TV presenter Miriam O'Reilly has hit out at Julia Bradbury in a row over age discrimination.
Bradbury, 43, infuriated 57-year-old O'Reilly after suggesting in a newspaper interview that her fellow Countryfile star was not a victim of ageism.
O'Reilly won an age discrimination case against the BBC in 2011 over the decision to drop her from the rural affairs show.
Former Watchdog host Bradbury and Matt Baker were among new presenters who joined the revamped programme while John Craven was kept on.
When Bradbury suggested that the older presenter's departure was to do with changes to the show's format, O'Reilly accused Bradbury, who has been dubbed the "walking man's crumpet", of "arse-licking" and advised her to "look at the legal case (because) one day you might need it".
The row began after Bradbury, asked whether she was uncomfortable with her Countryfile role following the furore over O'Reilly, told The Times newspaper: "It wasn't something we were instantly aware of.
"Also, we didn't know at that stage that Miriam was going to react in the way she did... I've been through millions of programme changes where they say 'Sorry, love, we've changed the slot.' It happened with Watchdog: they brought Anne Robinson back."
She added: "With Miriam, the decision certainly wasn't made because she was old. The decision was because they were changing the programme."
O'Reilly hit back, writing to Bradbury on Twitter: "You say the decision to drop me from Countryfile was not because I was 'old'.
"So you know better than three judges in a legal case and former BBC director-general Mark Thompson who accepted the tribunal decision?
"Before you make ill-informed statements I suggest you look at the legal case - one day you might need it.
"Until then good luck with the arse-licking."
Bradbury recently announced that she was leaving Countryfile to front a five-part series about Britain's landscape for ITV.
O'Reilly was given a deal to return to the corporation after winning her legal case against the BBC, but she left after one year to work on other projects including her charity, Women's Equality Network.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article