'Sleep deprivation, bullying and manipulation': Former contestant on The Apprentice lifts the lid on what life's REALLY like on Lord Sugar's show which she claims is fixed from the start and 'destroys' young candidates 

Ms Waterman-Smith says The Apprentice is a hotbed of bullying and manipulation

It's that time again, Britain's dubiously dubbed 'brightest and best' candidates lining up for their chance to be bullied, starved, sleep-deprived, manipulated and humiliated, all for the chance to work alongside a miserable old-timer about to draw his pension. Lord Sugar's cringe-inducing one-liners, unapproachable glacier Karen, and the underwhelming Claude, not to mention the usual deluded claims from candidates. But having been behind the scenes myself as a candidate on the 2015 series of the show, let's not judge the candidates too harshly. The average viewer cannot begin to image the level of control and puppet-mastering that goes on. The Apprentice is a multi-million pound earning show, and the perfect vehicle to drive Lord Sugar's monstrous desire for fame and notoriety. They will protect the brand at all costs, and candidates each year are mere pawns, as unsuspecting as lambs to the slaughter.

When I was first selected by telephone for The Apprentice, my immediate concern was my fellow candidates. I have been running my own business, which I self-funded through sheer grit and determination for the last 12 years, so hard work and long hours didn't concern me. But I remembered a girl in the final audition stages as being brash, argumentative and desperately insecure. I knew instinctively that that this woman would make my life a misery on the show. Foolishly, I told a producer this and said I would decline my place if this girl had also been picked. Unbeknownst to me, she was not on the list of selected candidates, but my discussion with the producer was apparently the catalyst for that girl being added as an 'extra' name last minute. You can imagine my shock and horror on the very first day when the first person I saw in the reception area was this same girl. I felt then I was being horribly stitched up. Before the second day was even through, I made a formal complaint about this girl for bullying, after she screamed abuse at me for so long production had to remove her from our car leaving me in tears. It is those moments of distress and upset that the camera crew deliberately filmed and encouraged throughout the series.

Have you ever wondered how the boardroom remains so tense? Waking up on boardroom day the tension mounts, we are expected to be ready for hours and production interview us one by one, demanding we blame each other and point the finger at someone for potential failure before we find out our fate. We are all wondering who has our backs and who will turn on us in the boardroom. Before we are summoned, we have to sit in a dark, windowless room in complete silence for up to three hours. No books, no communicating, just pure tense silence. This gives Sugar time to speak to producers and plan whom to attack in the boardroom, what shots they need to film and which candidate they will decide to fire. The claim that it is 'unscripted' is an absolute joke; everything that happens is pre-planned for maximum effect on TV. For example, I was given a hard time on each and every boardroom, in fact it became a running joke among us that 'whatever happens, Selina will get the blame anyway.' On task 5, the book task, when I was sub-team leader, wrote and sang the theme tune for the audio book, came up with the concept and was top seller – I thought I was safe. Yet, Sugar and his team came up with a sneaky way to discredit me; his opening comment after revealing we failed was 'Selina, don't you think you should have sold more,' and much was made of this. However, the viewers do not know I was the top seller, they were not shown the clip of Karen Brady saying I made 'the best sale of the day.' Regardless of my sales figure, Sugar has successfully lead viewers to believe that whatever I sold, was not enough.

She claims producers edit the show to favour contestants they have decided will win

In my view, it is reality TV plain and simple, and the worst and most manipulated of all the shows.

Tasks are usually determined in advance regarding who will win and lose. Often one team will have a substantial disadvantage, like a poor sales location, or being inexplicably held up for an hour while the other team was out selling. On task 8, the event task, which I was PM for and won a second time, they actually changed the rules of the entire show to try and catch me out – which is quite flattering in a way.

