The purpose of the show is for Sir Alan find an apprentice, who will be employed by him on a six-figure salary.

At no point has it even been suggested that he's supposed to fire candidates in order of ability. So as long as he ends up with the right person, that's fine then.

In fact he even states that there's no public phone-in: what he says goes. He might fire you because you had a bad task, or he might fire you because you've been consistently poor. He might fire you because he thinks you won't fit in with the specific people who you are going to have to work with, people who we have never seen. Or because he doesn't like your hair.

Raef most likely wasn't the worst person left on the show, but so what? This is a cup competition, not a league.

People seem to think that he should deliberately make the show more boring just to enable the candidates to be fired in order. That's not the attitude that makes you £800m.

Would you prefer it in if Eastenders people just sat around watching telly all day, and occasionally went out and got drunk? Or sat in silence reading the paper? No, because it would be deliberately making bad telly.

If Michael wins, then questions should be asked, as he's been shown to be fundamentally dishonest. But keeping some entertaining people in who won't win at the expense of some dull-but-concientious people who won't win if why it wins BAFTAs.

Otherwise it would just be like watching people at work. And who would want to watch that?

In other words, if it wasn't like it is, it would no longer exist. And if you'd prefer that, what are you doing on here?

Because people get ratty when someone they like leaves. Don't ask me why, I'm not bothered who goes, it's only a reality show

I completely agree!

I was going to write something like this but really didnt have the time

But still, I mean i really dont see why there is so much outrage over Raef going. So what if Michael lasts a week or two more than him? Probably a day or two as it is around 2 firings weekly in reality. The point is, neither of them were going to win.

To be honest I have no qualms about who SAS employs as his Apprentice it's his company and he can choose who he likes to work with him. However, the problem is that the show was originally promoted as an insight as to what someone of SAS's status would look for in his candidates. For the most part the first two series did that. Many of us may not have agreed with his choices but the editing always managed to support his decisions. However, in this series we have seen some odd decisions made in the BR which goes totally against what we've seen in the task. SAS is renowned for being "drop dead shrewd" and Nick and Margaret are no mugs, yet far too many times in this series we've seen people fired for reasons that have very little to do with what has gone on in the task. I would have had more respect for his firing Sara if he had just come out and said "I couldn't listen to that voice all day, you're fired"! Ok, the forum would have gone into melt down but if the guy has to work with her 24/7 then it's a more understandable reason than the one we were given.

The problem is that Raef was better than Michael, Helene, Alex, and even Lucinda by the look of next week's previews. I am not sure about Lee but I still need a confirmation that he can control his temper. Raef wasn't going to win surely but he had substance. Nick's and SAS's words at the end reflect their inability to look beyond the cover rather than reflecting Raef's incompetence.

Can someone tell me a single act of brilliance that came from Helene since the beginning of the series? Apart from selling the cheap wedding dresses, what has Alex done to reflect his superior abilities? As for Michael, I am waiting for a confirmation that he is a plant and was put there purely for entertainment value.

Oh god i cant stand Alex. But it doesnt matter which order they go out tbh...

All i can say is he works well in a team as he never seems to be brought back to the boardroom. (Once excluding week 1 as he was not chosen to come back - he had to). Helene I think is much better than we are lead to believe!

in YOUR eyes, not sir allans...

becuase some people have too much time on their hands
when they get more than 800 million squid then they can critisize sir alan

if they dont like it then dont watch it, that's my common sense

yay...i couldn't have put it better.

course i'm a bit upset about raef. i liked him. however, i'm not going to start accusing everyone from sas to the bbc itself for 'fixing' the programme.

there have been some really over the top aggressive threads about him being fired...really not necessary.

Yes. To be honest I didn't read the title of the thread when I replied. I don't think that it is a question of integrity rather than a question of judgement. Does Raef deserve the words SAS and Nick said after he was fired? Does he deserve to be fired before Michael, Helene, and Alex?

I'll tell you why, if he's involving the public in his little quest then he'll damn well face the wrath of our anger.

If he wants to pick whoever HE wants to pick, then don't make a telly programme out of it.

Unless its his ego he wants to massage at the expense of honest, hardworking young people

You are damn right they should be fired in order of ability and that is what Sir Alan is doing, but in reverse!

Because they have nothing better to do in their sad and unfulfilled lives.

I am living a sad and unfulfilled life because I grossly disagree with the on-screen sacking of a fine and honourable man?

If anything I have fulfilled a part of my character by standing by someone I personally beleive in.

Second, yes I am sad, in the unhappy sense.

No, it's not. If Sir Alan's purpose was to find an apprentice, he'd hardly do it this way. The purpose of the show is the show. And bollocks firings don't enhance the show.

That said, as I've said on other threads, Sir Alans's hit rate hasn't really been so bad this series. Only two of his firings have been really unfair IMO, so that's 80% either clearly correct or pretty reasonable; not so bad if Sir Alan hasn't seen the tasks as we have (well, edited versions, obviously, but has Sir Alan even seen that?

I'm not sure I get your point about firing dull but worthy candidates. Raef certainly wasn't dull, and if some people thought Sara dull but worthy, well wouldn't it have been better to see dull and unworthy Helene go?

Guys, I've had a few to drink tonight, and I'm likely to be over sentimental - but for christs sake, Rafe was clearly, obviously, overwhelmingly, absolutely - the best candidtate on display, this is so blindingly clear...it's abhorrent that some people could view the fine, honourable, decent, thrillingly sutiable Rafe as anything other than PERFECT APPRENTICE MATERIAL

But how does it affect your life?

Because you find yourself becoming emotionally involved with the programme, it doesn't affect my life, but it does affect an area that I care about - being the telly addict that I am

The answer is probably different for different people.

Some are moaning because he fired a candidate that they particularly liked.

Others may moan because they see him as being, from time to time, inconsistent and irrational.

One thing is for sure: If he's prepared to take the BBC's money and expose his judgement in this way he has no right to complain if his judgements are analysed and criticised. (Of course, he isn't complaining).

What's more to the point is why the OP and a couple of others feel that people taking part in a discussion forum should not be free to criticise whom they please.

What exactly does he want?

People to post only when they agree with AS?

Best post ever!

I though the whole idea of a forum was to discuss the content of the show, to read others points of view, to debate with them and put your point of view across.

Good debates are passionate and vibrant, people trying to get their point of view across, analysing other points of view. Pointing out what they saw as negative and positive.

If you don't want to see people debate and discuss then is a forum the place for you???

Like a few of the other replies, you really need to read what I wrote, and not what you think I wrote.

My final point was that the reason some decisions are made for reasons of 'good telly', is that if The Apprentice wasn't 'good telly', it would most likely have been decommisioned by now.

So if the thing many people are complaining about didn't happen, then the programme wouldn't exist any more. And if you want the Apprentice to not exist, what are you doing here?

Expanding the logic (which I had foolishly left people to do themselves), the fact you are here means you probably do want the programme to exist, meaning that you have to accept that some things will be done because they are 'good telly.'

However as long as Sir Alan employs the person he believes to be the best candidate, why is this a problem? For all the reasons in the original post.

At no point do I even suggest that people shouldn't put forward their opinions. I merely imply that one particular complaint is a bit daft, to say the least.

Yes, sorry, looking back I can see that you were not criticising everyone who offered an opinion.

I made my post a couple of days after reading yours and was really responding to the people whose posts I had just read who were making more offensive remarks (e.g. "sad little lives").

I should have gone back and checked your before posting.

In fairness, I couldn'r remember what I said either!