McCririck's Damages Suit

EC1 said:
thinking about it..you're right..its disgusting
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's disgusting, EC, only that it's an unneccessary affectation, much like everything else about him.

Whether it's the clobber, the sidies, the tom all over his fingers, or the oft-voiced opinions on every matter under the sun, he is a living charicature in every respect.

There is nothing wrong with this, per se, but televisual history is littered with the corpses of such 'acts', and - now this is the bit that McCririck doesn't get - every dog has its day, tastes change, and yesterday's zeitgeist is today's anachronism.

It's for these reasons that Leonard Sachs and The Goode Old Days was pulled from the telly, and why we are now bereft of Larry Grayson's Generation Game. Mac is in the entertainment industry, and tired acts become retired acts very quickly.

McCririck's ageism argument is as hopeless as his grasp of employment law, and if he has any kind if clue* he will want to lose, because HMRC will likely come knocking on his door, demanding most of any award in unpaid PAYE and Personal tax - people on contracts tending to operate under wholly-different tax regimes from permanent employees.

This is nothing more than a vanity-exercise by an excruciating self-publicist, who cannot live with the fact that he is nothing more than a fringe interest. This will be laughed out-of-court for the pantomime it is.

* He doesn't
 
Last edited:
Not like Biffo Binden (now im going back a bit) "wearing" his five half pint beer mugs?
 
"Tastes change" (apparently) and C4s viewing figures have rocketed since he left of course
 
brucey's still going though Grass..and it don't get more tired than that

not sure why you feel the taxman would be after him....does he owe back tax?..i would imagine like other celebs he will have paid a decent accountant over the years to find every loophole going..its only mugs like me on PAYE that ever pays every penny they owe

he may well be a tired act..but they kept the femail ..she can hardly string a sentence together without fluffing her lines
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
"Tastes change" (apparently) and C4s viewing figures have rocketed since he left of course
Click to expand...

Not relevant to his case.

Even if C4R is now an even worse show (not convinced that's possible, but never mind), it's an editorial decision that is in the producer's gift to make - which is exactly the way it should be.

The selling of this straightforward editorial-decision as age-discrimination is wholly disingenuous (as well as being utterly wrong) and the plaintiff therefore has no chance.

Case closed. Send him down. :ninja:
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
brucey's still going though Grass..and it don't get more tired than that

not sure why you feel the taxman would be after him....does he owe back tax?..i would imagine like other celebs he will have paid a decent accountant over the years to find every loophole going..its only mugs like me on PAYE that ever pays every penny they owe

he may well be a tired act..but they kept the femail ..she can hardly string a sentence together without fluffing her lines
Click to expand...

If he wins this case, it is effectively implicit that he has been a C4R employee all this time......and he should therefore have been taxed under standard PAYE terms. I've no doubt that he will have paid a pro accountant to manage his affairs efficiently over the years, though I suspect that woukd have been under sole-trader/limited company/similar regime. If he wins, HMRC may take the view that he should have been under PAYE all these years, and - given the nu bers bandied-about regarding remuneration - the PAYE underpay could be sizeable.

However, he can't win so it wont be a consideration.
 
Bit confused there i think. Viewing figures no relevance to "changing tastes" ? Dont think so...

If you were C4s lawyer he would end up with £200m in damages and the producer doing a life stretch
 
Grasshopper said:
If he wins this case, it is effectively implicit that he has been a C4R employee all this time......and he should therefore have been taxed under standard PAYE terms. I've no doubt that he will have paid a pro accountant to manage his affairs efficiently over the years, though I suspect that woukd have been under sole-trader/limited company/similar regime. If he wins, HMRC may take the view that he should have been under PAYE all these years, and - given the nu bers bandied-about regarding remuneration - the PAYE underpay could be sizeable.

However, he can't win so it wont be a consideration.
Click to expand...

i doubt they can go back more than 6 years as you only need to keep records that long
 
f he wins this case, it is effectively implicit that he has been a C4R employee all this time......and he should therefore have been taxed under standard PAYE terms.
Click to expand...

