From Racing Post John McCririck launches legal action against C4 By Peter Scargill 11:28AM 9 JAN 2013 JOHN MCCRIRICK is seeking £3 million in damages after launching legal proceedings against former employer Channel 4 and production company IMG Sports Media citing age discrimination. One of racing's most recognisable faces, McCririck, 72, had been Channel 4's betting ring expert for 29 years before he was left out of the new team for 2013 after IMG took control of production of racing from Highflyer. McCririck, who had expressed some hope of returning to Channel 4's line-up in the future, said he hoped the proceedings provided a "watershed" moment. In a statement to the Racing Post on Wednesday, McCririck said: "Channel 4 and production company IMG Sports Media were yesterday each served a letter before action for age discrimination. "After 29 years with Channel 4 Racing, on a rolling annual contract, I have been sacked without any consultation or cogent explanation. I am 72. "For loss of future earnings, unfair career damaging, public humiliation, stress and mental anguish, I will be seeking £500,000. "I am seeking a further exemplary, punitive £2.5 million, part of which will be donated to charitable organisations helping to prevent negative prejudice in the workplace." He added: "Ageism is illegal. For tens of thousands of employees it has become the feared scourge of our society. This litigation should prove to be a watershed. "There's no upper limit to the amount of damages employment tribunals can award under the Equality Act 2010." McCririck is being represented in his action by Stephen Beverley, an employment and sports law specialist solicitor at London West End Cavendish Legal Group on a no-win, no-fee basis.
If he is on an annual rolling contract, surely he has not been sacked, his contract has just not been renewed.
I just think he is keeping his name in the limelight so someone will give him a job... I cant see him getting anything from Channel4 at all... Just a fruitless exercise in my opinion...
I find it good that he is raising the issue, however questionable his methods may be. If he were an ethnic minority they'd never have dared.
I think red gull has it spot on The clue is that he is not actually going to be paying any legal fees!
I heard John McCririck on Jeremy Vine’s BBC Radio 2 show on the tenth of January. It started with an introduction that said McCririck was being replaced by Clare Balding. The first thing Big Mac did was correct that. According to Mac, Mr Abrahams at Ch4 asked him to recommend a younger replacement for himself. During the subsequent discussion he also referred to the people that run TV as “the suits and the skirts”. That is how to win friends and influence people. In the studio there was a TV producer, Barbara Want, allegedly around twenty years McCririck’s junior, who pointed out to him that TV is a “young medium” and that he was lucky to have lasted thirty years. Mention was also made of the way that McCririck refers to colleague Tanya Stevenson as “The Female” and other politically incorrect utterings that he has made over his career (like referring to his wife as the Booby). It was suggested that he might be a chauvinist. On the phone, they spoke to Miriam O’Reilly, who successfully brought action against the BBC programme “Country File” after she was dropped. She expressed the concern that Big Mac’s claim for three million pounds might be overriding the principle ageism issue, which does seem very fair. It is difficult to see how the same rules apply here as for Ms O’Reilly. Channel 4 Racing use external production companies and there is no requirement for a new company to employ the staff of the outgoing concern. His silk will not be bothering with the old T.U.P.E. legislation. Also, over the last couple of years, McCririck has been increasingly marginalised with limited appearances in the “betting jungle” and “The Morning Line”. To the ordinary man in the street this will look like he has just been eased out the door because he no longer fits the image that the producers want to portray. The defence will say that his age was nothing to do with it. The ageism law is only a couple of years old but is ultimately going to turn out to be totally toothless politically correct legislation. I have been the victim of ageism for at least the last five years and when seeking contract work it is difficult to disguise your age when you have fifteen years experience on your CV so you simply do not get interviews. Young people are cheaper if you are prepared to take a chance on their inexperience – ask priced-out-of-the-job Carol Vorderman. It is difficult to see how Big Mac would have been on a similar salary scale to the female mathematician so Ms O’Reilly may be right about the size of the claim, although the No Win No Fee lawyer would want twenty five per cent or more of it. Channel 4 were not represented in person but a statement supplied by them stated that McCririck was on a freelance contract from which he had been released (not the same as a “rolling annual contract”. McCririck immediately argued that he had continuity of employment in his career at the channel – I wonder if the tax man will be investigating his self assessment over the last six years to see what taxes he should have been paying as opposed to those that were actually paid. Claiming continuity of employment might mean that he should have paid a lot more National Insurance and income tax. As he is not claiming for redundancy proving continuity does not seem to be necessary.
It's a joke. He hasn't been sidelined because he's old - he's been sidelined because he's an outdated buuffoon who behaves like a 7 year old who has overdosed on haribos, coke and run riot in a fancy dress shop. His opinions on racing are Evzonaesque "Arkle was the ebst and anyone who disagrees doesn't know what they're talking about" and his constant fawning or snideyness depending on who he is talking to is embarrassing in the extreme. He pretends to be the punter's frined and that's a joke as well - if he really cared about the punter he'd have drawn attention to the regular lie we get from Tanya every week that a horse was backed in form 22/1 to 10s when in relaity the horse never went above 16s anywhere other than the illegal speak easy run out the back of Mr Ho's Chinese retaruant in Dagenham. I don't like Alstair Down either but he might have a point if he sued - Mcrirrick's case is about as watertight as the Titanic
