Apologies if I've missed this elsewhere but details have now been released of Samira Ahmed's Employment Tribunal against the BBC, and it turns out it has nothing to do with her not being supplied with a chair with enough spin.
It boils down to what she is paid for Newswatch versus what Jeremy Vine was paid for Points of View, with lawyers arguing they were a similar role but essentially Samira was paid less because she's a woman. Samira was paid £440-£465 per episode while Vine was previously paid £3000 per episode, dropping to £1300 before he left.
To me although the roles are similar, and I suspect actually the presenter of Newswatch may have been slightly more involved in production than Vine was at Points of View, with them being on different channels I'm just not sure the pay scale can be the same. Rightly or wrongly a news channel presenter is not on the same pay rate as a network news presenter for example, and if a precedent were set that an equal role on a lesser channel deserved equal pay that could actually make the News Channel even more unviable than it probably is now.
For the record I do think Jeremy Vine is one of the most overpaid and overrated people at the BBC and I've always thought Samira Ahmed was great, but for me this is opportune lawyers exploiting the situation rather than common sense prevailing. However if it gets Samira a regular shift on the news channel so be it - she's a far better newsreader than Carrie Grace.
I preferred the internet when it had a sense of humour.