The BBC do not utilise Samira at all. I have no idea why she stays there. She's consistently ignored for roles. She's incredibly talented, has an outstanding background yet the BBC do nothing with her.
Yep, she did one Victoria Derbyshire programme in the Summer and Today last week, other than those nothing more than Newswatch. She could do some news channel shifts.
For the record I think she is more than worthy of consideration for Question Time but appealing on Twitter comes across as lacking a bit of class, though I suspect it was out of frustration after being rejected through the official channels.
Maybe, but managing your own career development in the public domain, and in a bear pit really isn't a very good idea !
The BBC do not utilise Samira at all. I have no idea why she stays there.
She has been a regular presenter on the R4 Today show for the last month! She has 3 other BBC gigs!
She quit C4 when Cathy Newman got the main presenter role over her. Where else do you think she should go Good Morning Britain or QVC?
When I questioned the validity of the Newswatch v Points of View discussion on Twitter, I got a number of objectionable comments back.
My argument is that PoV is a networked programme and subject to network restraints and thus the terms offered to Vine. Whereas Newswatch is a News Channel programme, albeit retransmitted within Breakfast at the weekend on BBC One. Those castigating me were in my view overestimating the reach of the Breakfast re-run in setting a comparator with PoV. The attraction is Breakfast not a filler insert.
This to me significantly down values Newswatch in comparison. The argument surely should be based on these realities rather than equivalence. Whether the differential is correct is another discussion.
FWIW, I didn’t see the harm in the discussion you were having with Cando. Whilst slightly strong, it was civilized.
Going back to Samira Ahmed for a moment, my first exposure to her was as a BBC World news presenter back in the mid-to-late 90’s.
She came (during the flags era) and left and then came back again during the early stages of the Red and Cream (David Lowe) period.
I will be honest. In the beginning, she was a weekend newsreader who read from the autocue and nothing else. I wasn’t impressed if I’m honest. I found her delivery to be rather dull and monotonous.
However, she then started to shoot and shine out of nowhere and became one of the best presenters we had on the channel for a while, and became more engaging and carried out more interviews, etc.
Then she moved to ITN and I haven’t really been able to watch her much since then. So, I’m not best placed to comment on her most recent and current work. However, if Samira is considered capable of hosting Today on R4, then surely by peer considerations alone, that is on a par with anything JV can do!
The whole case is ridiculous and the fact she went on with it says a lot about her.
Why is that Ginnyfan? Was Carrie Gracie ridiculous? is George Alagiah ridiculous for supporting equal pay and many other 'names' at the BBC.
Carrie Gracie's claim was a lot more realistic and justified. She was part of a team of international editors working within the same division of the BBC. It was quite right to draw the distinction between the various amounts being paid according to gender, as to all intents and purposes, they were doing the same job with a different locational focus.
However, Samira Ahmed's case is without justification in my opinion. She is trying to draw a distinction between two completely different roles on completely different networks and within two different divisions of the BBC. The only parallel is that both programmes feature viewers' feedback. Aside from that, everything else is different so how she can claim she is being paid unfairly when she is/was paid the same as her predecessor on Newswatch is the bit that is baffling to some people. She isn't doing the same work as Jeremy Vine and that seems to be forming the crux of the BBC's defence.