Consider me kicked.

If she is, then I'm on the same planet.

If your boss makes a decision, and it's your job to implement it, you do one of two things. You quit or you get on with it and make the best of it even when you disagree with the original decision. You don't sulk, moan and carp. Not unless you're 12.

Well I am not on planet Lucinda thats for sure

She was airing her opinion. She still got on with the job but she let them know what she thought. The decisions the "boss" made during this tasks were bad ones and could have lost them the task. If Renaissance had included more tissue references, Alpha would have been crushed.

This is where the time factor is all important.

AS has criticised people before for not being more forceful about their concerns. Even if it was a bit late, if L was that bothered she was correct to spend a short time making her points forcefully.

If she then knuckled down and got on with the job - fine.
If she carried on whinging (this does not include pieces to camera where she was clearly asked) andfailed to make best efforts in the remainder of the project, not fine.

Unfortunately, the way the programme was edited (and given the limited screen time available that's understandable to a certain extent) we just don't know. From what I've seen of her elsewhere I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.

There is a similar editing problem with Helene. She has far less screen time than any of the other candidates.
Some people simply assume that because we can't see her doing anything she isn't doing anything. They may be right but they have no way of knowing - yet they seem quite certain in their judgement.

We don't know the extent to which she got on with the job. All we know is that she appeared to complain more than once and all after the fact. Lee made a comment about her behaviour with specific reference to it being extremely unhelpful when they were "one-man-down" ie. there were three of them against four on the other team. Lee also said in the board room that Lucinda did volunteer to do the location hunt. She denied it but we know now from the playbacks that what Lee said was true.

Now, yes, you can assume that Lucinda was brilliant throughout except for the three times she brought up her opinion on something that couldn't be fixed and that Lee is just a lying bastard who says something with no basis behind it.

I don't.

Not true - nowhere in the episode does it show Lucinda volunteer to go viewing locations - she said herself she'd rather stay and talk to the designer.

Watch a replay then

ALL of the evidence points to Lucinda obstructing, delaying and sabotaging the task. Quite how Alex put up with her is incredible.

If you are giving her the benefit of the doubt then you are doing so in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, which suggests you are less than objective.

I just did - that's how I know.

I'm sorry. I made the mistake of assuming that you'd read the other posts in this thread. On the playbacks, Lucinda does volunteer reluctantly. This was pointed out by Katenutzs on the previous page. Katenutzs, can you give us a link or information to find this?

2LO, we are certainly on the same page with regards to understanding the limitations of what we see. Even though I quite like Lucinda, I'm less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. I don't think Lee's objection was fantasy, so I bend towards his view being a justified one. It helps me that it supports opinions of Lucinda that have been expressed by others at different times. That, plus her behaviour in the cab that I did see.

I am fascinated watching Claire's position, both on the show and on these boards. On the boards, she's gobby and disruptive because she tries to force her opinions on others. On the show she's criticized for not being forceful enough and for stepping back (twice now, I think). Even though people are increasingly changing their perception of at least her competence, many still hate her because she's gobby and disruptive. Poor girl can't win.

I agree with you 100% about Helene. We don't know, we can't know and nobody except the apprentices, Nick and Margaret can comment on her contribution with any authority.

Me too! None of them really!! I REALLY hope Helene does not win...cant stand the moody cow

Sorry Vivid but I'm sticking to my guns

After my favourite departed last night, I'm now backing Lucinda who is the best of a very bad bunch this year.

The only other candidate I could bear to see win out of the remaining few is Claire simply because she's shown herself to be quite competent at times.

Alex is talentless and has been very lucky so far, Lee is inexperienced and has a nasty temper, Helene is a complete non-entity and Michael is a disaster.

What was wrong with her being negative though? She didnt like the design of the box, which was crap, and wasnt afraid to say so. Better to be that than be all "yeah, yeah it's great" during the task and then "I hated it" in the boardroom.

Funny how things can be twisted.

She had to go on so much because she wasn't being listened to at all, as pointed out in the show afterwards she was correct in the things which she was saying. Last week Lucinda made a point to Lee and Lee just took it and that was that. Alex wouldn't do that. Alex said to camera that all he was doing was making her feel like she had 'some' control over something. He was just dismissing her and clearly, I feel, trying to put her in a position where if they lost he could easily try to get her fired. Hence why the moment they got into the boardroom, before they'd even announced the results she was turned on.

I've already pointed out in another thread that SAS said to Claire she hadn't made a big enough point about the advert and she should have drilled it home more and tried to save the task. Well Lucinda was doing that the whole task, because she could see where it was going wrong. They didn't do well, they were just lucky that the other team made such a fundamental error.

Had she not been negative she'd been accused of double standards and so many times in the boardroom it has come up that someone actually wasn't as persuasive towards something as they should have been e.g. with the wedding dresses.

