[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

No, I'm asking if there any examples of women being paid less despite doing the same amount for the BBC.

Samira Ahmed for starters.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Samira Ahmed for starters.

Who was she being paid less than?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Who was she being paid less than?

Jeremy Vine.

£700,000 less.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Jeremy Vine.

£700,000 less.

They do not have a similar ... anything. To suggest she'd be paid the same as Jeremy Vine would be actually calling for pay inequality.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

They do not have a similar ... anything. To suggest she'd be paid the same as Jeremy Vine would be actually calling for pay inequality.

Paid the same as Jeremy Vine.... for doing the same job. Yes.

She won her case at court so you're clearly wrong.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Paid the same as Jeremy Vine.... for doing the same job. Yes.

Does she do the same job? Is she onscreen or radio for the same amount of time? Does she pull in the same amount of viewers?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Does she do the same job?

Successfully reading an autocue to camera? Yes.

It added that despite the BBC saying the presenter of Points of View "needed to have 'a glint in the eye' and to be cheeky, we had difficulty in understanding what the respondent meant and how that translated into a 'skill' or 'experience' to do a job.
"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."

The position of the Tribunal is that all the arguments brought by the BBC to justify the difference in pay between Samira Ahmed and Jeremy Vine were insufficient.

The burden of proof fell on the BBC to show that that difference did not amount to sex discrimination. It failed.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Successfully reading an autocue to camera? Yes.

Well courts have been wrong before But genuinely, good on her for getting a good grift. There's no way some random newsreader is worth the same amount of pay than someone who's on a chatshow in the early morning, radio show early afternoon, and quiz show in the evening. Good on her for mobilising a movement to pad her own wallet

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Well courts have been wrong before But genuinely, good on her for getting a good grift. There's no way some random newsreader is worth the same amount of pay than someone who's on a chatshow in the early morning, radio show early afternoon, and quiz show in the evening. Good on her for mobilising a movement to pad her own wallet

Nobody's talking about their career highlights. The case was about their pay for doing the exact same job on Newswatch/Points of View.

"But he presents a quiz show too" doesn't justify anything.

But, you finally answered my question at least.