We are not permitted to get phone numbers on camera, everything is provided in a dossier given to us on each task, which also dictates rules and deadlines. On this task, they claimed I had 'forgotten' to take the customer's phone number which jeopardized the entire task. In 11 years of Apprentice history, candidates have been told 'everything is in the dossier'. It was a weak point that resonated with viewers making me look incompetent, but how would you at home know the rules we have to abide by? Later in this task, there is footage of the client complaining that the gift bags were not age appropriate. Actually the client was fine all day, then randomly the director ushered her over to me for a chat, and she whispered 'I'm sorry they're making me do this,' before the show commenced.

She had obviously been told to complain to me. Later in the boardroom, Lord Sugar said the goody bags were a sham, and I shouldn't have used them, implying that the client did not purchase them, again making me look incompetent in my own industry. However, she did buy them, and the profit on those bags was the reason why we beat the other team, made more money, and ultimately won the task.

She was kicked off the show after appearing tired during one challenge. She says contestants are 'sleep-deprived' by the show's bosses

After my experiences and things I have learned, in my view Vana and Joseph were hand-picked or moulded as finalists. Vana routinely snuck out with the producer for an off-camera chat before boardroom. She also regularly boasted to us about how much money she had, and how she had 'never even watched the show.' She seemed smug in the knowledge that she was safe and secure. She also boasted that producers has promised to give her 'a good edit,' where she would be presented as the 'voice of reason' towards the end of the series. The final 5 in my year, apart from Richard Woods who was the only genuine business brain, the others consisted of deeply unpleasant personalities.

But that's not all they have in common. Vana, Joseph, Charleiene and Brett were obsessed with the program, were buoyed up rather than diminished by the mind games and culture. They wanted nothing more than to win at any cost, and were not determined by their collective business skills, but their ability to fit the agenda that the show perpetuates.

Selina clashed with other women during a particularly nasty series of the programme

During each task you can be led off up to 5 times a day and hit with a barrage of questions like 'who is to blame for the failure of this task?', 'do you think Elle should be fired?' and other finger-pointing. The more reasonable candidates would be disinclined to savage one another off camera, but the good TV, the strong answers, the snide comments about another candidate are the ones the producers line-up for the final position. They don't want free thinkers, people that see through the process, candidates with a mind of their own. They want easily manipulated nasty little sheep. The Apprentice is as much about business skills as The X Factor is about singing; vaguely relevant but not the ultimate criteria.

People disbelieve that we only have 20 minutes in the morning to get ready – this is completely true. We do not know about any timings or schedules and are woken by camera crews. There's no time for shower, hair, make-up and breakfast, so women usually skip food. There's little to no food in the house anyway, unless you like eating processed crackers and biscuits. Diet requirements, intolerances and allergies, or vegetarianism were simply ignored, despite being discussion with producers who assured we would be looked after. I remember once asking a member of the house team if we could have some food in the fridge and her response was 'we went over budget this week, so production won't let us have more food until next week.' I was gob-smacked; you have several cameras worth £50,000 and you can't buy the candidates basic groceries? We are not allowed to leave the house for the full 5-6 weeks of filming unless we are filming, not do we have our wallets, phones, internet or access to the outside world. There are no medics or access to things like pain killers at home or on tasks. You become prisoners in this dark insular world of negativity and rivalry.

On tasks it wasn't much better; usually Pret a Manger bags would be dumped on the floor on our car and we could sift through the soggy chemicalised sandwiches on our way to a task. Getting even water on the first task was impossible, and I remember one girl complaining she was feeling faint. This rationing, starvation and sleep deprivation is not by chance; what better way to ensure fraught nerves and lapses in concentration than by throwing together cold, starving and exhausted stressed out young people? On task 4, the pet show, I was conveniently denied food when everyone else was fed. I also have ME (CFS), which is exacerbated by too little food and low blood sugar. They claimed they 'could not find me' any suitable lunch after they fed everyone else and I noticed the cameras really trailing me that day. Feeling faint and ill, they took a quick shot of me behind our stand yawning – heaven forbid human beings yawn! – and used that defining to shot to suggest I was both lazy and unmotivated. Once again, I was sub-team leader, had contributed and sold more than others, yet I was single out and manipulated into giving them footage that suited their agenda.