Its really because of this that he surely cant win. Its just a supplier contract and thats that. Looks even worse if hes a ltd co and if hes been doing K2 or something ...jesus

What will be interesting is whether his lawyers are on conditional here. I suspect they aren't given its so flimsy and this case is hardly going to be cheap. Could be lumbered with both sides costs.
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
i doubt they can go back more than 6 years as you only need to keep records that long
Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I think the Revenue can go bqck as far as it bloody-well pleases them.

That's what I mean, clive - even if he wins, there's a chance he'll lose in the end-game.
 
clivex said:
Bit confused there i think. Viewing figures no relevance to "changing tastes" ? Dont think so...

If you were C4s lawyer he would end up with £200m in damages and the producer doing a life stretch
Click to expand...

TV audiences are notoriously fickle. Anyway, their audience numbers are obviously better measured at a later date i.e. after the Jumps has started and there's more than nine people interested in what's on offer. ;)
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
If he wins this case, it is effectively implicit that he has been a C4R employee all this time......and he should therefore have been taxed under standard PAYE terms. I've no doubt that he will have paid a pro accountant to manage his affairs efficiently over the years, though I suspect that woukd have been under sole-trader/limited company/similar regime. If he wins, HMRC may take the view that he should have been under PAYE all these years, and - given the nu bers bandied-about regarding remuneration - the PAYE underpay could be sizeable.

However, he can't win so it wont be a consideration.
Click to expand...

There's no way HMRC would be interested in this, just winning the case isn't enough for them to consider him an employee. I think in initial reports he was on a no-win no-fee deal with his own lot.
 
He is saying he was 'sacked', Steve. If he wins his dismissal case, it infers therefore that he was an employee - rather than simply an external third-party hired under an explicit contract.

From what I've read, his arrangement with C4R was almost certainly under the latter arrangment, meaning his contract merely wasn't renewed/extended rather than him being 'sacked'. This is why he can't win.

Your faith in what may/may not interest the Revenue is to your credit, but I fear it might be misplaced, shoukd Big Mac spring a miracle and actually win this thing......which we've already established that he cannot. :cool:
 
EC1 said:
he may well be a tired act..but they kept the femail ..she can hardly string a sentence together without fluffing her lines
Click to expand...

Nor does she say anything remotely controversial.

Can you imagine O'Sullevan ever bringing his socio-political views to his race commentaries?

"...and as they come below the distance Dahlia the frog strikes the front and is going clear to emulate those wops Ribot and Ribero..."
 
Ignoring the fact that he's dull and out dated, he was Self Employed and like any of us that are Self Employed you cannot be sacked unless you sack yourself! There is no case. Send him down.
 
Grasshopper said:
I'm no expert, but I think the Revenue can go bqck as far as it bloody-well pleases them.

That's what I mean, clive - even if he wins, there's a chance he'll lose in the end-game.
Click to expand...

HMRC would go back as far as his Limited Company existed. If they don't I'll be putting in a complaint.
 
I miss Willie Carson on the Aunty Beeb aswell, never forget him standing on his box next to Claire Balding explaining the whip rules while he had one in his hand...

Then he asked Claire to put her hand out, attempting to show what a slight tap on a horses back would feel like, however he got carried away and whipped her three times until she yelled.:D

As for the female...her dress sense never seizes to amaze, I wonder if she has a mirror in the house. :)

Maybe she was nicknamed the 'female' just as a reminder. :)
 
Last edited:
McCririck's use of the tag 'Hayley Headturner' was a direct and continuing sneer at his colleague Emma Spencer. The man is a misogynist as well as a racist (sorry - I meant xenophobe - that just slipped out.)
 
an capall said:
McCririck's use of the tag 'Hayley Headturner' was a direct and continuing sneer at his colleague Emma Spencer.
Click to expand...

It would also call his eyesight into question. You wouldn't look twice at Turner if she passed you in the street.

Didn't he also have names for Emma Spencer and Alice Plunkett? And Lesley Graham?

'Pouting heiress' springs to mind for one of them.

But I can declare there is no truth in the rumour he once referred to me as Robert Redford's twin.
 
Lesley Graham also claiming her hours were cut when she hit 50. Does she really think that her age was the problem? Shocking tv presenter.
 
The BBC report from the hearing this morning was quite revealing. I imagine McCririck wouldn't have wanted some of those remarks about him made public.

It at least revealed what those at the top really think of him!
 
Back
Top