I had Ruby pegged as many things, but 'a nasty piece of work' was not previously one of them. Her comments are really quite unpleasant and unnecessarily vicious.

I agree .
Seems all the ladies on the Bake Off team chose not to be infected by the disease that hits most shows that transfer to Ch4 or Ch5 . Maybe they just weren't up for getting sexed up and cramming themselves into the obligatory reality moulds beloved of those channels because they have ethics and standards .Well done ladies .
As for Paul? Let's be honest , he makes no secret of preferring sexy young female bakers no matter how badly they bake and I'm sure Ch4 will find plenty of those to keep him twinkling and flirting .

I certainly did not get that impression?

Her social media towards the end of the series she was in was..horrific, to be honest. Threats, abuse... ugh, really nasty. She got a massive amount of abuse and gave quite a lot back, which I kind of thought 'well, it's not the way I'd do it, but you can't really blame her'.

Then the series ended and the abuse heading her way largely died off (15 minutes of fame & all that), but the tone of her posts didn't really change much at all. Oh.

I don't know if the negative aspects of her GBBO experience have left her very bitter and defensive but that's definitely how she came across, up to the point where I decided to stop following her posts anyway. That's something I do very rarely. I think she has problems, and being in the public eye hasn't helped her AT ALL.

I take your point but still think they are a bit too 'yes chef' especially Angela, they are not what I would see as bakers. I agree that having a bit of sterness is fine ,but it has to be softened. I just dont see those two very talented ladies in a bake off role.

Sexy Young Female Bake Off Winners : 0
Reasonably Attractive Young Gay Male Bake Off Winners : 2

*Clearly* Paul's preference is actually for getting noshed off by 'mos, in which case he should find plenty of those at Channel 4 as well.

One doesn't have to shed one's tears at the drop of a hat to show one cares!

I like things a bit more stoical!

Hmmm. Well mitigated. I think it was obvious from the word go, long before she became a social media target.

He doesn't work for the production company, none of them did. They had free contracts, hence they could have stayed with the BBC or switched to Channel 4.

You need lambasted for not knowing what you're talking about.

deleted, misunderstood

I don't get why people think he has to stay with the BBC though, where his future opportunities are unknown. What's wrong with following your job elsewhere?

Nothing wrong per se, but he's shot himself in the foot for future prospects. The BBC stuck with him during his 'personal issues', and this is how he's repaid them. He's chosen to go to C4, for a large sum granted, and that's fine if he's happy with taking the money and looking short term. But, then what?

Chances are that GBBO won't be a hit on C4, so what does he do after that? He's made himself unemployable by the BBC, when he could have taken less money, but with more solid future prospects with an involvement in Top Gear, as well as the inevitable replacement programme with Mel, Sue and Mary, with proven 'loyalty' to the BBC and future programmes.

Still, their contracts were for the programme, not for the BBC. I think there's too much drama surrounding this, people wishing Hollywood all the worst for having an audacity to not leave with the rest of them. I find that wildly out of proportion. There are worse things happening in the world than a TV programme changing a TV channel.

Don't be ridiculous.

Adrian Chiles left the BBC fairly acrimoniously but he's returned to present on Five Live (which happened while he was still at ITV) and occasionally Panorama.

Broadcasters aren't as tribal as you think.

Nowhere near as high profile or lucrative though, let's be honest.

I wouldn't call Chiles' departure acrimonious either to be honest, he took a bigger offer. Hollywood has done that after the BBC supported him through his marriage issues, although they did want to get rid of him at the time, and might have done so but for Mary Berry, if you believe reports. Can't see them taking too kindly to him doing what he has.

maybe I am one of the few people who finds Paul Hollywood easily replaceable. I have watched Bake Off since its inception and have found nothing special in Paul Hollywood.
Mary and Mel and Sue would be hard to replace but Paul- devoid of humour and so busy posing with his hands in his jeans pockets etc. Nah glad you're gone!

And a significant part of income is usually from personal appearances, books etc etc and this is more when you are on the most popular programme on British television rather than a tainted programme on a minority channel which many fewer viewers.

The BBC can be forgiving but I am sure he would have had a much higher profile at the BBC by now on a wider range of programmes.

I tend to agree with this.
I could see someone like James Martin easily filling the Hollywood role.

The acrimonious part was Bleakley because she appeared to try to squeeze more money out of the BBC and they just told her to go. She is now successful as a WAG but I would say that Alex Jones has been more successful on TV after replacing her on The One Show.

I would also say that his specialist area, bread, is the least interesting part of the series.

He has said in the past that he doesn't work for the BBC but that he works for Love Productions.

I find this counting ways in which Hollywood will fail and die poor and abandoned under some bridge quite ridiculous. If you think the GBBO is dead why it matters that he did not make it even deader.

I agree , he is just a pompous git anyway

Candice can come bake round my house anytime.

She's the obvious Star Baker and winner of the show. You can see it a mile away. She has charisma, looks, personality, and she can bake ! the whole package. The X-Factor of the GBBO.