Samira Ahmed

Cronyism. Jeremy Vine was paid £750k per annum until just recently. How the hell was that possible? He was only one of the presenters of Newsnight - he did not even present BBC News); £3k for presenting one programme was taking the 'michael' of out taxpayers, I firmly believe. The BBC trough is just as generous as the one in Parliament, I think.

why sign contract in first place ?? if not happy , go work somewhere else. are all man city or liverpool player paid the same ?

What bit of "she won her case" is not clear. Whether she knew Vine's salary when she signed her contract is irrelevant to the facts of the case.

If she’s not Jeremy Vine she’s not entitled to the same pay
Might be less , might be more

Do they both get the same amount of viewers ?

"The 40-page tribunal judgment was damning of the broadcaster’s argument that Ahmed’s job as presenter of Newswatch was significantly different to Vine’s as a presenter of Points of View.

They dismissed the BBC’s argument that Points of View required a “cheeky” presenter such as Vine with a “glint in the eye”, concluding that there were only “minor differences” in the work the two presenters did presenting the two comparable programmes.

In a withering assessment, they wrote: “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 is from the BBC reporting on the issue.

Do they both get the same amount of viewers ?
Ibrahima Sonko


That is the key question Ibrahima, people on TV or in any entertainment, are paid for the bums they put on seats

In the media, The jobs they do is irrelevant.
Samira is a very good journalist, but if you asked a 100 people who Samira and Jeremy were
I guess 60pc would know JV and about 10pc Samira.

Replace her with someone who will do the same job for less

Samira Ahmed, who i rate highly is more of a political reporter, vine is the bbc version of Jeremy kyle if the bbc could do that.

The bbc argued that he was "better known" but lost because the tribunal considered that the jobs were directly comparable. 

lfc - "Replace her with someone who will do the same job for less" - sounds like a solution!  Are you suggesting this as a cure-all?

I just think they do two different jobs, Samira Ahmed is far more talented but JV does a job that is more popular in the current climate.

Both good at what they do but to compare that they have similar jobs is just stupid.

Hopefully we will get to see Samira Ahmed on radio 2 at midday very soon.

Anyone got the numbers for the 2 shows ?

Replace her with someone who will do the same job for less lfc1971

So, everyone who has a job that involves reading from an autocue should be paid the same as Vine. Looks like a grand a year for the TV licence.

IS - the "stupid" Independant Tribunal did not agree with you.

If they are both doing the same job and both doing it equally competently
Why is vine getting paid more , he’s overpaid
And she is also overpaid if we can get someone to do the same job but for less
going by the independent tribunal

They should have checked the viewing figures, what was the average for Vine, what was the average for Samira.

Clearly it was wrong to pay one presenter 6x more than another of different sex. Both programmes were fairly similar, but more importantly this happened at the BBC, not commercial tv ie no rating war or competition for adverts.

Whether Ms Ahmed should get the equivalent of Mr Vine is another issue similarly whether Mr Vine be paid £3k per show. But, the BBC had in the past been proven to be a prolific under-payer of fees to female presenters on tv. The issue is with the BBC in particular their pay structure to male and female presenters.

But it is not clear that it was wrong to pay Jeremy vine 6 times more than Ms Ahmed

LFC - have you read the findings of the tribunal?   or are you making a personal stance on this issue?

The sooner the license fee is scrapped the better for this lot.

Either they are getting paid according to the individual qualities that they bring , as individuals

Or else they are both overpaid and should be replaced by others who will do the job for less

They can’t have it both ways , which is it ?

I haven’t read the tribunals findings blackbarn , but they have made the wrong decision
That’s clear

lfc - have you read the findings of the tribunal?     or even understood the nature of the dispute between the various parties?

This is the the entertainment business

If someone paid to go and see a show or listened to a musical performance

would they be happy to find substitute actors or musicans?...yet they had to pay the same money...they would feel cheated.

It is the same on TV, people often tune in because they like to see the normal star of the show???

If the star is not on that night, they may switch off

It is the audience that someone attracts that is the key in this

If it was the same for both Samira has a case

Lfc - timing is everything. you beat me to it fractionally or vice versa.

"I haven’t read the tribunals findings blackbarn , but they have made the wrong decision
That’s clear"

Oh to be so well informed

nonsense blackbarn , I have read only what I have read here on chitti chat

And then I simply use logical thought and reason . That’s all that is required
I don’t need to read anything else

Does Neil Dudgeon attract as many viewers as John Nettles did in 'Midsomer Murders'

Still I think John Nettles was too old to carry on, so they had to change

I do not know how the salaries compare.

It was correct she won. Vine should have his salary reduced in line with hers.

Utterly immoral the money some of these no marks get

Nettles used to be Jersey Cop

till they found out he Potless

Bergarec?...he played a jersey cop in that Capt F

He got the freedom of Jersey for that

I preferred him in 'Midsomer Murders'

think he denied residency in Jersey

fake Frogs

So the person presenting women's match of the day has to be paid the same as Lineker?

thats how it works crisp.

mad mad moon 'In the media, The jobs they do is irrelevant.'

Spot on.

Looks to me like the BBC to employ better lawyers. Any decent brief would surely win.

Moira Stewart gets paid £160k for READING the news on radio 2! I doubt any male newsreader on radio gets that much. She gets such high pay because she has a familiar voice.

Jan Raven will do it for 50.

Moira Stewart gets paid £160k for READING the news on radio 2! I doubt any male newsreader on radio gets that much. She gets such high pay because she has a familiar voice.

Her salary is based on her listening figures I should think, which is as it should be.

Her listening figures will be governed by the programmes either side of the news shirley. I doubt people would switch stations for a minute and a half to hear someone else.

We don’t listen to her when she is reading the news, we are listening to the news

Indeed, she has a more or less captive audience. Anyone could read it-for much less money- and the same number of people would listen.

Just sack them all please

Who could argue with that?

You're a t1t, lfc1971.  The ruling assumes that sitting in a chair reading an autocue is the same, irrespective of viewers or popularity or content.  Samira Ahmed got the same money as he man she replaced as Newswatch presenter.  As nauseating as Jeremy Vine is, he presents Points Of View which is more popular, more rounded and has much wider interest.

As an Asian woman, she has the ability to grow facial hair as well as Jeremy Vine but as facial hair is not part of the job description.....

As with the decision with that menopausal old hag Carrie Gracey, the tribunal compared a similar post on the US to her position in Asia, even though she did a quarter of the work that the North America editor did.

why does viewership matter in a company which brings in no advertising revenue?

When BBC show the fa cup do all the players have to be paid the same?

But 6x more than the other? Even a moron cannot come to that conclusion.

The problem isn't that she was under paid, its that he was vastly over paid.

I still don't understand why viewership plays any major role on their salary.

If they were able to show high viewership brought high advertising revenues, then fair enough but the BBC has no advertising.
Linekers wage is an absolute disgrace when you see what he does