BBC facing huge bill for equal pay cases after Samira Ahmed verdict Watch

z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...im-against-bbc

Ahmed, the presenter of viewer feedback programme Newswatch, claimed she was owed almost £700,000 in back pay because of the difference between her £440-an-episode rate and the £3,000 an episode Jeremy Vine received for hosting the similar Points of View programme.
It was never in doubt that she'd win the case, everything is firmly in the grip of this official narrative of victhimhood by women. The BBC is the main instigator and the courts are as terrified of falling foul of it as any other public institution in the land.

This ruling says, in between the lines, that were Jeremy to have a headache on the day and replaced with another bloke... this bloke would be paid exactly the same only because he is a bloke.

That is as stupid as the notion that Sarah Montague was earning less than men on the Today programme for being a woman, what we never hear of is that another woman in it was earning well more too. This is all pathetic, really.
1
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
I've heard of Jeremy vine. I have no idea who she is. Isn't that the point?
2
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Jebedee)
I've heard of Jeremy vine. I have no idea who she is. Isn't that the point?
The BBC conducted research to make this exact point, and showed how far more of the public new knew vine was.. but it didn't work.

They also made the (should have been winning point) that she is paid the same amount as the male presenter she replaced... meaning exact-for-exact she was paid the same as the last man who held the job. No sexism.

Depressing that they lost.

(waiting for a female presenter to point out that Gary Lineker earns far more than them.. despite doing provably less work, and be given the same back-pay-bonus that the court is awarding to this person, as there would be little arguement to be made given the way the court has viewed this case).
Last edited by fallen_acorns; 1 month ago
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
What a time to be alive!!!!
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
It's like they work for the council where every drone is on the same regardless of how hard they work.

Do you think Suzanna Reid is on the same as Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain?
0
reply
Toki the Dumdum
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
The BBC conducted research to make this exact point, and showed how far more of the public new knew vine was.. but it didn't work.

They also made the (should have been winning point) that she is paid the same amount as the male presenter she replaced... meaning exact-for-exact she was paid the same as the last man who held the job. No sexism.

Depressing that they lost.

(waiting for a female presenter to point out that Gary Lineker earns far more than them.. despite doing provably less work, and be given the same back-pay-bonus that the court is awarding to this person, as there would be little arguement to be made given the way the court has viewed this case).
This is the part that really rankles. Should have been done and dusted after that.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
I'm hoping the person who had her job before she did now sues, if she can be paid £3000 per installment because somebody in a similar but different role also got £3000 then the previous bloke is clearly owed millions, he was only paid £440 as a man and now a woman doing exactly the same job is getting 7 times that. Blatant sex discrimination. Oh, wait, he has no chance because he's a man wanting to be paid as much as his female equivalent.
3
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I'm hoping the person who had her job before she did now sues, if she can be paid £3000 per installment because somebody in a similar but different role also got £3000 then the previous bloke is clearly owed millions, he was only paid £440 as a man and now a woman doing exactly the same job is getting 7 times that. Blatant sex discrimination. Oh, wait, he has no chance because he's a man wanting to be paid as much as his female equivalent.
Feminism strikes again!
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Samira Ahmed > Jeremy Vines
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
An interesting precedent to set. Look i have a vagina but no one knows me... pay me as much as one of your most well known employees. Moronic.
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
I'm hoping the person who had her job before she did now sues,
Loving the fact that none of us so far here know who he is.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
Now that we know how these things happen, what about the why of it? It's all very well for us all to agree there's something not quite right in this tidal wave at the BBC, with eye-watering amounts of public money being doled out to everyone crafty enough to earn them but how has it all come to be like this?

The crucial moment was when the BBC caved in at the time salaries were made public (or perhaps when they agreed to it) and a string of second-raters among their women threw a strop on the back of the sexist victimhood (Carrie Gracie) and... were appeased. At that moment, the BBC could have made a stand and imposed the notion that people are paid at different rates on other considerations, as it happens to be the reality of things. Having caved in at that junction, this is just the natural extension of it and nobody knows where it will end. The BBC has become a bottomless pit.

So why did the BBC cave in? My theory is that it amounts to the cleverest thing I've ever seen from lefties, the BBC (not the Chairman or those around him, the Guardianista lot in charge of every true decision centre by now) caved in because they identified it as the perfect way to purge it of the enemy by using the feminazis as shock troops (without telling them). Fiendishly clever and all of it instigated by blokes.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by z-hog)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...im-against-bbc



It was never in doubt that she'd win the case, everything is firmly in the grip of this official narrative of victhimhood by women. The BBC is the main instigator and the courts are as terrified of falling foul of it as any other public institution in the land.

This ruling says, in between the lines, that were Jeremy to have a headache on the day and replaced with another bloke... this bloke would be paid exactly the same only because he is a bloke.

