Agree that he tends to get rid of those he definitely can't imagine working for him in the longer term, more so this series than ever.

However, I feel that Sara has oustayed her capability in any case and that there are others, like Jennifer M (sorry!) who deserve to stay in more....

MmM

I think there were worse people in there than Sara.

Sir Alan seems to overlook the poor performances from certain 2 ... a lot. Interesting...

Exactly. It also puts in rather different context the "bullying" scene that they keep showing. The other apprentices also see Sara 24 hours a day. If they are not on the same team and having to work with her, they are living with her in the same house. Their opinion of Sara seemed pretty clear too and far more in line with that of Nick and Margaret than with what we're enticed to believe by the editing.

The fact that Sara was consistently named in the boardroom as someone who should go, even in cases where is seemed odd to us, is, I think, a matter of self-preservation. Whilst the end game is to beat everyone else, to get there you want to be in teams with good people, not lame ducks. Sara was ganged up on, but it wasn't some evil, malicious, inexplicable motivation. It was the fairly universal view that she was useless and the longer she stayed, the greater the chance she would be on your team and put your own position at risk as a result.

Michael should have gone last night but Sara in many ways has been spared going on with this as she was clearly out of her depth. A few weeks ago I saw four people who I thought needed to go - Kevin / Michael / Jenny / Sara. Sir Alan has got rid of all but Michael. In many ways the wrong decision for me was last week when Jennifer went instead of Michael. She had her faults but was better quality than either Michael or Sara. Weakest now are Michael / Alex & hope one or other goes next week.

Heard her on Five this morning. Totally uninspiring - interview very short as she had nothing of value to say. Listened to Simon & Jenny/Jennifer last week & they were great dealing with questions / phone-ins.

Actually the reason why the phone in was short was because the press conference from Manchester about the UEFA cup final yesterday over ran by a mile and they had to fit in everything remaining in to an hour and a half. They actually said this and apologised to those who couldn't get on air. You are not the only one that listened you know

Well if that had been the case then why didn't Sugar justify himself in that regard in the post-firing interview?

It might be regarded as unprofessional of the production company to include his comments on evidence that was not transmitted but I am suspicious that Sugar's baseless comments were the best reasons he had to fire Sara. He simply didn't like her attitude or her voice, and that seems to have been more important than her competence. His criticisms of her forceful verbal style were very odd as he usually likes such a style.

He said he was going to make sure plenty of time & would re-sort the schedule!! The fact was he was struggling to get anything out of her. He was trying his hardest but it was hardly riveting listening. The schedules are regularly re-done on this show & if inteviewee is worth it they are given time.

I would agree that Sara didn't do a good job this week but she deserved a second chance. It's funny how the people who don't even deserve a second chance have had a lot more than a couple of chances.

SAS's main reasons for firing her were because of the way she presented herself and the way she spoke, for being loud and annoying - if Sara go fired for being loud and annoying then why the HELL is Claire still there?

Just remember Siralan got close to picking Katie last year to quote himself "he hasn't got a clue" about getting the right candidate. Mind you he has been given some poor material.

Its was a hard call on this task...I think I would have sacked Michael as he just isn't any good..

Who gives a toss, its his business and he will have to pay whoever wins a salary.

Sara was probably never in the running, wether she goes now or in a few weeks time its obvious she wasnt right for the job so quit your whining.

Neither has rentagob(claire)what the hell is she doing there still

It feels like you've seen a different programme from me altogether. On the programme I was watching, Sara won her task as PM; while it's true that the other team were a shambles, and she did make mistakes, she coped very well with deliberate disruption by Claire (and remember that Claire's disruptive behaviour totally destroyed the more experienced Simon in the following task, which shows how hard it must have been to deal with).

I also didn't find her useless in the other tasks. It's difficult to tell from the edit, of course, but in the early tasks where many people are involved we may not see someone doing much simply because they are quietly getting on with things, while others messing up make better entertainment. However, from what I saw of her Sara seemed excellent in most of the tasks.

I never heard any whiny speeches from her in the boardroom either. Certainly the two occasions she was taken in there, she tried to put her case like every other contestant in the same position. If that's whining, they're all whiners. (My personal observation is that only Michael has really whined in there, and Sir Alan has saved him!) Why do you perceive Sara as whining and not other contestants?

It's certainly true that Sara said she wasn't a team player, but it sounded from what she said as if she'd never really worked on a team before and was basing this on her time on The Apprentice. If so, then working with some of the people on this show would convince anyone that they're not a team player. In any case, she always seemed to be at least trying to be a team player, which is a damn site more than some of the others were doing.

Sara was hard done-by - we only see the edit, but I don't think she hid on tasks. some of the others noticed her quiet competence and would not have liked it.

Srallan appears to be an anti-intellectual and probably has Margaret and Nick on board to balance it a bit. MM was at Herbert Smith, one of the country's most expensive law firms and Nick worked on Amstrad's behalf too. Srallan may not like intellect, but he can see the value of it as a resource. he wants pizazz and good tv - you can't imagine that he'll put the Apprentices in positions of significant responsibility.

He's not a fool, but he's not always rational and fair either.

anybody remember the Klinnsman situation?

Yes, and I thought Klinnsman completely pwned him!

We are watching the same programme. We just have a different opinion on what we are watching. For what it's worth, I think your view is the one that the editors are working to achieve.

This is a good example of the difference in our opinions:


I haven't assumed that Sara was quietly getting on with things. I saw others doing lots of things. I rarely saw Sara doing much of anything except for the one time she was the team leader. On that occasion, she was not open to any ideas but her own.

My own impression that she didn't do a lot was then cemented by the fact that the other apprentices, who have lived and worked with her 24/7, and Nick and Margaret, who have watched them all closely throughout each of the tasks, appear to have the same opinion.

What's the alternative? That all of the apprentices, or an appreciable number of them, and Nick and Margaret don't rate her for no reason?


Did I say I found only Sara whiny? I agree that Michael is also whiny and I believe I said that I thought he should have gone this week. However, Sara was always jumping in to complain and moan, not just when taken back in but in the sessions before the PM chose who to take in. I don't have copies of past episodes, but I think a good example of it was on the one where she was taken back in - week 6 - purely because she jumped in to moan and complain instead of just shutting up.

Sara's time was up, she has no charisma to be the Apprentice winner or a successful business woman. She may have been a good worker, but her selling skills were dreadful. Although, I do think she went due to her boredom-inducing character rather than ability.

Whilst I don't think Sara was 'The Apprentice' in any shape, means or form, I don't think she should have gone on Wednesday, the failure of the task was definitely down to that 'so called wedding model' Helena for choosing the wrong merchandise to flog in the first place.

SAS obviously has a soft spot for Michael, for some reason, like last year, he seems to favour the weak bumbling idiots, I think he's looking for a 'yes' man/woman, not someone who will be strong and stick up for themselves, as in previous years the best person for the job has come second.

I think Sir Alan has wanted to get rid of Sara for a few weeks and took the opportunity as soon as she was in the boardroom. I don't think that he wants Alex or Michael either, but believes that they will be both be back in the boardroom in the next couple of weeks; with Sara he didn't want to take the chance of her slipping under the radar and staying in until the end of the competition.

It was

Agree, except that surely it's Helene and Michael who will be back?

I'm not necessarily assuming that Sara was working away when we didn't see her. She may have been, she may not have been; we have no evidence to go on. The same is true of other contestants, noticeably Helene. All we can do is draw conclusions from their behaviour when we have seen them. This leads me to believe that Sara was doing her best, and Helene was contributing little. But inevitably personal bias slips in. The reality is, we just don't know.

I didn't perceive her as not being open to other ideas when she was PM. She suggested a Bollywood theme, Claire was in favour of traditional English fare. Sara held a vote and the majority went for Bollywood. I think that this was a wrong decision, but you can't say she didn't take account of the thoughts of others on the team.

The opinions of the other contestants is not necessarily that valid. You find it unconvincing that an appreciable number of her fellow contestants wouldn't rate her for no reason? In Celebrity Big Brother last year, an appreciable number of housemates disliked Shilpa Shetty; must this have been Shilpa's fault? When the Apprentice house contains, as it did this year, two or three very domineering personalities and several more rather dim, spineless individuals who didn't like to think too hard, it only takes one or two people taking against you for half the contestants to be ganging up on you. It's significant that the more discerning contestants (Simon, Raef and Lucinda; also Lee once he'd actually experienced working with her himself) felt differently. The opinions of Jenny, Michael, Lindi and Helene (the bully, the crybaby, the bimbo and the bitch) don't impress me at all; in fact, their dislike for Sara is a great recommendation for her.

Nick and Margaret's opinions are obviously to be taken more seriously, but they never expressed anything very strongly against her in their pieces to camera or in the boardroom. Indeed Nick singled her, together with Lucinda, out for special praise after the Marrakesh task. Could they be remembering things a bit differently from what they felt at the time due to Sir Alan's criticisms of her in the boardroom? Anyway, while I do take their opinions seriously, remember that they are not infallible.

I just don't perceive Sara as having whined at all. She made legitimate criticisms, and did them in a perfectly reasonable manner. The only contestant in the whole series who I feel has whined at any point was Crybaby Bullyboy Michael. He did it on this week's show ("No-oo-oo, Sir Alan, pleee-ee-ase don't fire me, wah wah, make me PM" For pity's sake, man, get some dignity!) and he did it in the very first week ("Bu-ut Alex, I thought you were my frie-ee-end, boo hoo, wah wah") You did indeed say the little twerp should have been fired this week, though personally I think it should have been Helene, who was 100% responsible for the failure of the team, was an abysmal PM in her previous stint and isn't in any way entertaing, useful or even ornamental.

I don't think Sara was taken into the boardroom on the card task because of any "moaning". We can all draw our own conclusions about what we saw, but my take is this: Claire, knowing that Jenny despises Sara (as Claire probably does too) names Sara as the one who should go, forecasting correctly that Jenny will echo this sentiment. Claire, who doesn't want to go into the boardroom herself, figures that two of the domineering characters naming her will penetrate Clueless Kevin's tiny brain, and he will then take Sara in with Jenny, leaving Claire safe. Sadly for Claire's plan, she has underestimated the sheer bottomless stupidity of the man. Kevin indeed picks up on what Claire and Jenny have said and selects Sara to go in, but -unbelievably - he leaves Jenny out and takes Claire in, thus ensuring (if it wasn't already inevitable) his own demise.

For me, that is what the penultimate show, when they do the interviews, is for; to weed out the candidates who aren't right but have made it through the tasks. The firings on the tasks should be as fair as they can be made to be; obviously Sir Alan will get it wrong sometimes, but for me it rather spoils the show when a sacking isn't fair.