McCririck's Damages Suit

Just seen Ardross's post. So on that basis and the point you make you'd have to think that they consider the appealing to viewers question to be the crux of their reason for dismissal. I'd imagine that "taking the programme in a different direction" would be equivalent to requiring alternative skills in a more "normal" position - i.e. he doesn't possess the skills they required for the future.

Having just read the governments notes on Fixed Term Contracts though - I would say that it doesn't make any mention of having to go through a process of warnings and performance improvement etc as you would have to do with a "normal" employee.

Just that you have to provide a substantial reason for not renewing.
 
Point being that that substantial reason surely can't be something that C4 have tolerated, or even encouraged, over the years?
 
simmo said:
Just seen Ardross's post. So on that basis and the point you make you'd have to think that they consider the appealing to viewers question to be the crux of their reason for dismissal. I'd imagine that "taking the programme in a different direction" would be equivalent to requiring alternative skills in a more "normal" position - i.e. he doesn't possess the skills they required for the future.

Having just read the governments notes on Fixed Term Contracts though - I would say that it doesn't make any mention of having to go through a process of warnings and performance improvement etc as you would have to do with a "normal" employee.

Just that you have to provide a substantial reason for not renewing.
Click to expand...

Again...only if he was an employee. So if he does get a pay out the whole whack should go back to HMRC.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Point being that that substantial reason surely can't be something that C4 have tolerated, or even encouraged, over the years?
Click to expand...

Why not?

Would you consider it impossible that a company who required a Project Manager one year subtly altered the direction of their work to require a Project analyst the next (without fundamentally changing the product supplied) and as a result no longer required the services of a Project Manager (otherwise known as a clown) but did require the services of a Project Analyst - for which role the current Project Manager was not considered appropriate?
 
simmo said:
Why not?

Would you consider it impossible that a company who required a Project Manager one year subtly altered the direction of their work to require a Project analyst the next (without fundamentally changing the product supplied) and as a result no longer required the services of a Project Manager (otherwise known as a clown) but did require the services of a Project Analyst - for which role the current Project Manager was not considered appropriate?
Click to expand...

Sounds suspiciously like constructive dismissal. That might not apply to a contractor but it appears McCririck is being allowed to fight this case as an employee.
 
My fear is that this case will make law and then for the next 100 years the case of McCririck V C4 will be taught at law schools or cited in court. That would mean the obnoxious, vainglorious turd could never be forgotten.
 
an capall said:
My fear is that this case will make law and then for the next 100 years the case of McCririck V C4 will be taught at law schools or cited in court. That would mean the obnoxious, vainglorious turd could never be forgotten.
Click to expand...

So do you like him or not?
 
Not even an All Ireland Ticket would change my opinion on this slimeball. And All Ireland tickets have shifted my opinion in the past.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Sounds suspiciously like constructive dismissal. That might not apply to a contractor but it appears McCririck is being allowed to fight this case as an employee.
Click to expand...

Constructive dismissal does not apply where the employee is dismissed. It is only applicable where an employee chooses to leave as a result of an untenable situation being constructed by their employer (roughly speaking).

Unfair dismissal is applied where an employee is dismissed.
 
Roddy Owen said:
Dignity is something he just wouldn't understand
Click to expand...

you can't spend that at Tesco's

i don't see much dignity in people who have top jobs..f00k up.. and then get an obscene pay off as a reward for being useless...i don't see anyone talking about dignity then..oh well you ought to give the money back as its undignified getting an obscene amount of money for being sh1t at your job.

not many people can afford dignity these days..and those at the top have the least dignity of all when it comes to taking money they don't deserve
 
Last edited:
Digger said:
Again...only if he was an employee. So if he does get a pay out the whole whack should go back to HMRC.
Click to expand...

why would the whole lot go to HMRC?...PAYE doesn't take all your money last time i looked at my meagre earnings

also would it not be C4's responsiblity to have paid his PAYE out of his "wages" same as any other employer does?
 
Last edited:
Again, it all depends on the type of 'contract ' he had, EC.

If it was a Ltd Co, C4 woukd have paid Net plus VAT only, as it is a wholly commercial transaction with no person/individual receiving a payment; ergo it is not subject to PAYE (which is an Employer/Employee tax).

In such an arrangment, Mac would be the sole shareholder of the Ltd Co, and likely its only employee.

Mac woukd recieve two incomes from the limited company; one as an employee, and one as shareholder. The former would be on standard emplyee/wages terms, with PAYE and NI due on the part of the employee.

The tax efficiency is usually created by paying the employee a small annual salary, and drawing 'the rest' i.e. the company profit after tax and expenses, as dividends, where a different - perhaps more generous, shall we say - tax regime applies.

Now forget all that, and let's assume he has been a traditional, classic employee all along?

Every penny he's earned would be subject to the standard PAYE tax arrangement. In effect, he would have been under-paying on his PAYE each year; benefiting from a tax-regime that no other standard employee can access.

If he wins this case, and the Revenue take a view that he has been an employee all along, he will need that £3.5M, as his tax-bill would be in nose-bleed territory.
 
Last edited:
Diamond Geezer said:
Let's not forget

" I don't want compensation, I want my job back"
Click to expand...

fair enough Grass..we don't know the ins and outs exactly do we?

he's probably bored DG..which is understandable no matter what your opinion of him is..he won't get the job back obviously..so he will do what every other person would do..will take the money

anyone who says they wouldn't in the same position..when they are his age..is a liar
 
Last edited:
Apparently, unfair dismissal is capped at 70k, so his claim must purely be on the grounds of age discrimination.
 
My final comment on this. IF he was a CH4 employee did he get permission to appear on Celeb Big Brother and pick up 50k for moonlighting? Doubt it. He's not an employee he's a very naughty boy. #thefatuselessprick
 
the thought of Mac getting some cash is really getting to a few i see:lol:

i can just feel the hate;)

fatuselessprick?..isn't that fattist..is that sort of talk allowed nowadays?:)
 
Last edited:
In his case, it's vanity and greed.

In your case, it will be because you're a malnourished pauper, which means it's allowed. :D
 
Thought this article was pretty interesting from ATR, particularly the comments about Francesca Cumani. Putting aside your own opinion of McCririck and his suitability for the role, I'm beginning to think this might not be quite the dismissal I thought. Surprised it got this far in truth. http://www.attheraces.com/article.aspx?hlid=538731&lid=pa+racing+feed&raceid=&title=McCririck+style+%27liable+to+offend%27&ref=PA+Racing+Feed&nav=news&sub=McCririck+style+%26#39;liable+to+offend%26#39;&day=Thu
 
Back
Top