The interviewers (except for the woman, whose name escapes me - Karen, was it?) were spiteful and judgmental. It seemed that they appreciated the candidates displaying nasty qualities, as well, at points openly mocking Lucinda because she's not a nasty person.

Alex was a complete slimeball in the boardroom. He doesn't deserve to be in the final.

I think Clare is the only worthy winner now.

Good on Lucinda, though, saying that she doesn't have to answer to them. She's right - Sir Alan and the three male interviewers were all just a lot of hot air spouting self-important nonsense tonight.

I also just saw Alex on You're Fired saying that "Lucinda was the most toxic person in the house". He obviously wasn't counting himself...

I agree with you.

They played "Forever Young" over the montage of clips of Alex on "You're Fired", isn't that song about nuclear holocaust? Very appropriate! xx

Heartly seconded. I don't think Lucinda would have won had she stayed in the contest, but one of the interviewers' assessment of her was irrelevant, dismissive (although it could have been edited for all I know) and quite unnecessary.

Ah well, that's entertainment, eh?

The only thing that annoyed me tonight was Alex.

I really hope this guy doesn;t win.Now that Lucinda has gone I am rooting for Claire

I agree with S.W.; the interviewers didn't find out anything about Lucinda that we didn't already know. Ditto Claire and Helene really (although was surprised by the size of Claire's previous salary and bonus), maybe the boys were easier to open up in the interview or have revealed less about themselves during the task stage?

xx

The interviewers are like this every year, egotistical arses, who seem to think the "interview" is about how often you can insult the person rather than interview them. I have said many times in the past, if an interviewer ever talked to me in an interview like these guys talked to the contestants, I'd simply up and leave.

I agree with you, also i think them people except the female (i can't remember her name) were very rude!

They should just get Anne Robinson to come in and ask mean questions of the candidates, after all she is paid highly for it and does it pretty well, why bother getting in these imposters and pretending that they're doing it for the sake of business?! xx

Yeah I agree. They are not there to interegate or run you down, but to find out what kind of a person you are and how you respond to situations and answer set questions. Sir Alan had given each of the interviewers their own area for evaluation that they were to gear their questions to. It didn;t look all that structured to me - more like "lets look at your CV and rip you appart". An interviewer is supposed to make the interviewee relaxed so that they can really express themselves better.

If I went for a job and was insulted at the interview process I certainly wouldn't want the job in the end!

It's not about insulting them, but challenging them and throwing them off balance and then watch how they cope and perform.

Anyone can rehearse a mantra of: I'm highly motivational, I deliver, I give a 100% etc.

Although I don't like some of the interviewers, especially Prick Paul, I think they do the job they are asked to do. They CAN see throught the bullshit...

Normally I would agree but this is Sir Alan they are gonna be working for. He's the type to rip into them everyday for the rest of their working careers so the way I saw it was that they were being interrogated as usual but just by someone who wasnt Sir Alan. Plus the candidates know that thats what they can expect to happen before they even applied, this isnt the type of job interview where the interviewer is trying to make them feel relaxed!

IMO they should have been able to respond a bit better in tonights episode, they pretty much go through this experience in each boardroom. Would have thought they were used to it by now!

That is what they are supposed to do, but they never actually do it. They put down everything the candidates have done, they ask a question and as soon as the candidates start to answer they speak over them and ask something else then criticise the candidates for not answering the question.

For example, right at the start of Lucinda's first interview the interviewer opens with how she seems completely unemployable. Another asked to see one of the guys impressions and then straight away acted all pissed because he had done it for him.

To sum it up, I dont think, and have never thought, that the interviewers act professionally (although Brady was ok). Especially the scruffy one who never seems to bother wearing a tie.

I agree that's how it comes across, but it IS an interviewing technique to see how a person reacts to that. Will they hold themselves up or crumble, get mad, burst into tears, clam up etc.



I know... He seems to be under the delusion that earning a few bucks has made him God...

I'd like to give him a grilling if I was interviewing him

The final 4 have all got pretty dislikeable character traits. I honestly couldn't care less who wins. Lucinda isn't everyones cup of tea but to continually snipe behind her back was awful. Even Claire mocking the way she talked.


Worth £200m and he can't even be bothered to shave. I've seen homeless people with better appearances.

How strange, I thought that was the idea of all the interviews, so he could wheedle out the ones he didn't want in the final. (Didn't he say that three of them were going to be fired this week)
He's now backed himself into a corner, because whoever loses the task next week gets fired anyway and it could be Lee and miss piggy !.
That leaves him with Alex or Helene to choose between, hmmmmm!!!! very clever sirralan

I get the feeling he's not taking this seriously at all, maybe because he knows that whoever gets the job in the end, they're not going to last long anyway.