Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The Aprentice



Jul 5, 2003
23,777
Polegate
Its not wrong as such. Just means your standards are very low.

Oh it MUST be wrong, surely.

What was she thinking in that green suit?!

claireyoung.jpg



hmmm

5/10
 








Oct 25, 2003
23,964
No way,

She was shit, she disagreed with everyone, she picked on everybody's flaws in order to survive in the boardroom rather than relying on her own abilities.

As that bloke put it tonight, she's "a total disaster".

i'd say most of her disagreements involved her being in the right, and how you can class her as 'shit' is beyond me! she was the best team leader by a considerable distance which raises her above the term 'shit' by itself

and she was hardly the only one who picked on others flaws to survive, infact people tried to do that to her more than vise versa
 


Jul 5, 2003
23,777
Polegate
i'd say most of her disagreements involved her being in the right, and how you can class her as 'shit' is beyond me! she was the best team leader by a considerable distance which raises her above the term 'shit' by itself

and she was hardly the only one who picked on others flaws to survive, infact people tried to do that to her more than vise versa

She was a good team leader twice, but contributed virtually bugger all in every other task. She only survived because she was on the winning side 8 times - luck.

Her disagreements were because she was scared to take responsibility in case it backfired on her.

As the bloke says, "a total disaster. an absolute nutcase".

She didn't even know if she wanted the job!!
 






Freddie Goodwin.

Well-known member
Mar 31, 2007
7,186
Brighton
Strange woman. Scrubbed up quite nice tonight on 'Your Fired' but at other times looked a right pig.
 






black & white seagull

Active member
Aug 29, 2003
460
Brighton
Did anyone else think that Karren Brady was the only one of the interviewers who actually had the first clue how to conduct an interview? All the others seemed more interested in talking over the candidates, bullying them and belittling them, whereas she asked the sort of questions that resulted in decent, (relatively) articulate responses, and actually built up some sort of picture of the person being interviewed.
 




Uncle Spielberg

Well-known member
Jul 6, 2003
43,098
Lancing
They were all a bunch of wankers. I would have told them to feck off, stick the job up their bottoms and walked out.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,771
Chandlers Ford
Did anyone else think that Karren Brady was the only one of the interviewers who actually had the first clue how to conduct an interview? All the others seemed more interested in talking over the candidates, bullying them and belittling them, whereas she asked the sort of questions that resulted in decent, (relatively) articulate responses, and actually built up some sort of picture of the person being interviewed.

I see where you're coming from, yes. The others were all busy doing their best Sir Alan impressions. I did rather like the guy Paul though, the one who sprung the spiv for lying.
 


Gazwag

5 millionth post poster
Mar 4, 2004
30,752
Bexhill-on-Sea
Did anyone else think that Karren Brady was the only one of the interviewers who actually had the first clue how to conduct an interview? All the others seemed more interested in talking over the candidates, bullying them and belittling them, whereas she asked the sort of questions that resulted in decent, (relatively) articulate responses, and actually built up some sort of picture of the person being interviewed.

thing is though they will only show on TV the bits the director/editor/whoever wants we dont know very much about any interview. I would imagine each one could have been up to an hour and how much did we see, two or three minutes.
 


Did anyone else think that Karren Brady was the only one of the interviewers who actually had the first clue how to conduct an interview? All the others seemed more interested in talking over the candidates, bullying them and belittling them, whereas she asked the sort of questions that resulted in decent, (relatively) articulate responses, and actually built up some sort of picture of the person being interviewed.

I kind of assumed that that was the point; she was meant to be nice and butter them up, see how they responded, while the others were meant to see how they responded under pressure. I would imagine that interviews/discussions that they would undertake working for AS would be far more like those hard-nosed interviews than Karren Brady's touchy feely way.
 








Man of Harveys

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
18,893
Brighton, UK
That posh interview bloke CLAUDE gave me NIGHTMARES - very rapeynoncey. And yes, any spiv stupid enough to tell porkies about...er, exactly how long it took him to flunk out of uni wants shooting right on the spot. Bad, bad move for that not to count against him.
 


Behind Enemy Lines

Well-known member
Jul 18, 2003
4,887
London
That posh interview bloke CLAUDE gave me NIGHTMARES - very rapeynoncey. And yes, any spiv stupid enough to tell porkies about...er, exactly how long it took him to flunk out of uni wants shooting right on the spot. Bad, bad move for that not to count against him.

Everyone lies on their CV's to a certain extent, Lee just wasn't very clever about it but actually has been one of the best candidates and much, much better than Alex and Helene. He would also be easier to work with than Clare who is good but never shuts up. Can you imagine working with her? It would be exhausting. Lee has made a mistake but has been consistently good throughout the tasks, is generally a decent bloke ( apart from when he shouted at Sara) and would be someone SurAlun could mould as the Apprentice.
 




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,771
Chandlers Ford
He is a liar.

Winking at the interviewer wasn't a great move either!
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here