- This topic has 70 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Totally agree H, but just because a horse is well backed and wins, or friendless and runs badly… Does not mean there is neccessarily anything sinister in it. Which Big Mac’s words seemed to imply.
Does he imply that it is sinister though, that’s the question. I always took it for what it was – a Big Mac throwaway line, laced with an element of contrived "intrigue" and more often than not, embellished for effect.
There was an interesting Matt Chapman interview with the Baldings, Toby, Ian and Andrew, originally on ATR. A Dynasty of Baldings ( six parts, featuring AP, Mill Reef, Morley Street et al ) is currently available on YouTube and well worth a look. Old Toby was not averse to laying out a horse ( or two ) in order to win a big prize – and at big odds.
Hear his thoughts on the subject. I was searching for the word/s. Your "element of contrived intrigue" and "embelished for effect" is a much better way of saying it than my "sinister".
I saw the Dynasty Of Baldings interview at the time. Somewhat surprised Toby admitted to certain things. But he is also "Old school", old-fashioned opinions. It’s usually the older/retired trainers who are behind in the Morals Stakes as far as racing is concerned.
Come to think of it:
It is interesting that jockeys to learn their trade at Kimpton have seen their fair share of controversey over the years. Including Richard Guest, Graham Bradley, John Williams and Sean Fox. Toby spoke up for the latter (was he National Trainers Federation President or something like that at the time?) in the Ice Saint (Fontwell) affair. Where Sean got "unbalanced" and fell off. John Williams was said in John Francome’s book "Born Lucky" to have pulled up in the fog, only to join in again on the final circuit to win a race. Richard Guest has been in trouble with stewards more than most… And less said about Graham Bradley the better.It’s good to see Toby recovering well from stroke, a great story-teller but he went down in my estimation after that interview.
I don’t know why you were surprised / disappointed about Toby’s comments Ginge.
There were many masters of manipulating the handicap system such as Toby, Reg Akehurst, Ryan Price etc etc.
There are many flat trainers especially adept at still doing it to this day in my opinion.
The old, and new, tactics of running over inappropriate trips etc. still persist.
Whether you regard the skill of manipulating the handicap rating as a skill or a dark art, is a personal view.[b:ipswwjuj]UPDATE[/b:ipswwjuj][/color:ipswwjuj]
John McCririck will claim £3m in unfair dismissal damages from channel 4 after yesterday being given leave to take his age-discrimination case to an industrial tribunal.[/color:ipswwjuj]
McCririck (73) worked as Channel 4 Racing betting pundit for nearly 30 years before being dropped from the IMG-produced show that began broadcasting on NEW YEARS DAY.[/color:ipswwjuj]
"We have won a significant skirmish against the anonymous suits and skirts who control channel 4. MY CLAIM IS ALSO ON BEHALF OF MILLIONS OF EMPLOYEES WHOSE MERIT AND ABILITY REMAIN UNIMPAIRED BUT WHO ARE FEARFUL OF BEING FIRED BECAUSE OF AGE," McCririck said.[/color:ipswwjuj]
Yet another example of just how stupid judges are in this country.
Sorry, but that’s a ridiculous comment.
The judge in this case is an unbiased expert – the only person to be in possession of all the facts, and the only person to hear both sides’ arguments professionally outlined. His job is to offer an accurate interpretation of the law as it stands and this is what he’s done.
To describe such a decision as ‘stupid’ is to proffer your off-the-cuff views as being more valuable than this legal process.
This thread is shot through with opinions about what an idiot McCririck is (I agree!) but none of them are worth a candle. All that matters is the legal position. It seems that the judge has now stated that McCririck was ’employed’ to a considerable degree by Channel 4 and my understanding is that this brings into play all sorts of legal procedures that would have had to be followed prior to his dismissal.
I pointed out earlier that McCririck’s law firm were happy to take this case on a no-win-no-fee basis. This is not some spurious injury claim; they must have seen something in it.
Mike
This is not some spurious injury claim; they must have seen something in it.
Mike
Oh they see something in it alright………A complete Clown using his ‘Celebrity’ status to push boundaries that your normal working class man wouldn’t even consider pushing,all in the hope they can call the C4 legal teams bluff and settle out of court for just the 1 million! Lawyers will play off each other for as long as it takes as its all about the money.This could end up setting a precedent that could cost Millions itself all because some stupid Old git cant accept he’s getting old.A look in the Mirror confirms that as does listening to his gibberish when interviewed.Should the stupid Old T*at get his out of court settlement he’ll be on the first Plane to America to sells his brilliant business mind.Thats if they can find his Brain!!
This is not some spurious injury claim; they must have seen something in it.
