Skip to main content

Sir Alan? You're fired!

For several years I've been a big fan of the UK version of The Apprentice with that lovable rogue of an entrepreneur, Alan Sugar. But this time around (second episode broadcast last night), I found I was getting more than a touch jaded. I have to admit I skipped over 20 minutes to get to the denouement.

Part of the problem is that the tasks seem so artificial now. I'd like to see Mr Sugar (sorry, Sir Alan) succeed in one of these scenarios where they're dropped in to do something with insufficient knowledge, poor resources and a ridiculous timescale. The fact is, he'd fail just as much as they do. It's amazing they ever make a profit under circumstances engineered for failure.

Then there's the rather amusing way that before the boardroom scene, we always get shots of flash office blocks in Canary Wharf. I could be wrong, but somehow I imagine Sugar's boardroom is in Hackney or some such (relatively) cheap location. He'd be stupid if it wasn't.

In the end, though, the thing that has me cringing most is how often we hear people say 'Sir Alan.' It's as if the man needs constantly reminding of his own achievements. 'Send them in, please,' he says to the receptionist. 'Yes, Sir Alan,' she replies. I don't know anyone - some in much bigger businesses than Sugar's - who expects their secretary/receptionist to say 'Yes, Mr Smith,' or whatever as they reply to them. It's really quite sick making.

So, with regret, Sir Alan - you're fired. (From my TV.)


  1. When it all comes down to it, it's just another game show. Yawn...


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope