|
||||||||
Alan Sugar has become very rude to the contestants... |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 180
|
Yeah I agree; I have noticed that in what we see from boardroom; he talks over people a lot and says that they can't speak. A key example of this was Lauren last year; in week 6 boardroom, he never allowed her to finish what she was saying or stick up for herself. It happened a lot with Selena as well yesterday
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: European Union
Posts: 1,640
|
Quote:
What is multiple times? Does it mean the same as many times?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
|
Quote:
Yeah I agree; I have noticed that in what we see from boardroom; he talks over people a lot and says that they can't speak. A key example of this was Lauren last year; in week 6 boardroom, he never allowed her to finish what she was saying or stick up for herself. It happened a lot with Selena as well yesterday
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
|
The boardrooms suck this year but not because he's too harsh more that he's just not into it, personally I'd have no issue with him ripping into them if it was entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,171
|
I think you can mock people and insult them if they've genuinely been stupid, for the sake of a TV show, but belittling someone's real achievements or suggesting their approach to work is flat-out bad when maybe it's just not appropriate for the task is less acceptable. "Ruth, you talk too much" I think bordered on being a personal judgement rather than a professional one. Also Ruth being set up as 'talky' happened very suddenly didn't it, for someone who'd been the voice of reason the last few weeks.
I also didn't like when Scott defended Selina and Claude mocked that. I think Selina is an odious little woman, but she was only, as she said, triple-checking the price with Scott before she made her sale. Selina said so, Scott said so, and the video evidence said so. Claude came in saying something like "Scott, you're being too kind to her, you really did that sale didn't you" which I thought was very patronising to both Scott and Selina, not to mention being a falsehood, or at least a misrepresentation of what happened. I think they're trying too hard to set Selina (for example) up as a villain. Her own soundbites and attitude do that, you don't have to deliberately and vocally try and undermine everything she does just to suggest to viewers really heavy-handedly that she's no good. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On the ground
Posts: 3,686
|
Quote:
The boardrooms suck this year but not because he's too harsh more that he's just not into it, personally I'd have no issue with him ripping into them if it was entertaining.
One issue is that he has Karen and Claude not Nick and Margaret. The second issue is that the candidates are just no real contest in the BR. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 10,716
|
I think he's always been horrible but, to be fair, that's because he has to deal with a gang of incompetent muppets. I doubt he would speak to his colleagues like that in 'The Real World' or else no one would work for him. It's just part of his 'role' on the show.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 69
|
Quote:
Back on the thread topic I think Sugar has always been rude to the candidates. Remember when he said suggested pulling down someones trousers to check if they were Jewish?
series 4 - it was the week were they went to Marrakesh, Morocco. The candidates had to buy a set list of items from the market & he had no knowledge of Kosher chicken, despite claiming on his cv he was a good Jewish boy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,746
|
Sorry but the Michael thing was hilarious, also Michael was totally trying to use his Jewishness to appeal to Sugar yet didn't even know what Kosher was, he should have fired on the spot for that. Even the most casual Jew would know Kosher and Halal are not interchangeable. Quote:
The trouble with the boardrooms are two fold for me,
One issue is that he has Karen and Claude not Nick and Margaret. The second issue is that the candidates are just no real contest in the BR. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 780
|
Karen's worse than Claude or Alan Sugar. She got lucky and thinks she's superior to everyone else. She's vicious at times and doesn't take any prisoners. One sign of weakness and she's there handing the sharp knife to Lord Sugar. He is far more inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt and see some potential in them. Karen is just out for the kill. She was pushing for both the women to be fired - so much for her claims of supporting other women wanting to start out in business. She also voted in the Lords for the cuts to tax credits. Ugh!
Lord Sugar can make very arbitrary decisions. The team which won did so because they cut their costs by buying a toy inflatable boat. In other programmes, we've seen people hammered because of doing things like that. In the end, the money allocated to the task was sufficient to cover the purchase of all the items, including a proper boat, so why permit a team to win with a toy item? |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 10,733
|
Quote:
Karen's worse than Claude or Alan Sugar. She got lucky and thinks she's superior to everyone else. She's vicious at times and doesn't take any prisoners. One sign of weakness and she's there handing the sharp knife to Lord Sugar. He is far more inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt and see some potential in them. Karen is just out for the kill. She was pushing for both the women to be fired - so much for her claims of supporting other women wanting to start out in business. She also voted in the Lords for the cuts to tax credits. Ugh!
Lord Sugar can make very arbitrary decisions. The team which won did so because they cut their costs by buying a toy inflatable boat. In other programmes, we've seen people hammered because of doing things like that. In the end, the money allocated to the task was sufficient to cover the purchase of all the items, including a proper boat, so why permit a team to win with a toy item? They're given enough rope to hang themselves with and thats the point, if they're given 700 quid then they're going to know that the average price for 10 items is going to be less than 70 quid an item |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49.


