ChatterBank3 mins ago
Mccrirrick
Horrible, nasty creature...bleating about being encouraged to be sexist.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ferlew. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.As predicted by most on here - Channel 4 are claiming the JM was simply unsuitable for their re-formtting of their racing coverage - it was nothing to do with his age.
Fighting on the 'age' platform was never going to win - it's about the only sure ground Channel 4 can respond from - the truth is, JM is past his time, the viewers and the channel don't want him, so he had to go. His age has nothing to do with it - only to harm his case - in the eyes of the public, most men of his age would be happy to retire with the money he has made, and let a younger presenter take over.
Fighting on the 'age' platform was never going to win - it's about the only sure ground Channel 4 can respond from - the truth is, JM is past his time, the viewers and the channel don't want him, so he had to go. His age has nothing to do with it - only to harm his case - in the eyes of the public, most men of his age would be happy to retire with the money he has made, and let a younger presenter take over.
It's a shame because underneath his flamboyant personna, JM is recognised by the racing fraternity as a serious racing journalist with vast experience, and relavent views and comment.
His future may lie abroad, where an English eccentric can liven up foreign racing coverage, although I suspect he will be reluctant to up sticks at his age.
His future may lie abroad, where an English eccentric can liven up foreign racing coverage, although I suspect he will be reluctant to up sticks at his age.