- This topic has 57 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 6 months ago by
.
- Posts
My faith in justice is restored as McCririck loses his discrimination case – now I hope C4 take him to the cleaners to recover their costs.
What the hell possessed him to think he had a case – he was certainly ill-advised?
In a way it’s a sad way to end his career but his craving for self-publicity seems to have overridden common sense in this case.
"After such a landmark judicial verdict, my failed legal action ensures that anonymous suits and skirts, who control the media, numerous other businesses and the public sector, will now enjoy complete freedom to replace older employees whatever their unimpaired ability and merit."I have let them all down along with my wife, the Booby, my legal team, friends, colleagues and countless members of the public who supported me throughout. My grateful thanks and apologies to every one of them."
IncredibleWell, I’d always presumed there must have been something in the claim, merely on the grounds that his experienced lawyers reportedly took this on a ‘no-win, no-fee’ basis. Our learned friends rarely spend time in the preparation and execution of a case unless they have a realistic opportunity of turning a shilling or two.
Mind, before this went to judgement a few weeks ago, McCririck stated that he would ‘lose his house’ if the verdict went against him, so the true state of his legal costs is probably fairly unfathomable.
I sense a wider point here about many in the media world who seemingly believe that they have a right to their jobs in perpetuity. It’s almost as touching as it is idiotic.
In 1993, Matthew Bannister became controller of Radio One and set about dismantling the cosy cartel of timeserved DJ’s – DLT, Simon Bates, Bruno Brookes, Gary Davies etc – in an attempt to make the station relevent to those listeners who weren’t yet drawing a pension. This was shown in a memorable Channel Four (ironically) documentary.
The staggering sense of entitlement these chaps had was nauseating. Truly believing in their own greatness (they’re DJ’s for God’s sake!) they were in turn speechless then apoplectic that anyone could actually dispense with their talents.
I think this is the problem in the media. When you live in a fairly closed, likely sycophantic bubble, you probably don’t see yourself as others do (witness another DJ, Danny Baker’s hubristic display when dismissed from his BBC show last year).
I think all performers are fair game to be removed to be honest. They ride a wave of public appeal. When that diminishes, they become a liabilty. It’s happened with almost every broadcaster, pop group, actor etc that’s ever lived. By those standards, McCririck has had a fantastic run.
Anyway, who really misses him nowadays?
Mike
Well, I’d always presumed there must have been something in the claim, merely on the grounds that his experienced lawyers reportedly took this on a ‘no-win, no-fee’ basis. Our learned friends rarely spend time in the preparation and execution of a case unless they have a realistic opportunity of turning a shilling or two.
Presumably when they initially agreed to take the case on they would only have McCririck’s side of the story and would not have full disclosure of the C4 response / reasoning.
Mind, before this went to judgement a few weeks ago, McCririck stated that he would ‘lose his house’ if the verdict went against him, so the true state of his legal costs is probably fairly unfathomable.
Which makes me wonder did the original lawyers back out and McCririck still decided to go ahead.
Mike is spot on. We are all deluded to some point, but McCririck, and many in that business, become toxic with delusion, many reaching Canute levels.
I hope we’ve seen and heard the last of him, but fear we have not. I thought he was a blight on racing, and having been unlucky enough to find myself ‘drawn’ next to him at a sponsor’s dinner one night, found his level of sexism bordering on misogyny. A thoroughly unlikeable man, imo.
There was never a chance McCririck would win his case.
His ridiculous antics, increasingly frail appearance and faltering delivery meant he was well overdue to be shipped out.
His age wasn’t necessarily the be all and the end all. Several TV performers older than he is appear to be far more in control of their faculties.
His obnoxious attitude to the watching racegoers and long-suffering colleagues would have been enough reason to have dispensed with his services years earlier. Sadly, despite his wealth of knowledge, his other failings had become far too apparent.
He did himself no favours at all during the tribunal itself and was regularly told to moderate his "grandstanding". He undoubtedly got the backs up of those hearing the case (ironically women) and I’m sure they would have been very unimpressed by his arrogant antics.
He had a very good innings, working into his 70s in an image-conscious industry, and he ought to be very grateful he lasted as long as he did.
No doubt the manner of the ending of his connection with Channel 4 racing was brusque but he got what he deserved. His own arrogant, short-tempered and dismissive attitude to others should have prepared him for a taste of his own medicine.
Channel 4 racing is better without him, despite the lightweight nature of the current betting coverage. Overgrown and bullying schoolboys who like throwing their considerable weight around invariably get their come-uppance and he has finally got his.
The more I see of the now not-so-new Channel 4 coverage, the more I like it.
Graham Cunningham does a great job and the whole team, including Rishi Persad, seems much more at ease and confident now. Overall, the new team is a big improvement and I am only too pleased to say that my misgivings this time last year have been proved largely unfounded.
I still can’t stand the fingers pressing buttons on the touch screen though….
It’s 44 pages long and not an easy read but here is the full judgement.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/mccririck-channel-4.pdf
The correct decision. It would have been a travesty ( forget the justice bit ) had McCririck won his desperate case.
