- This topic has 30 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I read that he was paid £180,000.00 per year for his gig on Channel 4 Racing.
Nice work if you can get it.
The defendant is faced with two alternatives:
(1) Arguing that they did not discriminate based on age OR
(2) In the event that discrimination due to age is found they must be able to "objectively justify" that.
In order to demonstrate "objective justification" the defendant must show that the discrimination was "proportionate" and contributes to a "legitimate" aim.
They can do this either using private interests of the defendant such as economic factors.
The Supreme Court has already upheld an age threshold retirement policy on the basis of public interest, which included the advancement of younger workers and the need to avoid potentially difficult capability procedures for underperforming older workers.
To be honest, I thought that McCririck was winning this as there seemed to be some fairly strange stuff coming from C4’s lawyers. All their comments about how out of touch he was and how he didn’t represent their new image for racing seemed irrelevant to the central point of his mooted dismissal on the grounds of age, particularly if they seemed perfectly happy with him up to the point of dismissal. McCririck’s brief pointed out that C4 Racing had used him in promotional material until very recently.
However, yesterday this was reported:
Thomas Linden QC, representing Channel 4, said the pundit received a letter in April 2010 warning him about the clash. It said: “Your working days have been cut and you are being told that is because your are raising your profile and running this assertive reality television career.”
This could be the game, set & match piece of evidence. It’s basically a written warning to McCririck that the channel was unhappy with his behaviour nearly three years before his removal.
Unless McCririck can substantiate that he moderated his behaviour as a result (which I didn’t notice!!) and in the light of his subsequent appearance on
Ultimate Big Brother
, his case looks particularly flimsy.
Mike
Whether it was a persona or not, I just found it BORING.
When he first rocked up on Derby Day in 1981 with his "the racehorse of the century (and he was calling Shergar that BEFORE the race) has caused the payout of the century, there are hardened bookmakers, grown men, in tears here in the Ring!" he was refreshing and a good laugh.
But the OTT right-wing chauvinistic persona just got progressively more tedious over time.
C4 were right to sack McCririck cos he kept wearing out the ‘mute’ button on the remote for my telly!
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"Unfortunately he is pursuing the case under the insidious "no win, no fee" system.
When he loses though I hope C4 pursue him for their costs via a civil action.
This action makes a complete and utter mockery of the tribunal system.
Unfortunately he is pursuing the case under the insidious "no win, no fee" system.
When he loses though I hope C4 pursue him for their costs via a civil action.
This action makes a complete and utter mockery of the tribunal system.
I’ve heard Tanya gets on well with him Paul, but what do other women journalists think of Big Mac? (I don’t expect you to name names of course).
Value Is EverythingUnfortunately he is pursuing the case under the insidious "no win, no fee" system.
When he loses though I hope C4 pursue him for their costs via a civil action.
This action makes a complete and utter mockery of the tribunal system.
I wonder why he said he could lose his home if he didn’t win?
Unfortunately he is pursuing the case under the insidious "no win, no fee" system.
When he loses though I hope C4 pursue him for their costs via a civil action.
This action makes a complete and utter mockery of the tribunal system.
I wonder why he said he could lose his home if he didn’t win?
Presumably because he can not maintain the house and The Ivy on his current wage Mr.P.
Value Is EverythingIt didn’t sound like that, Mark, the way it was quoted:
"The tribunal heard that McCririck, who said his house was now "on the line" because of the legal action"
What a cool dude
It didn’t sound like that, Mark, the way it was quoted:
"The tribunal heard that McCririck, who said his house was now "on the line" because of the legal action"
That’s all part of the inconsistencies in his story as he was at pains to point out when he started the action that he was using a "no win no fee" lawyer – now comes this statement.
Could he be trying for the sympathy vote or did he lie in the first place or did the original lawyers back down and he wanted to carry on? Who knows?
Anyway, just wondered. Paul will know a lot more about this than me!
To be honest I don’t know. Certainly him and Tanya do seem to get on well off camera.
As for what the other female journos think I don’t know.
Firstly very few of them actually venture into the press room – sadly the press room can still be an incredibly macho, sexist place still something like a relic from the 1970’s on the bad days.
Secondly, as has been said before, his off screen persona is different from his on screen persona and he tends to keep very much to himself when in the press room. He rarely joins in any of the banter or discussion. So very few people will actually interact with him.
It didn’t sound like that, Mark, the way it was quoted:
"The tribunal heard that McCririck, who said his house was now "on the line" because of the legal action"
Yep and guess who put it there? Greedy Bollox himself,the guys a liability,thank God he’s
conditioned
his missus to confirm with his ways or she’d be gone gone gone!
Panel considering their decision. At leisure by the sounds of it, all week.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.