Mike
Oh they see something in it alright………A complete Clown using his ‘Celebrity’ status to push boundaries that your normal working class man wouldn’t even consider pushing,all in the hope they can call the C4 legal teams bluff and settle out of court for just the 1 million! Lawyers will play off each other for as long as it takes as its all about the money.This could end up setting a precedent that could cost Millions itself all because some stupid Old git cant accept he’s getting old.A look in the Mirror confirms that as does listening to his gibberish when interviewed.Should the stupid Old T*at get his out of court settlement he’ll be on the first Plane to America to sells his brilliant business mind.Thats if they can find his Brain!!
It’s a top-quality rant TAPK but as with Paul’s post, it has nothing to do with the legality of McCririck’s case.
Mike
Yet another example of just how stupid judges are in this country.
Sorry, but that’s a ridiculous comment.
The judge in this case is an unbiased expert – the only person to be in possession of all the facts, and the only person to hear both sides’ arguments professionally outlined. His job is to offer an accurate interpretation of the law as it stands and this is what he’s done.
To describe such a decision as ‘stupid’ is to proffer your off-the-cuff views as being more valuable than this legal process.
This thread is shot through with opinions about what an idiot McCririck is (I agree!) but none of them are worth a candle. All that matters is the legal position. It seems that the judge has now stated that McCririck was ’employed’ to a considerable degree by Channel 4 and my understanding is that this brings into play all sorts of legal procedures that would have had to be followed prior to his dismissal.
I pointed out earlier that McCririck’s law firm were happy to take this case on a no-win-no-fee basis. This is not some spurious injury claim; they must have seen something in it.
Mike
So are you suggesting all judges are infallible sages incapable of making an incorrect decision?
I could cite countless examples of idiotic decisions made by judges over the years and I stick by my opinion that this is amongst one of the crassest decisions in a long time.
In a perverse way I also think there is a good side to this judgement – because if he is ultimately deemed to be an employee of Channel Four then I’m sure HMRC will be taking a very close look at his taxation arrangements because I’ll be pretty damned sure he will have been claiming all the breaks of being a self-employed contractor over the past years. He may end up regretting taking the course of action he has, even if he wins the case.
So are you suggesting all judges are infallible sages incapable of making an incorrect decision?
No of course I’m not…and if that isn’t a straw man argument
par excellence
then I don’t know what is!
What I am saying is that he is the only person to be in possession of the full facts of the case, as well as hearing the precise legal arguments to date from both sides. Certainly, this is not an infallible system but it’s the best we’ve come up with in the last few millennia.
Your opinion "that this is amongst one of the crassest decisions in a long time" is precisely that – an opinion from somebody who has no access to the case, and is not in full possession of the facts, writing on an internet forum.
If I were ever in court, I think I’d rather be judged by the former than the latter.
Mike
========
Lawyers for Channel 4 and IMG sought to argue that McCririck could have no claim against them, as he was only ever employed by Highflyer.[Judge] said …"Generally, as I have found, Channel 4 had ‘the ultimate say’. I consider that it is plainly apposite to say that he was ‘supplied’ to Channel 4 in furtherance of Highflyer’s contract with them."
==========
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/ju … -channel-4
i’ve not seen anything beyond this press report but on the face of it the reference to ‘supplied’ sounds like section 56(2)(e) of the Equality Act 2010:
‘(2) The provision of an employment service includes—
…(e) the provision of a service for supplying employers with persons to do work;’this suggests that to the judge the particular circumstances can at least be argued to have been, under the Act, a case of Highflyer having been ‘an employment-service provider’ and either or both of Channel 4 and IMG having been an ’employer’.
no decision has yet been made whether or not in fact either Channel 4 or IMG was an ’employer’.
the only thing decided is that it is not so ‘bleedin’ obvious’ that they weren’t ’employers’ under the Act as to ban McCririck’s lawyers from even trying to argue that they were when it comes to the substantive hearing.
the Guardian report’s opening sentence summed it up well:
"…claim for damages against Channel 4 is still alive, following the decision by an employment judge that "there is no legal obstacle to the [employment] tribunal considering the claims" against the broadcaster and IMG."
Your opinion "that this is amongst one of the crassest decisions in a long time" is precisely that – an opinion from somebody who has no access to the case, and is not in full possession of the facts, writing on an internet forum.
I do apologise unreservedly – I didn’t realise being "in full possession of the facts" was a de-facto per-requsite for having an opinion and is the only basis on which an opinion may be held.
If that’s the case we may as well shut this forum down as 99.9% of the postings on the forum would fail your test.
I’ll also drop a line to the editors of the OED advising them they have the word "opinion" incorrectly defined and suggest they contact you for the redefinition.
Certainly, this is not an infallible system but it’s the best we’ve come up with in the last few millennia.
