McCririck v Channel 4: Rainer's made his mind up. | Horse Racing

Evening, all. I was going to put this on the "Not Horseracing" thread, on the grounds that it didn't strictly refer to the racing of horses. But enough people might have a view on McCririck's case to make it worth a thread of its own.

I think we can assume that the hearing which ended yesterday was pretty much a waste of time, and did nothing except get a graspingness of lawyers more money. The judge seemed to have no difficulty in deciding that Channel 4 were the correct party for JM to sue, whether or not he was technically employed by Highflyer, and matters now move on to a scene-setting hearing on 19 July, followed fairly shortly (at last) by a full so-called evidential hearing.

Cutting to the chase, I don't think JM's got any serious chance of winning at all, unless he finds a judge in an unusually playful or capricious mood. His case is that he is being discriminated against on grounds of age, and he's looking for punitive damages - and/or a punitive fine - on the grounds
that Channel 4 removed him from their team because he's old (currently 73) although (his words) his 'merit and ability remain unimpaired'.

Two main issues here. First, can he demonstrate that his merit and ability actually are unimpaired ?Second, even if they are, is that relevant if Channel 4 want different KINDS of merit and ability to
attract a future and wider audience ?

On the first point, I think age does affect behaviour and on-screen presence. I'm (several) years older than JM, and I'm certain that increasing age brings with it the following broadcasting - and, in my case, social - disadvantages: (1) an unshakeable conviction that your view is the right one (2) a very annoying habit of extending a debate by simply repeating the last point you made, but at higher volume (3) a tendency to illustrate or justify your position by reference to horses, people or events from several decades ago. There's also the sub-drawback of forgetfulness - a lot of you will remember that Peter O'Sullevan, in his last year or two as a commentator, began to call horses by the names of their grandsires. Truthfully, I don't think JM has brought anything new to televised racing for several years and his one real virtue - a willingness to ask awkward questions of the great and good - has been neutralised by the fact that, these days, the BHA can point out they have put machinery in place to examine the issues he raises.

On the second, I'd say he would have been on much stronger ground if he'd been the ONLY casualty of the new approach. But Alistair Down and Derek Thomson - both twenty years younger - also got
axed. I expect the final-hearing judge to say fairly firmly that JM's "style" - noisy, in-your-face, often aggressive, regularly claiming that he "represents the views of the ordinary punter" (no he doesn't), tendentious, repetitive - is sufficiently at odds with the image Ch.4 want to project that they are entitled to kiss him off.

None of this has anything to do with his reality TV appearances (which I didn't see), his attitude to his wife or female colleagues (which I take as just part of his acting-persona) or his maybe-not-Brad-Pitt looks. In fact, I'm not greatly taken with Ch.4's revamped presentation and almost invariably use the two satellite channels, or spend long sunlit afternoons in the betting shop.

Back in the day, you weren't allowed to bet on the outcome of court cases - something to do with being against public policy and prejudicial to the legal process. I don't know if that's still true, but if I was pricing up the final hearing (assuming we're looking at a single uncomplicated issue of discriminatory dismissal under the Equality Act of 2010, and not a series of connected or secondary charges), I'd go about 1-6 Ch.4 and 7-2 JM. Any takers ?

 

Rainer, good morning- and good Article!
McCririck is symptomatic of current society where 'opportunism' is rife. Everywhere people looking to benefit financially from misfortune, tragedy, and the mistakes of others. Invariably greed is the catalyst for this opportunism.
When it comes to employment, life has gone full circle. Only fifty years ago, employers accumulated fortunes on the back of crude, manipulative working conditions for employees.
Now employees want everything in their favour....long-term contracts; pensions; maternity/paternity leave; full sickness benefits; arbitrary absenteeism.
The result is a nation that produces less and less- while wanting more and more. The UK's National Health Service is the greatest example on earth of this- and a bastardisation of a wonderful ideal. 1.2 million employees with 18.9 % absenteeism (the worst in Europe of any organisation), no doubt engendered by six month's full pay, six month's half pay contracts.
In all industries, employers must cringe every time they turn up for work- wondering how many staff will attend. I laugh when I think of my first job (as trainee salesman). Every Friday, I got up at 5.30 am and caught three buses to work nearly forty miles away. Only once was I late (by three minutes) but I was threatened with the sack!
McCririck's case is essentially simple.....he is challenging the right of a new employer to employ whom they choose. On any level he has no case, but I should hesitate to take your odds of 1/6 that he loses- many judges have become idiots in their rulings.
Perhaps one of your namesake's quotes sums him up...
"If your daily life seems poor, do not blame it; blame yourself that you are not poet enough to call forth its riches; for the Creator, there is no poverty."
All the best, Rainer.

 

IF Mccirrick was under contract and it was terminated without reimbursement he has a case.
If his contract expired and wasnt renewed then he has no case.

It SHOULD really be that simple.

