Do you know what? I think he's got more important things to worry about.

However the events unfolded that caused Michelle to resign, I am fairly certain that Mr Sugar only lost a little sleep over it - and that would have been because of his own misjudgement, rather than her behaviour (which was, incidentally, not questionable- we are all entitled to get pregnant and leave jobs at will. He did not buy her soul). I am also certain that he did not reject Claire on the basis of her sex.

Alan Sugar is a canny, clever man who knows what he wants in his business, and who is likely to stick it. He made a misjudgement with Michelle - but who's to say that Ruth would have stayed longer? This is the nature of GOOD business people. They do not need the job, and their life is to short to spend it pandering to the audience of a TV show!

I can see the references, but I believe his quotes are being seriously taken out of context. It is not clear whether this article refers to Al's general business approach, or if this is propaganda for the Apprentice series.

I have never seen any evidence of prejudice of any sort from Sir Alan - be that racist, sexist or any other 'ist. He does have a unique ability to treat everyone as though they crawled out from under a stone, yet value the uniqueness of individuals. This was clear from the tender way that Claire spoke about him. They connected deeply, and in my opinion, she was never excluded because she was a woman.

Fair enough, what I meant was that he didn't think she was the better of the two for the role at the time but I stand corrected re him actually liking her.

I actually think that the Badger was/is better than Claire, so for Claire to have won would have been a little unjust from that POV.

Mind you -- for Michelle to have won, out of all the girls ever??

It's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

So why has he kept Margaret by his side as a trusted advisor for over 20 years.

I admit to not enjoying the series this year but it was more because of the choice of candidates and his seemingly odd reasons for firing people. However, not once did I think that SAS fired someone because of their gender.

I don't think the Apprentice job is covered by employment law because the 100K "salary" is actually a prize paid by the BBC not Alan Sugar(I don't think it's taxable either).

Lee was probably a better fit for Alan Sugar's business - Claire seems a bit too in-your-face for him. I think he has done her a favour not employing her because she can do better.

He seems to prefer quieter candidates, and perhaps female applicants should take note. (Of course it may be that the production team are deliberately shortlisting the type of women who will make better TV than apprentices for Sir Alan.)

As far as Michelle Dewberry is concerned, I believe she was picked because Alan Sugar wanted someone to investigate the possibility of outsourcing something, and she had experience in that area. Having reseached this for a few months she reported to him that the idea wasn't viable. This co-incided with her pregnancy, but she was going to leave anyway.

thats fair enough, but you didnt seem to say them there in the first place. Like I said fair enough that you dont believe they represent his views properly, but they were there

Actually if you heard her yesterday on Radio 5 Live it was quite easy to read between the lines. References to "male dominated workplace" were used rather more subtly than I would have expected from Claire, but if you listen carefully, you can tell what she is saying

The point is, rightly or wrongly, he cant if it is shown that he acted in a discriminatory manner.

Quota???? I dont know. Maybe he likes to occassion have a female "yes man" rather than just the usual male one.

you could be right with that point. It would be interesting to see what contracts they have to sign before the show starts

To be honest, I think i was just fair that Lee won. He won much more than Claire in the tasks and he also won all his tasks as a PM by a clear margin. He is as good at sales as Claire, he is a better people manager, and a better team player. Claire is better at presentations. They are as bad as each other in the creative side.

I would have loved to see Claire win but Lee is a worthy winner. Lee was not a safe choice for SAS. He has poor education and he was exposed to lie in his CV in front of millions. Unlike Simon last year, Lee did deliver in every task.

We have to remember that SAS employed both Claire and Lee for six months and Lee must have performed better than Claire for SAS to take this risk and hire him.

This thread is absolute nonsense. The Apprentice, like all other reality TV shows, is a noose which no-one is forced to put his/head into. By signing up for the show, you accept SAS has the final say. End of.

As I've said in another thread, Claire, like Saira and Ruth before her, are the type of personalities that would find it difficult to gain employment with someone like SAS regardless of their gender.

In fact, in the real world, they would not have got past the first stage of interviews but, unfortunately, they make good telly.

Funnily enough, all of them DID get past the first stage of interviews..before the Apprentice and during the selection process .

Also, funnily enough, two of the three have very strong sales backgrounds. Maybe you just don't like sales people?

Yeah, that's right

I don't think Ruth was that bad overall. I remember her saying that she had led a sales team before going on the show, but she hadn't really done much selling herself. Yes, she could be confrontational and she looked aggressive, but she was never bitchy like Claire was.

Saira was loud, but I wasn't really impressed with her (or any of the contestants from the first series).

Well, sales people tend not to see the overall concept of the organisation, concentrating upon the commission and target over and above the budget/production line capabilities/supply issues/profit margin etc etc etc. They also tend to display a particular personality type. So, if you weren't such a dismissive arse, I could well have discussed those issues with you.

Just to re-iterate, they ALL made it past interviews before and during the selection process for the Apprentice and at least to were employed by companies and so had a proven track record.

Not to be rude , but do you really think Lee would have gotten past an interview if it was anything like the one in TA? His details would have gone straight in the bin , bar his phone number and address by which to deliver the bad news.

I knbow what it is like to be the subject of sex descrimination- it is wrong, no arguement can say it is O.K to discrimante on the sex irrespective of the job you perform.

Hasn't stopped me cooking up a humiliating revenge on this particular person though

No but I'll tell you what if he did take someone off these forums down that would (imho) be very effective at shutting people up wouldn't it?