Samira Ahmed has won her Employment Tribunal case where she alleged she was treated less favourably then Jeremy Vine for similar work:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2206858-2018rjr.pdf
I'm not surprised and it was being reported last week that BBC were moving to settle a whole set of similar claims by female presenters.
|
It says "The Respondent has not shown that the difference in pay was because of a material factor" it is referring to the points under 7 a) - f).
Had 7a)-f) been true then they would have justified the BBC's actions. Consequently one can only assume that they were neither true not accurate.
Why isn't there some punishment for that? There b***** should be.
The BBC is horribly biased, and not just over sex. Age, School, Friends, History etc. etc. etc. It is also completely cowardly when it is dealing with a stroppy yet successful presented.
This will, of course, force the BBC to reduce the pay of the preferred presenters as well as increasing the pay of the less-preferred. This will in turn lead to high profile and thus highly paid people leaving the BBC.
Which is as it should be. The BBC lovers to refer to it's special funding, and it needs to realise that special behaviour should come with that. They are not there to compete with commercial broadcasters. You'd think they'd get that considering how special they like to think they are.
|
>> It says "The Respondent has not shown that the difference in pay was because of
>> a material factor" it is referring to the points under 7 a) - f).
>>
>> Had 7a)-f) been true then they would have justified the BBC's actions. Consequently one can
>> only assume that they were neither true not accurate.
>>
>> Why isn't there some punishment for that? There b***** should be.
Hmmm,
First of all I think you might struggle to find a single person or even a group who might be responsible in way they could be punished - unless your're after the DG or his modern equivalent.
Secondly those responsible may have firmly and sincerely believed that Ahmed/Newswatch and Vine/PoV were different products with different audience/money values and reflected the corporate zeitgeist. In that case I think defending their ET claims for being 'punished' might be a sticky wicket.......
|
I wouldn't try. I'd fire either one or both of Clementi or Hall for being out of control of their organisation as would happen if such a thing occurred in a commercial operation.
That's the way to make the t***s pay attention; take their precious bit of status away from them.
|
Simple solution - scrap the licence fee and leave the Beeb to it.
They will then have to act more commercially and get a bit of backbone. Particularly with on screen talent, their pay reflects viewer preferences and should not be a function of being in front of camera for X minutes.
Its a bit like equal play for footballers - run on to the pitch at the start - 90 minutes later run off and the jobs a goodun!. Get paid like Harry Kane!
|
There are very good reasons to have Public Broadcasters. They should provide content for which there is not sufficient commercial demand, for example. Public information content also. They should also provide content free to air that the general population should have access to.
The whole point of the funding arrangements is to remove those commercial drivers / restrictions.
However, the BBC has long since lost its way on all of those things.
But the answer is to fix the BBC, not do away with it.
They don't need more backbone, they have plenty of that. They simply need to be driven into using that backbone in support of what a Public Broadcaster should be, not what the BBC wants to be.
I'm not sure what to make of your football comment. You're either making a joke I don't understand or you don't understand how presenter remuneration works.
|
>> Simple solution - scrap the licence fee and leave the Beeb to it.
>>
>>
>>
£150 a year is a small price to pay not to have to put up with adverts taking up twenty minutes of every hour. And although BBC programming needs to get back to it's original remit and leave the thrash "Talent" shows to the commercials, it is still the best station by far.
And then you add the radio stations, the range and quality are far ahead it the competition.
|
Take out repeats, lowest common denominator dross, and that which is readily available commercially and the output of the BBC would fall to 10-20% of current volumes.
On the publically funded keep list (possibly) - news, documentaries, quality drama + R3 and R4 - where the BBC does excel.
Delete talent shows, soaps, sport, most quiz shows, R1, R2, World Services (Foreign Office to fund?), repeats, cookery, etc etc.
Fund that which remains through taxation and eliminate costs of collection and enforcement associated with the licence fee. The licence fee belongs in an era where TV was a luxury - it is now just about universal.
It is worth noting that live TV is rapidly becoming a minority interest. The younger audience prefer Netflix, Amazon Prime, Twitter, Facebook, catch-up services etc etc. The older generation (60+) are rapidly becoming the key audience and they will sadly, as time passes, die out.
|
You're just making stuff up and clearly have little understanding of the function of a public broadcaster. About comparable with your understanding of audience demographics.
You also seem to have little understanding of varying taxation approaches.
All in all, not a lot to work with, so I'll bow out and leave you uninterrpted with your opinions.
|
Taken from the Ofcom report published August 2019:
"Broadcast television, and public service broadcasting in particular, remains valued and accounts
for the majority of people’s viewing, but its use is falling as viewers take up online services. People
watched on average 3 hours 12 minutes of broadcast television in 2018, but this was 49 minutes less than in 2012, and the fall in younger viewers has been much steeper. Four in ten viewers now say that online video services are their main way of watching television and film".
Not read it all in detail but this is consistent with the rest of the executive summary. Viewers of broadcast TV are falling and this is particularly noticeable amount the 45 year olds and younger.
The only ones to maintain viewing levels are 65+. Link below:
www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/160714/media-nations-2019-uk-report.pdf
I suggest that before dismissing my comments, you actually check the facts.
|
Rest assured I am dismissing your naive and overly simplistic comments, whatever you quote.
Now, as I say, I'll leave you with your opinions.
|
I'm sure it's easy to select and construe facts in a way that makes the BBC appear less important.
Nevertheless I remain a supporter. Apart from the fact that I destest programmes being interrupted by advertising, I greatly value the BBC news service.
It's biased in the same way as any source must be, more or less, but I don't think that is deliberate and that is important when so many sources actually strive to be biased and make it part of their purpose. And the BBC's bias is in a way neutral; it is a BBC bias, rather than pro-Labour or pro-Conservative for example.
Was it somebody here who said that its bias is an incidental London-centric, libertarian one? There are undoubtedly some other flavours in there too but I do believe that, institutionally, it tries to be objective even though that is impossible when which aspects of which events make the news is necessarily selective.
The point is, in an age where outright lies are commonly presented as facts, who are you going to believe? It's still necessary to evaluate all 'news' with regard to the source and look for corroboration if the story matters, but if a story is important I will always look at the BBC first and last. I would certainly trust it less if it were privatised.
The decline in broadcast TV is obvious and undeniable but there is no piece of logic that makes that equal to "BBC redundant". My biggest source of 'radio' now is BBC Sounds.
|
|
The World Service was (and probably still is) a lifeline for ex-pats living in the back of beyond. It was for me.
|
BBC Discrimination - No FM2R
