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
Alan Sugar has become very rude to the contestants...
2 of 2
Originally Posted by Annsyre:
“What is multiple times? Does it mean the same as many times?”
“What is multiple times? Does it mean the same as many times?”
It means "on a plurality of occasions".
Originally Posted by Matt_Harbinson:
“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”
“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”
The boardroom can take hours to film so its all edited and could you imagine an hour of someone begging and trying to escape....he normally declares the time for their speaking to be over and don't try and mess with LS after that point just so there can be some point where he can finally sack the person
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by firefly_irl:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Jo09:
“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?”
“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?”
I remember that well! That was Michael Sophocles from
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.
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.
Agree, they suck compared to Nick and Margaret and to be honest some of Karen's commentary during the tasks makes her look less than smart.
Originally Posted by Cherrybomber:
“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.”
“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.”
Agree, they suck compared to Nick and Margaret and to be honest some of Karen's commentary during the tasks makes her look less than smart.
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?
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?
Originally Posted by Flora_McDonald:
“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?”
“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?”
Do we know how much budget they had? for all we know they could of brought a life size blow up QE2 for 20 million quid
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
2 of 2
