BBC NEWS CUTS

In her original stint she wasn't main cover for anybody. She always had her own full time gig. From 1999 to about 2003 (?) she did 7-10pm every night with Gavin Esler. She then went part time after having children and primarily did weekends and weekday relief work, but then got another full time gig in the mornings with Simon McCoy from 2008 to 2014 (when she left to become China Editor). Granted there's less shifts now and it would be unfair to kick off Annita, Joanna or Simon (the only News Channel presenters left with a full time job) to fit her in. But they could give her the 6:30pm-midnight shift, which is crying out for a fixed presenter now Clive Myrie seems to only present on BBC One.

So called "parity" comes at a price - and that price is inevitably the job of someone on a lower salary. Both Carrie and Samira may have made their point but ultimately I think they've lost respect in doing so.

Unbelievable post.
"You've made your point women, now pipe down"

Perhaps I’m being obtuse but I fail to see the issue with Brekkie’s post. The inference from Carrie Gracie’s remarks is that parity and cost-savings will come at the expense of those lower down the food chain, as opposed to the managers and ‘suits’ behind the scenes.

How you can extrapolate “now pipe down” from Brekkie’s remarks is a loss to me. There were others at the BBC who found themselves in a similar position - Sarah Montague is a prime example. She didn’t feel the need to pursue legal action per se to achieve parity or seek redress (which we now know was less than it should have been by mutual agreement).

It is possible to ‘fight the good fight’ without rocking the boat in the manner that Carrie Gracie and certainly Samira Ahmed did. I would add, however, that both Samira Ahmed and Jeremy Vine were represented by the same agent. Though it would be highly inappropriate and unethical (such as it is) to use the latter’s remuneration as leverage for the former, the agents should shoulder some of the blame. They should be working to maximise their clients’ earnings.

Why can't the same presenter do the whole of the 9am - 1pm slot? Surely it makes sense to have the line up of 4 hour **** between 9am - 1pm and then 2pm - 6pm, with the presenter of the 1 o'clock news staying on to do the rest of the 1pm hour.

They'll have to find a place for Victoria Derbyshire soon enough to throw into the mix.

4 hour what? 😉

She might go back to radio or be made redundant

Not obtuse. we just disagree. you need people to rock the boat with any cause. The 'ultimately I think they've lost respect' line is unsubstantiated nonsense.
Just think some people on this forum have an issue with female broadcasters who don't keep their heads down.

For the most part it’s not though, the problem most people have isn’t because they put their views across, it’s simply that they fundamentally disagree with that viewpoint.

She won't be made redundant, The BBC made it clear they were committed to her as a broadcaster and journalist.

I said I failed to see the issue with Brekkie's post - which both articulated and summarised Carrie Gracie's own comments. Moreover, Brekkie recognised that both women had made their point but, in his opinion , they had lost respect. I questioned how it was that you could extrapolate a position ("You've made your point women, now pipe down") from a singular expression of opinion by Brekkie. The qualifier "I think" is important - it elevates the comment from the "unsubstantiated nonsense" to which you refer and makes it an expression of free thought.

I'll put it another way. There is no difference between Brekkie's comment that "ultimately I think they've lost respect" and the comment "Just think some people on this forum have an issue with female broadcasters who don't keep their heads down." Who said that? Oh. You. It's an expression of your free thought.