And that's the flaw in the system - the presumption is guilty unless proven innocent unlike others areas where it is innocent till proven guilty.
They've been asked to defend themselves on decisions made 12 years ago, mainly by people no longer at the BBC. Vine's fee was negotiated by his agent and in line with the budget the programme had for the presenter (and his agent did a very good job considering it was not far off what Wogan was previously paid).
Newswatch clearly had a budget for a presenter too, and paid in accordance with that - in reality it's budgets which determine what people are paid, not value or gender. I suspect £3000 would be virtually all of Newswatch's budget, though can't see any reference to the overall budgets of either show in the judgement, surely a crucial factor.
In theory though this decision has made the show unviable and therefore you'd expect it to be pulled from the schedule as a result and Samira Ahmed made redundant (or be released at the end of her contract). Chances are though she has them over the barrel and even though her wage demands make it financially unviable it would be seen as revenge for the tribunal and an unfair dismissal hearing would follow.
Last edited by Brekkie on 10 January 2020 9:26pm
I preferred the internet when it had a sense of humour.
ittrgrey and Worzel gave kudos