John McCririck was Not Sacked Ch4 just did not renew his contract

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2013/9/30/262187/default/v1/182525266xx-1-522x293.jpg



He was on Ch5HD News
in tears.


but he was not sacked
1st day at court.

http://news.sky.com/story/1148264/mccririck-channel-4-urged-panto-villain-act


Who will win him and his £3million Claim
or Ch4 legal team?

[Marc]

Well thank god you've clarified that for me because I was really worried.

[arista]

Well thank god you've clarified that for me because I was really worried.


He is alive
and should look for a New show on TV or Talk Radio

[Novo]

can't really see much difference between the two in this case

[arista]

can't really see much difference between the two in this case




Young staff took over



Thats normal - Every place

He was Not Sacked

[Jake.]

I knew that they would never sack such a living legend

[arista]

I knew that they would never sack such a living legend



Of course


it was a simple normal change of staff.

[user104658]

Young staff took over



Thats normal - Every place

He was Not Sacked

Not really, any employer who got rid of staff simply to replace them with younger models, without another good reason, would find themselves on the wrong end if an unfair dismissal claim.

You can make people redundant, but by definition this means you can't replace them. Or you can find a reason to fire them based on misconduct. It, as is very common, you can force a resignation.

You can't get rid of someone who has done nothing wrong (in terms of their contract) and replace them for superficial reasons such as age, gender or looks.

My company has several old relics who frankly hold things back, for reasons such as computer illiteracy (they can do the work but younger staff, even inexperienced, are simply faster because they've grown up with tech) and the company would LOVE to "freshen" those people out of the company, but like I said, you can't just do that. What they do instead, is scrutinise them until they make a mistake and then threaten to fire them for gross misconduct , and tell them it would be better for them to resign as they will then provide a good reference. Lovely.

But, there literally needs to be at least one semi-serious mistake to get rid of staff unless it's a redundancy. John McCririck's case may well hold up, as they directly replaced him, meaning it's not a redundancy. Totally depends on his contract, though. If they broke a long term one, he'll win. If he's simply had a rolling year to year contract that they didn't renew, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Ammi]

Racing pundit John McCririck has lost his age discrimination employment tribunal case against Channel 4.

The 73-year-old had claimed he was dismissed by "anonymous suits and skirts" at the broadcaster because of his age, as part of a drive to hire younger faces.

But a Central London Employment Tribunal panel ruled against him.

In its judgment, the panel said: "All the evidence is that Mr McCririck's pantomime persona, as demonstrated on the celebrity television appearances, and his persona when appearing on Channel 4 Racing, together with his self-described bigoted and male chauvinist views were clearly unpalatable to a wider potential audience.

"The tribunal is satisfied that the respondent had the legitimate aim of attracting a wider audience to horseracing."

The colourful pundit, famed for his deerstalker, tic-tac gestures and gold jewellery, took his former employer and TV production company IMG Media Limited to the tribunal, alleging his sacking last year was motivated by age discrimination.

Both firms denied discrimination in the £3m case.

McCririck said: "This is an historic setback for all employees in their 30s to their 70s.

"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.

"Former Labour home secretary David Blunkett MP said in August: 'The way TV executives worship the cult of youth seems to be an unstoppable fetish'. It is now.

"With my legal team we are now out of contact while studying the judgment in detail"

[fingers]

Defiant to the last! but definitely a step in the right direction for Channel 4.

[arista]

Yes he lost simply because
he was not part of the New Contract

[Samm]

Poor John I always had a soft spot for him

[arista]

Poor John I always had a soft spot for him


Yes but a Fool to take to court
a production company
under a new contract.

Everything has to change

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/pictures/2013/6/4/1370372175043/John-McCririck-008.jpg


http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/nov/13/john-mcririck-loses-age-discrimination-case

[smudgie]

Common sense prevails.

He is way past his sell by date as well.
Once a person reaches pensionable age they should be on yearly contract, saves this happening again.

[arista]

He is Live on Radio 5 now

[Santa's NaughtiNess]

Ugh! Can't stand the man! :nono:

[arista]

Ugh! Can't stand the man! :nono:


He is not making his case well

[arista]

He just said on Ch5HD News
he regrets
taking Ch4 and the TV Production Company to Court,
as he now claims he has to re-mortgage his home
to pay the legal fee's.


You Roll your Dice
you silly old fool

[fingers]

He just said on Ch5HD News
he regrets
taking Ch4 and the TV Production Company to Court,
as he now claims he has to re-mortgage his home
to pay the legal fee's.


You Roll your Dice
you silly old fool

I'd take a bet that he did a No Win-No Fee deal.:wavey:

Unless the Lawyers weren't as stupid as that old goat!

[arista]

I'd take a bet that he did a No Win-No Fee deal.:wavey:

Unless the Lawyers weren't as stupid as that old goat!



We do not know
there was one he could do.

[smeagol]

channel 4 are pathetic and it just shows how stupid and poor that channel has got same as them with bb.
They got rid of him with the excuse he doesn't fit their profile of younger viewers and his celeb status was not the face they wanted basically.
but he was racing. it was him who made it fun , all they have done was lose yet more viewers.
yeah some dislike him as they dont understand him but the guy is a legend he was hillarious the morning line. plus his support of banning the whip was not liked

[fingers]

The money he conned CBB into paying him for his mini appearance and his winnings from betting he'd be first to be evicted would more than cover any legal fees he MAY have incurred.

[arista]

channel 4 are pathetic and it just shows how stupid and poor that channel has got same as them with bb.
They got rid of him with the excuse he doesn't fit their profile of younger viewers and his celeb status was not the face they wanted basically.
but he was racing. it was him who made it fun , all they have done was lose yet more viewers.
yeah some dislike him as they dont understand him but the guy is a legend he was hillarious the morning line. plus his support of banning the whip was not liked



Its not just Ch4
its the TV Production Company that took over the deal.
and any staff can be changed
Its all legal