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.)

Comments

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

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 2010 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 exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...