As for Lucinda losing the icecream task, that was basically pure luck that Claire won. Lucinda's team had been better and much better organised. I also believe she's been on the winning team an awful lot compared to most of the candidates left.

This really is just your take on it, and you are in a minority.

Given the necessary constraints of editing down to a one hour programme we do not have enough information but from reading these forums most people seem to think that Lucinda was justified.

Those in the minority are very vocal about their take. (I'm like that when I'm in a minority ).

I'm interested in knowing where the twist is in this scenario. The box was designed. It was done. It could not be changed. What was the point in her continuing to complain about it once that point was reached? How, at that point, was she working to "save the task"?

I'm happy to admit my perception may be skewed. Where am I twisting things?

As countless elections and television ratings have shown, the majority view is neither a sign of quality or merit.

Duplicate

I think we all spin things (which is like twisting them over and over again ) according to our own prejudices.

I've been between reasonably and very impressed with Lucinda (apart from her techno uselessness which she should have addressed before going for a multi-skilled job like this).

I also hated the box design and the advert and had noted how Alex and Lee sidelined Lucinda to go and find a location.

(I don't accept that she 'reluctantly volunteered'. When it became clear that the other two were intransigent on the matter she did what her detractors keep accusing her of not doing: went along and did what was required of her as a team player.)

Given those preconditions I suppose it was inevitable that when I saw the argument in the taxi I was going to see Lucinda as justified in making those points, even though it was too late to do anything about them - particularly as it has been shown time and time again that Sugar is not the brightest person in the world and unless you make a big show of disagreeing with a decision before it all goes wrong he tends to ask why you never said anything.

My post wasn't aimed specifically at you (or one scenario), however now you have asked:

You have taken the box design as an example. You've left out all other instances, so are you saying that Lucinda only brought something up once it had been done? Your example suggests this.

How about the advert? She was ignored there and there was plenty of time to change it, but they simply dismissed her. She commented about the box once she had seen it, she still got on with the task, but had she not said it and they'd lost then she'd have been picked up as being deceitful (the theme this series seems to be dishonesty) as she'd never voiced such a concern.

Then you have the perception that the editing created, we did not see Lucinda doing much this week, but clearly she must have as with smaller teams, she had no other team member to 'rely on'. Neither did we see much context to these matters being brought up.

Utterly invalid points.

Most of Lucinda's points and suggestions were invalid or, crucially, came after decisions had been made and it was impossible to change those decisions.

She showed such ineptitude in her choice of issues to complain about that one can only conclude she was only making a barrage of destructive comments in an attempt at self-preservation; she attempted to dissociate herself from the team's decisions so that in the boardroom she could claim to have been critical of those decisions and thereby blameless should the team lose.

You don't seem to have an objective perspective at all, all you can see is Lucinda moaning and being ignored, and for good reason she was either moaning after decisions had been made or about some trivial issue.

Your perspective is in complete contrast to the facts. Lucinda was obstructive and destructive, the evidence is there. She also persisted in destructive criticism beyond the point where anything could be done.

You are defending the indefensible and in the face of the facts. Your pro Lucinda bias is blinding you to the facts and putting you into a ridiculous position.

Almost entirely content-free post.

What issues did she raise about the advert that were ignored that could be changed? The only thing I recall was the basic idea, she wanted a homosexuality theme and this idea was discarded in favour of another. I think all the other things she moaned about were impossible to change.

I've transcribed that section of the show from iPlayer. This is what I have:

"Alex says he doesn't mind going to find the location but he thinks he should stay with the design. Both Lee and Lucinda firmly agree that Alex had to stay. Alex says, "so it's got to be between you two and...". At this point, Alex is looking at Lucinda but his hands are pointing to Lee. Lucinda said she'd "quite like" to talk to the designer as Lee probably would too. Lee said he is there for the team."

"Cut."

"Lucinda is off on the location hunt. The narrator says: "Alex stays with Lee, sending Lucinda to find locations." Talking to camera, Lucinda says: "I feel that maybe Alex found me a bit strong and so possibly wanted me out of the way because maybe I was giving too much to think about but that this is what we needed to be doing through the brainstorming and that's what I was trying to question."

Where do you get that they "sidelined" her? If she didn't go and Lee did, would they have "sidelined" him?

I don't see her being bullied into going. I don't see the other two being intransigent. Quite the contrary in Lee's case. I agree that she didn't reluctantly volunteer in that clip. although at the casting session, Lucinda then says "I was happy to go off on location..." which seems to imply that she wasn't sent off kicking and screaming. I accept this implication it is a matter of interpretation.


The poor box design is a fact at the casting session. Lee says so..."we can't change it." Yet in this session (while people are waiting outside for casting), then again in the taxi, then again at the filming and then again at the presentation, Lucinda is still going on about the poor design. Maybe your right. Maybe her point in doing this was so that she could say, if they lost, that she thought it was a bad idea. But the way she did it, and kept doing it, made her a poor member of the team. This is why I personally have a problem with Lucinda.