Samira Ahmed wins !

[EwwSprouts]

Excellent. Tribunal was unanimous according to lunchtime news.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50599080

The BBC article is surprisingly fair, talking about stardust not being a reason to pay a man more than a woman. Glints in eyes etc. Well done Samira, must have been so stressful.

I'm really pleased. Not sure if I'd rather SA got a massive pay rise or Jeremy Vine got a huge pay cut.

Delighted to hear this! Samira is a lot more interesting to listen to or watch than JV!

So pleased to see this! Samira is also excellent on R4’s Front Row.

Crikey boatyard I’m sure that must constitute torture.

It was terrible. Jeremy was only half of it. Some of the callers were infuriating or exceedingly dim/uninformed.

Really pleased for Samira too. The BBC should have rectified this immediately after the Miriam O’Reilly case years ago. I also remember reading that Gloria Hunniford, Angela Rippon and Julia Somerville were all paid much less to present Rip Off Britain than Alan Shearer got for Match of the Day. This was despite Rip Off Britain having higher viewing figures.

Go samira 🥊🥊💎👌

I heard that too Nettie.

The BBC is one big boys club.

Anne Robinson- probably the presenter most strongly associated with Points Of View - got paid £300/episode in 1998, the equivalent of £530 in 2019. She could out - glint Jeremy Vine by a mile, and she wrote her own scripts.

R4 midnight news just called it sex discrimination.

Good. And their justification makes them look ridiculous.

Anne Robinson- probably the presenter most strongly associated with Points Of View - got paid £300/episode in 1998,

I did not know that Powershowerforanhour. And at that time she was such a household name because of The Weakest Link. As DeeZastris said, a boys club. A white boys club perhaps because when the news about BBC high salaries was released Clive Myrie (black newsreader as I know lots of Feminist Chat posters don’t watch the BBC or are outside the UK), pointed out men from a minority ethnic background were paid much less than their white counterparts. As posters pointed out up thread, it does look hypocritical.

This case is so odd. Samira took over the presenting of a show watched by a tiny audience on the BBC news channel, and was paid the same as the previous presenter, who was a man. She then said she should be paid the same as someone presenting a similar format on a different channel watched by millions. If she was discriminated against because of her sex, surely then the previous presenter of the show was too? Except he was a man. How does that work?

I believe the Newswatch programme was repeated on BBC One. Whether it was when the previous man presented it I don’t know.

I’m still mentally scarred by a particularly long MRI scan last spring where the technician had put headphones on me before leaving the scanning room and I was stuck with Vine’s R2 Brexit phone-in for the duration

OMG - my ultimate nightmare Hope you are suing for millions?

Exactly, it was a bloody repeat on BBC One. Repeats cost a tiny fraction in fees, which is why you see wall to wall Come Dine with Me on More4. If anyone thought that this made Samira = any BBC One presenter (whether Jeremy Vine or Sophie Rawworth or anyone) they simply wouldn't have repeated it as it is such a daft argument. It is simply not how broadcasting works, whether the BBC or any other channel.

Samira took a job and was paid the same as the previous man, who was Raymond Snoddy. Therefore how can she have been discriminated against based on sex?

After the Maya judgement and now this, I think employment tribunals are deeply strange and disconnected form reality.

Samira took over the presenting of a show watched by a tiny audience on the BBC news channel, and was paid the same as the previous presenter, who was a man. She then said she should be paid the same as someone presenting a similar format on a different channel watched by millions.

I thought that Samira's programme had higher viewing numbers?

This case is so odd. Samira took over the presenting of a show watched by a tiny audience on the BBC news channel, and was paid the same as the previous presenter, who was a man. She then said she should be paid the same as someone presenting a similar format on a different channel watched by millions. If she was discriminated against because of her sex, surely then the previous presenter of the show was too? Except he was a man. How does that work?

I'm a great fan of Samira Ahmed but I'm also not convinced by this case and can't understand they came to the ruling. She was paid the same salary as the previous presenter, who was a man...

The viewing figures are irrelevant, it was still a repeat of a BBC news channel programme. It is up to the channel controller to see these figures and consider why that might be - was it the slot, format, competitor schedules or presenter that influenced the viewing figures? They then would expect to have the freedom to do what they want, perhaps change the Jeremy Vine show, schedule it better or commission Samira to do something directly for BBC One. Or do nothing as they have bigger things on their plate and they are fine with the situation.

But the idea that you get taken to an employment tribunal for sex discrimination because a repeat on your channel of a filler show from another channel does better than your own commission? That is just ludicrous.

Yes @PhoenixBuchanan it is so odd. Also Raymond Snoddy is now saying his lawyers are studying the judgement, assuming to see if he has a case too, thus again suggesting it has little to do with sex discrimination and more frustration about certain presenters getting higher talent fees than others. Which frankly is completely normal across TV, radio etc etc. Will the presenter of BBC Radio Solent be paid the same as Zoe Ball because they both host breakfast radio programmes?

People may or may not like Jeremy Vine, but his fee has nothing to do with what Samira was paid - she was paid the going rate for that show on the news channel (plus a repeat fee), he was paid the going rate for that show on BBC One.

That is why this case is so frustrating, there are other instances where people do similar jobs and there is a pay discrepancy, but this isn't the same situation at all.

Anne Robinson- probably the presenter most strongly associated with Points Of View - got paid £300/episode in 1998, the equivalent of £530 in 2019. She could out - glint Jeremy Vine by a mile, and she wrote her own scripts.

So the BBC are wasting our money by overpaying Vine?
Does anyone know if certain overpaid BBC presenters actually attract audiences or are they just assumed to?

www.irishnews.com/magazine/entertainment/2020/01/21/news/libby-purves-cost-of-gender-pay-disputes-at-bbc-will-choke-creativity-1819528/