No, he doesn't; he relies on reports from Margaret and Nick. He only gets to see the filmed TV programme about the same time we do.

You don't actually know that there is anyone in particular who first took against Adam and led the others, and if so, who it is. It could be Simon; maybe it was Paul. They don't like him and we don't really know why. It could be he is a wet blanket or is not good at fitting in or going along with them. Ganging up does happen in workplaces and when it does, rarely, if ever, does anyone stand out against it: rather, it is taken as reflecting badly on the person disliked and it usually has adverse consequences for that person, not for those doing the ostracising.

So do you agree that Adam is being ostracised or ganged up on?

And if so, who do you think started it? And why?

As I said in my last post, they don't like him, and we don't know the reason, or how it started, or who started anything, if anybody did. Maybe it was a spontaneous shared perception of him and that there is something about his personality that marked him off and apart from a number of the others. We are too much in the dark about what is going on.

Don't you think it strange that the public perception of Katie has changed...and the public perception of Adam has changed?

Sure we go by what we see on a one hour show....but isn't that the point? We are geared to what we see on that one hour show, and therefore can only respond to it accordingly.

Katie is vile....no doubt about it. That is how the show is edited.

Adam is an alright guy and is not vile...as his fellow colleagues want us to believe.....That is how the show is edited.


We do not know FA about anything else about this show other than what they SHOW!

So my question to you is:

Do we go on what is shown or do we have to be detectives and go on what is NOT shown?

So what judgement do we go with?

Margaret and Nick are supposed to be SAS' eyes and ears on the tasks, this is what has saved Adam so far, Margaret likes him and she speaks up.

I wish we had more inside views on the decision making process. Firing decisions have been too inconsistent over 2.5 series for what we see to be taken as the whole story.

I actually think that if Paul had taken Katie into boardroom this week she would have gone. (AS commented on fact she wasn't being taken in). She has been saved last two weeks by team leaders so can't blame AS for that. It is the dynamic of the game & Katie has played that bit well but as soon as she is in I suspect she will be gone unless someone else is an absolute total disaster.

MB

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that. Increasingly discussion on DS is around personality rather than business accumen but the edit of show is partly to blame. The need to 'sell this weeks story' & 'sensationalise contestants comments on others' is detracting away from what was the basis of the show - job interview for the role of an apprentice. It is moving increasingly toward being far more of a 'standard' reality tv show - albeit a high quality one than it set out to be in series 1. Getting more viewers but losing the integrity of the show.

MB

do you think bullying is funny?

Story on the sun website claims he has left his job on "good terms". Wonder if hes won?

if Adam was not white and being treated like he is by the others, would every body be calling it racism ??

There's an article in todays Sun, which depending on how you interpret it, could give away how far Adam gets.

It says he resigned from his job "recently on good terms"

So to me that could mean one of two things

Far more importantly it mentions a girlfriend ...not a wife... meaning it's an old story OR andyscouser's hopes might be given a boost

I really should reign my enthusiasm in shouldn't I?

Playing hard to get is very overrated! xx

Actually I think it's because he is perceived as the biggest threat. He's shown again and again that he is capable of selling crap that he doesn't believe in, and doing it well.

That's what AMS's business is founded on.