Does Newswatch = Points of View?

Not sure that’s the best example. Between MOTD2, the NFL Show and his usual 5 Live slots Mark Chapman does a lot more work than Lineker most weeks yet is paid a fraction of the amount (and even during big tournaments does as much as Lineker if on radio rather than TV)
The Lineker/Chapman differential was one that really stood out when the BBC wages were announced - especially since most will watch MOTD whether it’s Gary Lineker or Mark Chapman anchoring. 99% of viewers are watching MOTD for the football not Lineker.

Every BBC local radio breakfast show presenter demanding the same money as Zoe Ball... it's a can of worms.

It is a good example because it’s a case where someone does the same amount of work (in this case more) but gets paid less because they are of a lower profile.

This claim can't go to the tribunal though because you can only claim male Vs female or female Vs male.


Isn't the defence here that local radio presenters will be paid within a different scale to national and that as long as that is comparable between male and female presenters a case could be defended?

Basically the BBC produced no evidence on the basis of his JV pay was set and thus the presumption in law is that there was a gender bias
And that the work was the same .. rather than being of same value
You can read the whole judgment https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2206858-2018rjr.pdf

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.

You would have thought so, in the same way that a niche programme tucked away on the News Channel and repeated as a filler during Breakfast is on a different scale to a programme on the flagship channel. I'm amazed that the previous male host of Newswatch being paid the same as the claimant wasn't enough to make that point.

BBC had this case but they just gave up trying and that's the most frustrating part of all this.

This was the wrong judgement in my view and it's very political and open a can or worms that will have a impact on the BBC. I hope they axe both shows with the view that they are no longer worth the money or pulling in the audience.

I also think the Judge got personal when reviewing Vine's work. It doesn't matter if you like Vine or not he did his job and that's what he was paid for and there was no need to belittle him like that.

Similar is not the same otherwise it would be called the same not similar.

I hadn’t realised about the presumption of guilt, so that explains things a bit. Given the BBC’s seemingly woeful defence, lack of useful witnesses or paper trail of how they justified salaries of their talent it’s not much of a surprise who won. It just feels wrong that it’s on the belief that gender had anything to do with it - given the rumoured salary details of past female PoV presenters, and of course what Ray was on.

I guess if it focuses the mind on paying a clear, fair rate in future then it’s been worthwhile. It’s certainly hard to justify a variance of £3k and £400.

Still, guest presenters getting £1k per episode was nothing to be sniffed at. Bit of a bonus for Scott

It's really weird having worked on the show (I filmed JV's bits!) which are explicitly set out on page 14 section 59, yes we really were filming next to the tea and coffee kitchen! I missed this thread when it first popped up, and I really am amazed to see the way the ruling as gone. Knowing the production on the PoV side at least no one has done anything "wrong" and knowing how TV is I don't think anything on the Newswatch side would be "wrong" either, they are/were very different programmes for very different audiences, I'm not sure gender came into it at any point, it's quite upsetting really.

Possible solution to that might be to axe Newswatch but give her the POV role

Exactly - and I've seen no evidence to suggest the same people were involved in any of the decisions. It may be the organisation held to account, but it's being completely disrespectful to many individuals in that organisation, branding them as something they're clearly not. Also as much as I can't stand Jeremy Vine it's not right that he has been so publically dragged into this - effectively having the information he was presurred into revealing used against him.