That is as stupid as the notion that Sarah Montague was earning less than men on the Today programme for being a woman, what we never hear of is that another woman in it was earning well more too. This is all pathetic, really.
If you think this is bad wait until you hear what they recently and quietly done to laws surrounding murder and wait until you hear what they are quietly planning to do to laws surrounding domestic violence. If their plans for domestic violence do go ahead and I highly suspect they will, thousands of people, mostly men, over the coming few years are going to wind up in prison or on the streets following false accusations.

Do you expect change from a country of men the large number of whom are addicts to not one thing but numerous things foremost of which is pornography, men many of whom spend most of their time playing computer games? No. Things are only going to get worse for you guys and I think you largely deserve it.

Carry on sleeping, people.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 1 month ago
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Pinkisk)
If you think this is bad wait until you hear what they have done to laws surrounding murder and wait until you hear what they are planning to do to laws surrounding domestic violence. If their plans for domestic violence do go ahead and I highly suspect they will, thousands of people, mostly men, over the coming few years are going to wind in prison or on the streets following false accusations.
Oh yes, they've got it all. This is just another front, I've seen enough from the Judiciary already to detect the finger and all.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by z-hog)
Oh yes, they've got it all. This is just another front, I've seen enough from the Judiciary already to detect the finger and all.
+1...If anybody questions you, you can tell them to pick up anyone of the many recently published books in English Law...most are written fully in feminine pronouns. Shows you how much influence feminism has in law in this country. Don't believe me? Here's one of the most popular books in English Criminal Law. Go to any page and have a read through it. Try page 96.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&q=her&f=false

A friend of mine studies law. She has a diehard feminist lecturer who refuses to call male victims by their male pronoun. She calls them by feminine pronouns...she, her...I kid you not. I have an audio recording of one of her lectures. I could not believe it until I heard it.
Last edited by Pinkisk; 1 month ago
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Pinkisk)
+1...If anybody questions you, you can tell them to pick up anyone of the many recently published books in English Law...most are written fully in feminine pronouns. Shows you how much influence feminism has in law in this country.

A friend of mine studies law. She has a diehard feminist lecturer who refuses to call male victims by their male pronoun. She calls them by feminine pronouns...she, her...I kid you not. I have an audio recording of one of her lectures. I could not believe it until I heard it.
Seriously, my gripe with this militant feminism is that it promotes far too many women whose only asset is being women.

Oh well, God knows what we'd be saying if we felt like transitioning...
0
reply
Neilos
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
Found it amusing and ridiculous in equal measure. He gets paid more because he's Jeremy Vine, and that should be the end of it.

It's several steps of absurdity down the line, but I'd love to see Man City Women's best striker taking the club to court because Sergio Aguero gets paid 100 times more than her for doing what is essentially the same job.
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by Neilos)
Found it amusing and ridiculous in equal measure. He gets paid more because he's Jeremy Vine, and that should be the end of it.

It's several steps of absurdity down the line, but I'd love to see Man City Women's best striker taking the club to court because Sergio Aguero gets paid 100 times more than her for doing what is essentially the same job.
Oh, it won't be long before the FA come out in a rash over the pay gap. Hang around and you'll see.
0
reply
Pinkisk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
Point of interest:

They tried the same thing with Google. The funny thing about that story is that Google took it very seriously. They began investigating it and their studies found that women were being paid more than their male counterparts. They dug themselves into a hole because they promised to make changes if they discovered that people weren't receiving equal pay. So they increased the salaries of their male employees...Suffice it to say feminists weren't too happy with the outcome (https://www.wired.com/story/men-goog...en-not-really/) ...lol I am not making this up. Have a read through the story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/t...r-pay-gap.html
Last edited by Pinkisk; 1 month ago
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Pinkisk)
They tried the same thing with Google.
It's become official policy in our public services even, or a declared intention at least. The crucial element is the concept of 'equality of outcomes', for that reason every arm is being measured to see how much 'men' and 'women' are making in order to... equalise it. Out goes every notion of letting the world breathe a bit, in come the social-engineers with a compulsion to regulate every nook and cranny. Lefties, all of them.

It doesn't have to be that way, us blokes are fine with equality of opportunity and if women go on to make the most of it so be it. There's a vid from the Daily Politics show (BBC) where Jordan is asked by a (female) host why he doesn't support equality of outcomes with the most quizzical and puzzled of faces. It's a picture of the leading role the BBC have played in pushing such narrative into public life, that's how powerful and instrumental the BBC can be.

What we don't like is to see women get a leg up and over on the back of the victhimhood their ancestors' life experiences, the only ones riding that ticket are those with nothing much to offer. Nobody resents seeing them at the top at the BBC or anywhere else, it's only when they turn out to be low grade and artificially promoted on anatomic grounds. Women with balls are too good for that and busy living a life already.
Last edited by z-hog; 1 month ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Has your university offer been reduced?

Yes (45)
32.85%
No (70)
51.09%
Don't know (22)
16.06%

Watched Threads

View All