frequented?

I am starting to think the producers may give them a list of approved contacts.

But- every so often you will see a situation like last night when they drove past a chinese restaurant, and briefly considered going inside. So, I suppose if they had wanted to go inside, they would.

But, if they 'knew someone' in the restaurant, even if they got away with it at the time, you can bet your life someone would shop them when it appeared on tv (like Bianca with her flesh tone tights).

Yes, I would agree with this. Thinking up excises is a pretty daft criticism when a big part of the show is being able to justify (aka, make excuses for) any failure in the task, once in the Board Room.

All i can think is, maybe she does it constantly, even through the task rather than voicing any concerns and then getting on with it. Having somebody be constantly talking about excusing themselves of any failure that might happen could be very draining on the rest of the group.

But, the problem is, we didn't see much of that so it seemed to come a little from nowhere.