McCirrick is entertaining yet irritating in the same breath! Same applies to Thommo

Downs is more of a loss than McCirrick.

When the betting shops "held" the prices til 1015am ie preinternet betting I used to find it an informative show,
these days not so much and the ever changing 8am -9am start for the morning line shows how highly held
it is in the eyes of Channel 4!

Channel 4 MUST employ Matt Chapman "can I get a yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" ;-)

 

Yes, from me, if given the same role as he has on ATR.

 

There comes a time in life to retire, McCririck should understand that. He has been very lucky to have continued as long as he has, very lucky. Excellent article.

Hmmm, think it's about time I retired from messing around on not606 too, after digesting some of Rainer's pertinent observations. The cheers are deafening, but regardless, tata chaps, enjoy life and back all the winners!

SwanHills.

 

Another one bites the dust. It's been emotional buddy ;-)

 

Whether McCririck was entitled to reimbursement would depend upon the terms of his contract, to which we have no access. Channel 4 contend that he was employed on a rolling freelance contract, which suggests that it would have been easily terminated.

His legal case and exorbitant damages claim are both being pursued by a “no win, no fee” legal team, which suggests that he has at least the sense to limit his own costs in a case that appears to lack legal merits but will ensure maximum publicity.

 

None of those remarks had a target, Swanny - and if they had, it certainly wouldn't have been you. I think of you, Tamerlo and myself as the Curly, Larry and Moe of (Not)606.
This is no time to go wandering off alone - stay and entertain us.

 

Just tell me you're joking Swan.

 

Good thread rainer, and well put... I do think JM was just trying to keep his name in the news and trying to find a supporter of him to give him a job really... He now and again appears on the ATR Sunday review programme, and to be honest i can handle him in that, as he isnt trying to play the pantomime dame figure that he plays on C4...

But where i have no sympathy with any of the tv presenters currently is that some of them seem to keep their jobs no matter how good they are. I do think that JM had run his course and it was time to move him on, the only thing is we dont seem to have the characters to replace them with...

 

Ditto - Oddy can't keep us up to date on the happenings in germany all on his own you know and someone needs to keep dear old Sir barney on his toes!

 

I expect he wont succeed with a large age descrimination claim but will probably get some sort of out of court settlement. His no win no fee team would take a percentage of that as you do not recover your own fees in a tribunal and his solicitors wont work for nothing! I wouldnt mind betting (excuse the pun) that his contract isnt water tight and Channel4 may be criticised...i.e things like notice period for dismissing him.... was he given notice? What did they do to re -accomodate him elsewhere? I think C4 will pay him off especially if McCririck has some dirt to dish .....we wont hear about it then as all parties will sign a confidentiality agreement and C4 wont want any negative publicity coming out of it.

 

He's at the tennis today. How the H does he get a ticket

 

Not interested in horse racing at all,but I found the OP interesting and informative.If you can give McCririck "several years" then you definitely havn't lost any marbles.

 

In 1990 I went to the Ascot Festival day at the end of September. It wasn't covered by C4 but JM was there, in the foulest weather I've ever watched racing. He stood out there all day entertaining the punters and taking all the weather that was thrown at him as if it was yesterday at Wimbledon. I couldn't have admired the man more.

But oh the last 10 years he's gone from boorish to dreadfully boring and full of himself I can't think many people can have respect for him now. His time was then and it is gone.

 

Just popped back to thank you all for the very kind comments. It's for the best, as reading back on some of my stuff it was bloody boring...LOL!! Stick, my friend, it was really a rollercoaster ride of emotion with that flipping team of ours. Quite honestly, they did not deserve to stay up. Hope they do OK in the Championship, but if ever the R's do get back up it'll take more than one season, I'm sure of that. All the best lads!

 

Well I'll miss you. And now you've reduced the R's supporters on here by an enormous percentage of 33%.

 

Tks vm Bustino. Yes, I remember you told me once that you were standing in about the same area as me in that 1967 Final at Wembley. I was dead in line with Rod Marsh's snooker goal; to this day i swear he meant it! ;-)

Will pop back, of course, if I get any info on German (and occasionally French) horses, although since the flat race stables are mostly up north over here, OddDog knows much more than I in this respect, and has given a few damn good hints on German raiders in the past on the forum.

All the very best to you!

 

When Wycombe were an amateur club at Loakes Park, QPR played us in a friendly and Rodney Marsh put on a display of magic. Class act.

Make sure you stay in touch Swan.

 

Don't be a stranger swanny.

People sometimes ask me how and why I ending up being a QPR fan and it was simple really. My dad took me as a young boy to watch my first football match at Highbury. He assured me later that he thought I might end up an Arsenal fan. He followed United because of the Busby babes and Wolves due to being stationed at Cosford at the end of the war.
His plan was scuppered however as the team in hoops had a simply magical player wearing the number ten shirt. He was simply different class to the rest of the players on the pitch.
So I guess you could say that Rodney Marsh caused me a life of mostly heartache and pain.