The one and only John McCririck.
Funny how when the tables are turned on Channel 4 Horse Racing pundit John McCririck he suddenly screams discrimination!
This from the chap who outwardly admits his derision for women! Viewing them as mere tools to be used by the greater and more powerful men in the world, himself included (or deluded)!
This cry of unfair dismissal was raised when the 72 year old was told by CH4 that they no longer required his ‘unique’ presenting skills. They have decided to reboot their programming, and Mr McCririck was not going to be part of it.
Mr McCririck then claimed it was his age, CH4 were being discriminatory against him. Perhaps CH4 had merely had enough of his ridiculous antics, not to mention the constant complaints from his female colleagues regarding his sexism!
Regardless, McCririck is determined to take this to court.
Seems that now he is on the receiving end of something he deems unfair, he has transformed himself it this paragon of virtue, this crusader of rights (as long as they don’t include women’s rights of course).
This screams sour grapes on McCririck part. It is a deed being done for his own wallet, not to highlight or prevent work place discrimination. John McCririck maybe many things, but an advocate of fairness and equality he is not, nor ever has he been! Just ask his long suffering servant, I mean his wife!
So, it seems that after years of hating women and treating them like dirt, he is finally reaping what he has sown. Albeit, in his own head, not in reality. Yet, even if CH4 were ageist they would be in good company; McCririck has disregarded discrimination laws and in fact advocated discrimination for many years. So, how can he now claim to be suffering at the hands of something he once heralded as a good thing?
I cannot keep a straight face over his absolute gall! I’m not sure how anyone listening to or partaking in these following court proceedings will either.
Lets just hope he gets an all woman jury! Fingers crossed, though I know that will be an outsider chance to beat any odds McCririck has ever given during his time as racing pundit!
The Savvy Senorita 
I’ve nothing against women … heck, they’re almost the same as people.
Last time I said that I got slopped in the mush with a wet dish-mop (she washes, I dry and break).
I take people as individuals and judge them on performance, not by how they’re dressed, gender, race, age etc. Even Mormons get politely offered coffee before the big No … I don’t see the need for ‘discrimination laws’, I see the need for more freedom. Laws aren’t freedom, you cannot legislate freedom (or acceptance, or tolerance) into existence. Laws effectively quash debate—we don’t want compliant blasted sheep, we need noisy mavericks.
Sure, I do have my prejudices. I dislike intensely individuals who have wronged me. Individuals, note. As persons, not as a people.
We do learn by experience and if every (say) Tongan I’d ever met was a confidence trickster or violent, I’d be justifiably wary—would that qualify as a prejudice?—of Tongans in the future.
The guy you dislike seems to have been anti-women, which tells you far more about him than anything else. If his bosses permitted such behaviour, it’s for a reason … which he seems to have outlived.
Interesting point about his bosses tolerating him for a reason. That could be true, perhaps his attitude (being that people knew he was ‘controversial’) held some appeal. It might have raises an audience who wondered (morbidly perhaps), what he would say or do next to shock. I suppose he and his image made a profit for them.
Laws aren’t necessarily associated with freedom, on that I agree. Laws set from above, from the powers that be, might never truly reflect our individual needs or properly defend our rights or freedoms. Even with laws in place their comes crime, so how effective are they if no one adheres to them??????
Freedom, of speech, action and opinion; yes it is needed. Yet often I find people who believe this then dislike it when they are on the receiving end of this. Similar to the commentator this post is about. From freedoms come people’s rights to be offended and disagree.
Bex 🙂
woman jury WOW