[Andrew]

From the editing it seems as if they did film an episode with the fired candidate but have quickly recorded another 'show' later on (they probably just asked the audience from a different recording to stay behind a bit longer?) and sort of merged the two together

Watch the end sequence from 27:00 on iPlayer, the cards on Tom’s desk change keep changing in number and position

It’d be interesting to know if they did film a proper edition, or if they always filmed this filler edition, and then just did some later pick ups to cover some links. I’d suggest the latter as surely the panel wouldn’t have come back a second time.

[Stooky Bill]

Yes the end was very odd, but it did look to me as if they filmed the rest of it knowing he wasn't going to be there. As mentioned Tom was sitting in the middle of the desk and not to one side.

I don't think it's the first time a 'fired' candidate hasn't featured, but normally they have discussed them, this week nothing.


On the plus side I'm enjoying the archive clips this year, of which they had more time for. For a programme that for some reason doesn't get repeated it's good to make use of them. I really don't like the awful audience bit at the start though

[Flux]

Watch the end sequence from 27:00 on iPlayer, the cards on Tom’s desk change keep changing in number and position

It’d be interesting to know if they did film a proper edition, or if they always filmed this filler edition, and then just did some later pick ups to cover some links. I’d suggest the latter as surely the panel wouldn’t have come back a second time.

I wonder if they filmed it without the fired candidate, but still featured some mentions of him or specific moments featuring him - hence the re-edit when even that was deemed unacceptable?

[gottago]

What is odd is that the antisemitism has been known about and reported in the press for some weeks now, yet according to Deadline he did take part in the record for You're Fired last weekend.

deadline.com 

Hopefully he doesn't return in the final episode where they bring back fired candidates.

[Ash101]

On the plus side I'm enjoying the archive clips this year, of which they had more time for. For a programme that for some reason doesn't get repeated it's good to make use of them. I really don't like the awful audience bit at the start though

I wondered if they were trying to recreate some of the magic when Tom Allen talks to the audience on Bake Off Extra Slice? But he doesn't really interact with them enough to allow that to happen here...

[AaronTV]

Deadline report that a version of the show was indeed filmed with said contestant over the weekend. This understandably prompted a backlash from staffers and campaign groups, resulting in the hasty edit.

Given that the contestant’s anti-Semitic views were known and reported several weeks ago, it is highly concerning that the production team decided to go ahead and film the companion show with him. It looks like management at a higher level had to step in and order the edit.

The contestant appearing in the main show and the nature of that being recorded several months ago is unfortunate but entirely understandable. Actively including him in something after his views came to light, by contrast, is a really poor call.

[Brekkie]

Arguably showing him was a bigger punishment than cutting him out of the series completely.

I've seen episodes over the years but last year was the first I saw in full but it feels like a spoof reality show considering job inept the contestants are and the tasks are like a Year 5 school project. It's like Masterchef casting people who can't cook and getting them to cook beans on toast.

[Mike]

When they research candidates for programmes like this, do they actually 'vet' them? I'd assume they'd look through all public social media channels for anything 'questionable' before casting them.

I'm more concerned that the candidate is a medical doctor, while people can hold whatever views they want to provided they don't infringe on the rights of others, there are some roles where holding such extreme prejudicial views wouldn't be compatible and medicine is one of them.

[Gary McEwan]

On the first episode of the current series, a few of my friends were one the 'Corporate Clients' that got taken up to the Highlands.

They said that the candidates were absolutely useless and had absolutely no idea what they were doing and actually walked away from one of the events that was planned throughout the day.

They also said they the BBC edited out a lot of footage that never made it to air.

[Neil Jones]

Arguably showing him was a bigger punishment than cutting him out of the series completely.

I've seen episodes over the years but last year was the first I saw in full but it feels like a spoof reality show considering job inept the contestants are and the tasks are like a Year 5 school project. It's like Masterchef casting people who can't cook and getting them to cook beans on toast.

When they research candidates for programmes like this, do they actually 'vet' them? I'd assume they'd look through all public social media channels for anything 'questionable' before casting them.

The website suggests they do vet them:

After [the regional interviews], around 30 candidates are assessed by a psychotherapist, references are taken and other checks made. It is from this group that the final line-up is chosen.

The candidates might look "inept" but it must be remembered they are squashing what may normally takes an insane amount of time into two or three days. Product research and development normally takes months (or years), not hours so its hardly surprising half the projects (the ones they pitch and design themselves) come across as a bit half-arsed sometimes.

That and they do the tasks near enough back to back, not over a period of 12 weeks as the show presents it. So yes you might get to stay in a house the size of a ship, but ultimately you'll probably spend most of it in bed asleep...