More worrying is that they take prescription medication from us too. I have suffered with anxiety for the last few years, an unfortunate complication of PTSD after being attacked in 2012. You would think that producers, while needing to make television, would have some moral or ethical responsibility towards candidates? Sadly not. The publicists encourage candidates to 'tell us all your secrets' so they can 'protect' you. If you have a criminal record, have lost your parents, or were violently assaulted, you can expect them to use all of that information against you in their press campaign.

After various stories about the unfortunate demise of both my parents were released by the show, and then the entirely false story came out that I work as an exotic dancer in the UAE (those types of clubs are illegal here anyway).

She claims contestants are given insufficient food so they are weaker when carrying out challenges

It is obvious who will do well in the show – it is the ones about whom you read nothing negative in the press, except light pieces praising them, or comparing them to Florence Nightingale like the Leah Walsh (winner 2013) story that she snuck out at night to work on the ER ward as a doctor. 

I am so disappointed that this once in a lifetime opportunity was such a total farce, miserable experience and horribly unfair process. But I will watch it this year, if only to try and spot the manipulation on tasks and whom is being groomed at the winner. I am proud that I did not quit, and though I was not my usual exuberant self, I competed and won twice as Project Manager, despite much interference from producers. I have learned that producers are deeply unpleasant individuals and that the kindness I received from the decent candidates will stay with me for life. I discovered that no matter how rich and successful, you can still be a cruel and mercurial boss, and my integrity demands I do not follow in this leadership style. I do not believe that you have to cajole and manipulate people in order to get good results in business, however I do firmly believe that this methodology is essential for producing excellent television.

The former Apprentice contestant claimed the producers demand that participants blame each other and camera crews deliberately film and encourage moments of distress and upset.

She alleged that candidates would sit in a 'dark, windowless room in complete silence for up to three hours' before boardroom scenes with Lord Sugar; that boardroom scenes are pre-planned for maximum effect and claims made against candidates in the boardroom are 'falsified'.

Ms Waterman-Smith claimed customers used in the show were told to make complaints against contestants against their wishes

In her letter she alleges the pair who become finalists are determined in advance, 'hand-picked and moulded' ahead of time and those candidates are given 'a good edit'.

Responding, a spokeswoman for The Apprentice said: 'These claims are simply not true. We take our duty of care to the candidates throughout filming very seriously and strongly refute any allegations to the contrary. Claims that scenes are falsified or that the finalists would be picked before the show starts are completely incorrect.'

Ms Waterman-Smith alleges that during filming of the show another contestant, Charlene Wain, shouted abuse at her so that Ms Wain had to be removed from a car by production staff.

The spokeswoman said: 'Production are unaware of any incident like this. There was an incident during filming in which Selina pushed Charleine, which resulted in Selina being given a verbal warning by the production team, who dealt with the incident quickly and professionally. Both women decided to stay in the process after discussions with the production team.'

During filming Selina claimed the dietary requirements of candidates are 'completely ignored'; there are no medics available to them and prescription medication is taken from them. She also alleged that candidates are also denied food on purpose to make them appear more desperate on camera.

The spokeswoman said:  'We take our duty of care to the candidates very seriously, and ensure that all medical and dietary requirements are catered for throughout the process. The claim that candidates would be denied medical attention or prescribed medicines, or denied food for effect during filming, is not true.'

Ms Waterman-Smith claimed candidates 'secrets', in Ms Waterman-Smith's case information about her parents, are leaked to the media, along with fabricated stories, such that she was an exotic dancer.

The Apprentice spokeswoman refuted those claims: 'This is absolutely not the case – the show's team at no point give out any confidential information about any of the candidates to the media. 

'The media were first to label Selina as an 'exotic dancer' due to her background as a performer, and the show's team worked swiftly and tirelessly to ensure these references were removed in press articles wherever possible. This was at no point included in any official press information about Selina.'

Her final claim was that finalist Vana Koutsomitis has family connections to Lord Sugar.

The spokeswoman said: ''This is not correct. Lord Sugar does not know Vana's family, either socially or professionally.'