I gave a small whoop of delight when i heard the verdict.
Common sense prevails.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
I feel the verdict was somewhat of a foregone conclusion, but it’s still a relief. What took them so long! CrustyPatch hit the nail on the head when saying he should be grateful he lasted so long. He’s been well past his sell by date for years imo.
Humble he ain’t
Paragraphs 59 – 74 are interesting as they cover who else was considered for presenting roles and the reasons The Cat and Big Al were not kept on.
I always thought both Mike and Al got bum deal and after reading the ruling I’m more convinced they were sh@t upon from a great height.
Interesting that Sean Boyce and Rory J were also mentioned in the betting role, also no apparent consideration of Chapman.
For the other roles it seems Chris Dixon, Richard Hoiles, Sam Thomas, Chris Cook, Francesca Cumani, Walter Swinburn and Ollie Bell were considered.
Chris Dixon would have been an interesting choice. I think Chris is one of the most shrewd tipsters and if I was relying on someone to give me a tip then Chris would be top of my list.
It’s 44 pages long and not an easy read but here is the full judgement.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/mccririck-channel-4.pdf
I have just completed the reading of this judgement. If this had been a discrimination case it may well have won. There is reference to this having ‘merits’ but they were there to decide if ‘Agism’ had taken place, so no further reference is made. To me it looks very clear that C4 did not want John McCririck within a thousand miles of its programmes, not that he was too old. C4 believe that they are looking for a smart new team to bring a younger audience to C4 – they describe racing as being for a down market man over 55, is that not discrimination and agism? I will continue to watch RUK and ATR but absolutely not C4.
C4 believe that they are looking for a smart new team to bring a younger audience to C4 – they describe racing as being for a down market man over 55, is that not discrimination and agism? I will continue to watch RUK and ATR but absolutely not C4.
Are you sure of that?
My interpretation of what C4 actually said was, it was an outmoded view which did not reflect the demographic of the sport. (Para 37)
Then again I did lose the will to live reading parts of the judgement so I may have missed something
C4 believe that they are looking for a smart new team to bring a younger audience to C4 – they describe racing as being for a down market man over 55, is that not discrimination and agism? I will continue to watch RUK and ATR but absolutely not C4.
Are you sure of that?
My interpretation of what C4 actually said was, it was an outmoded view which did not reflect the demographic of the sport. (Para 37)
Then again I did lose the will to live reading parts of the judgement so I may have missed something
Ok to check my memory I have plodded through again. I was quoting from 103. It states:- It is clear from the evidence that, having won the ‘Crown Jewels’ C4 wanted to attract a younger and broader audience whilst maintaining its existing horse-racing audience of down market males aged over 55 etc…….
Have a read, I may have the wrong end of the stick here, it is fairly intensive reading!!
My faith in justice is restored as McCririck loses his discrimination case – now I hope C4 take him to the cleaners to recover their costs.
It will be interesting to see if they try. In my experience tribunals rarely order costs to be paid by people who make claims.
C4 believe that they are looking for a smart new team to bring a younger audience to C4 – they describe racing as being for a down market man over 55, is that not discrimination and agism? I will continue to watch RUK and ATR but absolutely not C4.
Are you sure of that?
My interpretation of what C4 actually said was, it was an outmoded view which did not reflect the demographic of the sport. (Para 37)
Then again I did lose the will to live reading parts of the judgement so I may have missed something
Ok to check my memory I have plodded through again. I was quoting from 103. It states:- It is clear from the evidence that, having won the ‘Crown Jewels’ C4 wanted to attract a younger and broader audience whilst maintaining its existing horse-racing audience of down market males aged over 55 etc…….
Have a read, I may have the wrong end of the stick here, it is fairly intensive reading!!
I agree it’s intensive reading.
Para 103 looks to be an interpretation of the panel which seems to contradict what is quoted by C4 in Para 37.
Not sure what to make of it to be honest
I have to say one of the biggest surprises for me, also picked up by the panel, is the lack of or incomplete notes.
That strikes me as being a basic flaw.
It was always drummed into me that for anything HR related you must maintain comprehensive notes*. It’s obvious C4 knew McCririck was going to play the age card, to then not maintain detailed records was a very risky or naive approach, which could have cost them dear had McCririck presented a stronger case.
* I once had to write in some notes for somebody I interviewed for a job that "the interviewee then broke down in tears and was unable to continue." And no I wasn’t doing a Paxman – it was a girl in her late 20’s who had only had the one one job, for which she hadn’t been interviewed as it was for a family friend.
It was the first job interview she had ever had and the poor girl was petrified. It was probably the one occasion when I was really glad HR were in the interview (we didn’t always use them) as the HR manager was able to verify I had behaved impeccably. I have to confess I think I was more traumatised than the poor girl at the end of it and thankfully it was the last interview of the day. After we had calmed the girl down and arranged a taxi home for her, all three of us on the interview panel had to go for a stiff drink. We dined out on the story for years and, needless to say, all three of us took a hell of a lot of stick after that one.
I feel sorry for him, though he was foolish and badly advised to think he could win this.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.