There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Any news emerged yet about damages to be paid, costs etc?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 13
|
By:
A Black Guy at Brighton yesterday was wearing a Big Mac face mask.
|
|
By:
Decision not expected till the middle of November.
|
|
By:
Since they are empowered only to award restitution for loss of earnings, but not punitive damages, it is not hard to think that the range of possibilities is narrower than some commentaters would have you believe.
|
|
By:
If he wins do they have to continue to employ him until he retires voluntarily?
|
|
By:
loss of earnings from the time he was dismissed up to age 101 could well be over 3 million
|
|
By:
compo no job back
|
|
By:
His Honour Justice Ramruma reckons:
1) C4 guilty of age discrimination 2) Compensation for loss of earnings -- which probably is not very much. 3) ET cannot order reinstatement or award £3 million "to encourage the others". So what earnings has he lost? He says C4 paid him £180,000 a year at peak but we know from press reports and Tommo's book that wages were cut, so call it £120,000. But that was when he was on every week and he was already cut back to around a quarter, so call it £30,000. And you'd need to offset against that any extra work he's picked up from Ladbrokes, ATR etc. So Mac can win a famous victory for oldies everywhere but will be lucky if compo covers his bus fare home. |
|
By:
poor old mac
|
|
By:
Ramruma...
... my thoughts entirely ! Lord Chief Justice halcyon days |
|
By:
The 3 million seems always to have been a red herring. Given that C4 seem to have tried, but failed, to argue that McCririck was not an employee, it seems likely that the panel will find in his favour (although betting on the outcomes of industrial tribunals would be for addicts only). He will make a case that he wouldhave worked for x more years at y salary, and, if they find in his favour they will make an assessment based mostly on that.
Aside from that, my personal view is that if they wanted to argur they were getting rid of him for being erm 'unpleasant' why had they not done so years ago? A case where I struggle to sympathise with either side. |
|
By:
What is the chance of him being deported?
|
|
By:
if they wanted to argur they were getting rid of him for being erm 'unpleasant' why had they not done so years ago
The research they undertook screamed out that he was unpopular, and this new production team wanted to make a serious sports broadcast rather than a two hour horse racing themed Carry On film. Personally, I can't see how he can win - they didn't want him because he's a sexist, misogynist, abusive, right wing freak show, not because he's old... |
|
By:
Any news?
Yeah he's still a horrible fat c**t! |