Mike
If the system we have is the best the country can come up with after a few millennia it underlines just how **** this country really is.
Having sat on several juries and sat through countless Crown Court trials over the years I have long believed our adversarial system is seriously flawed. In far too many cases it comes down to whichever advocate is the more persuasive rather than the merits of the case. It’s more theatre than justice.
I do apologise unreservedly – I didn’t realise being "in full possession of the facts" was a de-facto per-requsite for having an opinion and is the only basis on which an opinion may be held.
I think it is in this particular case.
You are criticising the translation of an exact point (or points) of law by a judge. By implying that this judge is wrong ("this is amongst one of the crassest decisions in a long time") you appear to believe he has not applied some aspect of the law correctly.
So which part of the law has the judge got wrong?
Mike
If the system we have is the best the country can come up with after a few millennia it underlines just how **** this country really is.
That’s a terrible thing to say and you’re wrong. We may have some idiots but they are overwhelmingly the minority. This is a wonderful country full of amazing people.
Go meet some.
Mike
I do apologise unreservedly – I didn’t realise being "in full possession of the facts" was a de-facto per-requsite for having an opinion and is the only basis on which an opinion may be held.
I think it is in this particular case.
You are criticising the translation of an exact point (or points) of law by a judge. By implying that this judge is wrong ("this is amongst one of the crassest decisions in a long time") you appear to believe he has not applied some aspect of the law correctly.
So which part of the law has the judge got wrong?
Mike
This isn’t the time or place to get into protracted legal discussions, however I am surprised by the decision.
In a "past life" the vast majority of the staff in my team were freelancers, all supplied via a third party company – on the face of it a very similar setup to the C4 / Highflyer arrangement.
This was also a very well known loophole for tax avoidance which the then Inland Revenue decided to clamp down on.
I know, through spending many, many hours sitting down with lawyers and renegotiating contracts, the staff involved wanted the contracts drawn up in such a way that there could not in any way be deemed to be employees of my organisation. This was a lot easier said than done and it cost a hell of a lot of money and time to get the contracts "watertight" so both sides interests were fully protected.
Now I know John sometimes comes across as a buffoon but he (or rather Jenny) is very financially astute and I would be very surprised if his contract had not been framed in such a such a way to ensure he was not an employee of Channel Four, thus greatly "easing" his tax "liabilities".
It just seems very odd now that he is somehow now claiming he was an employee of C4 when it may suit him.
It may be possible me learned friend has seen a loophole in the contract which makes John an employee of Channel Four.
If that is the case, Mr Mc needs to be very careful what he wishes for, as if he is deemed to be an employee of Channel Four and he does win any damages (there is no way he will get the punitive damages he’s looking for)then he may well lose them and a hell of a lot more if and when HMRC begin delving into his tax affairs.
Not only that it could potentially open up a Pandora’s Box in relation to other contract staff and especially the other members of the old C4 team because if they were on similar contracts then their tax status could also be questioned.
Basically he cannot have it both ways.
If the system we have is the best the country can come up with after a few millennia it underlines just how **** this country really is.
That’s a terrible thing to say and you’re wrong. We may have some idiots but they are overwhelmingly the minority. This is a wonderful country full of amazing people.
Go meet some.
Mike
I’m not saying the country is not full of amazing people but that does not mean this country is without flaws and some of them are fundamental.
There are plenty of countries worse than this one but there are plenty better as well.
Paul
The Equality Act 2010 does also apply to that category of the self-employed known as contract workers (ie those freelancers contracted personally to do the work and who are not free to delegate or subcontract its performance to someone else on the basis that getting the task done is more important than who does it).
Under section 41:
– (7) A “contract worker” is an individual supplied to a principal in furtherance of a contract such as is mentioned in subsection (5)(b).
– (5) A “principal” is a person who makes work available for an individual who is—
(a) employed by another person, and
(b) supplied by that other person in furtherance of a contract to which the principal is a party (whether or not that other person is a party to it).
– (1) A principal must not discriminate against a contract worker..etc etc
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/41
So its also possible here that C4 and/or IMG are being targeted as ‘principals’ to whom JM was ‘supplied’ rather than as his ’employers’.
Don’t know whether JM was employed by his own service company or by Highflyer or anyone else who might have made such ‘supply’ of him directly or indirectly to C4 / IMG, but he’s been given leave to try make that case.
So if he establishes that C4 / IMG were ‘principals’ under section 41 it won’t necessarily impact him for tax purposes – HMRC are well clued-up on TV personalities:
Cheers Wit,
I wasn’t aware of the 2010 changes, so maybe the doddering old judge may have a point.
However it’s doesn’t avoid the point there are too many doddering old judges, out of touch with reality.
Hear his thoughts on the subject. 
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.