Thursday, December 16, 2010

Stuart Baggs (The Robbed)

As I've said previously I love The Apprentice, and I have particularly enjoyed this year's pseudo-panto candidate Stuart Baggs - who has been great value throughout.

This week marked the interview stage, and my has 'our' Stuart been hard done by out of it as Alan Sir Alan Lord Sugar makes up for his obvious guilt over the firing of the (very) lovely Liz last week by making Stuart his scapegoat, based on the advice of a totally clueless lackey.

Stuart has a telecoms licence on the Isle of Man you know, one as an ISP. ISP being an abbreviation for 'Internet Service Protocol' you know.

Apart from the fact that ISP actually stands for Internet Service Provider and the argument over his licence (from the lackey) was complete and total nitpicking of the highest order when his company is a triple play provider - and hence offers TV, broadband and phone services.

In my mind that's a telco, regardless of the minutiae of what technology is used to deliver the services, definition-wise (and in the eyes of a regulator) - which is clearly what was used as a justification to sack him by our favourite entrepreneur.

I can't argue with the other sackings, but it should be Stuart up against Stella next week - and winning, as this year reaches it's final duel.

Stella will win at a canter next week. It's almost not even worth watching it, were Stuart not set to return for a guest slot.

18 comments:

  1. Yeah - I thought Sugar was unduly harsh when he said 'You're full of shit'. He runs a Telco which has a license.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree. I thought that he might get found out about the scale of his business, or that his parents might be revealed as Lord and Lady Muck of the Isle of Mann. But no, they quibbled over how he described his license.

    We all know what an arse he is, but if he's genuinely set up a telco that makes money then that's good going for a 21 year old (and more credit to him for doing this with a cheap license).

    Stella would still beat him in the final, though. She was *good* last night.

    Ah, Liz....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stuart summed it up well himself on "You're Fired" when he pointed out that pedantry between 'full license' and 'fully licensed' seemed to be the basis of the argument to accuse him of being a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't stand Stuart who was full of shit throughout the process and am really glad to see him out. The guy is a joker, can't understand someone would buy his crap

    ReplyDelete
  5. Although there was a lot of hot air around the licence, the real issue was the lied he told the media about his competitor going bankrupt. That's why he had to go.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree. Complete pedantry. Sugar never minded when previous winner Lee McQueen told a porky in his interview about his qualifications, whereas this was at worst slightly misleading and didn't even appear to be intentional. Also Claude and Karren Brady said he was a credible candidate, not that he was 'full of shit'. Baggs could well have won. I suspect he will do well anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I suspect we'll be seeing him a lot on TV anyways - he was on 5 Live yesterday (or was it Thursday? cricket messing with body clock!) intimating as much, as he clearly has a future on the box!



    Alex

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think Stuart had to go because he would be a total nightmare to work with! (As seen when he was the team leader). If he won and was ensconced in the Sugar empire i could see him having an ego overload and half the employees walking!
    Sugar made a mistake falling for his rant in the boardroom and after he realized that he felt a bit stupid and then lost it a bit in Stuarts sacking.
    If "Bags the Brand" is any good he'll watch the whole thing back and learn a little about himself. He is only 21 you know! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sitting on the fence re the Fired / Hired debate, but I loved the straight talking Claude;
    Brand Baggs: "I'm a big fish in a small pond"
    Claude: "You're not a big fish. You're NOT a big fish. You're not even a fish!"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Actually he's 22 ... it was filmed a year ago :-)

    Yes, I am being pedantic!

    ReplyDelete
  11. He had to go. Whilst the license issue may have been a bit picky, the lie over a competitor was a major one.

    In addition when you have someone who says he'll work 24 x 7 at 110% you have to wonder what else he'll embellish.

    He did have the odd flash of flair but would you trust him with your business if it was your money?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Have him work with a trusted lieutenant - and I don't mean the chap who doesn't know what an ISP is - and I'd say yes, I think he'll do well for himself.

    Thought it might be a career in TV now!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The lie about the license was a very minor one, if a lie at all. The impression I got was that the issue was with how long it took Stuart to accept that he'd made a mistake, however small. He just kept trying to fight it! If he'd stepped back and said: "Oh, well yes, in that context the claim I made was incorrect, I should have said..." he'd be in the final.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I work for a law firm.
    I researched the matter carefully.
    His statement was utterly, and completely accurate. He was a "fully licensed telecoms company" in the IOM.

    For the ennobled Alan Sugar to say that the IOM regulator knew nothing of him was an utterly irresponsible statement, and given that the BBC had 12 months between recording and transmission, the least they could do, as part of their standard of care, was to correct the statement.

    The fact is that the regulator lists Bluewave , the company owned by Stuart Baggs, as one of 6 licensed ISP's. He also holds OFCOM licenses for numbering, and is licensed under the telecommunications and wireless regulations.

    It seems from the information on the public record that he has his own microwave or radio link, totally independent.

    Thus, what was said was slanderous, dangerous, and frankly what we would refer to as "sue bait!"

    The fact that, in front of the "you're fired" audience, he accepted that he might have been wrong was simply a "saving face" exercise.



    Whether you liked him or not, the man was "screwjob'ed"

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would say "I am not a lawyer" but that'd be one of us ...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Baggs the Brand" was brilliant broadcasting as you could only be gobsmacked by his total belief in himself. But, perhaps the best bit was seeing Lord Sugar lose it when he realised how far down the garden path Stuart had led him.
    So,is Stuart Baggs a Mohamed Ali without the patter and poetry or a Hitler without his Stormtroopers {yet}? Whatever, the world has not seen the last of this 21 year old.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Borden (Viglen MD) simply made himself look totally ignorant.

    If I was Stuart, I'd find myself a good lawyer and take a shot at a libel case. I bet they'd settle out of court.

    ReplyDelete