Does Newswatch = Points of View?

I found that surprising too, especially the judge's quote featured on the BBC News article:

"The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."

This would suggest that in the Tribunal's view all script-based pieces to camera become "unskilled" work. In their eyes, TV presenting is simply reading words off a page! There's no other factors or considerations to be made?! Bizarre.

Coincidentally, Tina Daheley was presenting the Ten tonight and had to introduce the report on the matter.

I just don’t understand it. If anything, JV was paid too much, and Samira claiming £700k from an organisation that is already under funding pressures and is having to charge over-75s as a consequence... it doesn’t sit right with me.

As with the Carrie Gracie episode, it feels like a case of somebody having an inflated sense of their own importance. A higher profile has value, regardless of gender. I’m not exactly his biggest fan, but I understand that JV is widely recognised and has an element of star quality about him. Samira Ahmed has neither of those things. A decent journalist - sure. But near on zero recognition by viewers. I thought her very public application for Question Time host was arrogant and I feel that this is too.

I guess if Davina McCall made a claim against ITV for Ant & Dec getting paid more per hour for similar work, they could use advertising revenues as justification. The BBC just doesn’t have any means to quantify one presenters importance against another.

In this case most of us realise why the difference in their pay was fair, but it’s clearly not easy to quantify in a court which doesn’t seem to be able to read between the lines.

If happened to be that Anne Robinson had returned to Points of View when Terry Wogan left, Samira Ahmed would be the best part of million pounds poorer tonight.

The trouble with all this is it fails to consider whether Jeremy Vine was paid a fair wage. Samira wasn't underpaid - Jeremy was overpaid, and that was down to his agent rather than his gender.

Samira's daily rate compared favourably with presenters on the news channel, reported to be on £92k a year IIRC. Based on a 4 day week it works out about the same.

It is the major issue though with the tribunal system - it is all framed around the claimants complaint even where that wasn't even a factor in the decision made by the respondent.

92k for being on for 15 minutes, that’s shocking.

But surely someone presenting a show on BBC News is different to someone presenting a show on BBC 1, so what's the difference between local and national radio after this ruling?

I mean that's the Galaxy Brain takeaway from this whole case right there.



I read it as "no particular additional skill than would be expected of a competent tv presenter".

Ah, fair point.

If Newswatch and/or Samira Ahmed does get axed, then I think it's highly likely she will struggle to find another role in the industry. I can't see any employer being desperate to take her on after this. I'm all for gender equality but this reeks of opportunism.

Well her proper day job is Front Row on Radio 4, so if she hangs on to that, I'm sure she'll trundle along. Carrie Gracie is still working for the Beeb.

She can retire now.

Well BBC will have to find something for her or she'll create a mess for them again. Her and Gracie are safe for life there, now. They might as well give them a show together.