Does Newswatch = Points of View?

Ha!

If such a show had a title including their names, then whoever's name was put 2nd would probably start a tribunal over not getting top billing (claiming e.g. ageism, racism, or whatever)...

Yes, they're going to be launching a new 30 minute filler weekend programme 'Strong Women'. But, they must be on the same salary as the ladies over on ITV's Loose Women or else there will claims of broadcaster discrimination.

Wonder if Ros Atkins is on the same fee as the presenters of The One Show?

He should be on more, he's got that touchscreen to operate as well as presenting

I'm a bit late in the discussion here, but just to say that is an unfair characterisation of the system.

First off, there is no guilt involved here, it's not a criminal matter.

The burden of proof initially lies with the claimant to prove what they are seeking. Here, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Ahmed had proved that she was paid at a lower rate to a comparator man (Vine) and that discrimination existed because it was also satisfied by her argument that it was for similar work.

The burden of proof then shifts to the respondent (BBC) to rebut that position by providing an objective justification for that discrimination.

That all being said, there are obviously still questions about the Tribunal's decision on the facts which are open to debate.

I’m sure he earns more from his Milk Tray adverts.........

That is the issue though - the respondent has to justify discrimination which actually didn't take place. It is all framed around that when actually the decisions are completely unrelated business matters which the tribunal just aren't interested in. That is why you get weak responses with it due to "needing a glint in their eye" as the respondent are trying to retroactively justify a supposed decision that was never made.


Going way off topic but for some reason lawyers don't get the flack that bankers get in this country when they often exploit people at their most vulnerable with extortionate fees and pretty much run a racquet in areas like tribunals where generally a respondent cannot claim costs back if they win.

I don't know if a link has been posted for the judgment, but it is worth a read if you can spare the time:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2206858-2018rjr.pdf

It gives a very good explanation as to why Samira Ahmed won.

I'm not going to comment on the overall judgment, but this section about Newswatch presenter Ray Snoddy is just flat out incorrect.



From his Wikipedia page... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Snoddy

How do members of the public correct stuff like that? What's the recourse? It's clearly inaccurate.

Sarah Montague is the latest presenter to win a settlement (£400,000) and an apology from the BBC for unfair treatment for many years. (Former Today programme presenter alongside John Humphrys).

The BBC have opted not to appeal and have reached an undisclosed settlement with Samira Ahmed.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/24/samira-ahmed-and-bbc-reach-settlement-over-equal-pay-claim