Here's an interesting angle on the Samira Ahmed/BBC/Equal pay story...
Ben Cobley: Samira Ahmed has won a case for sex discrimination in the employment tribunal despite being paid the same as her male predecessor. This is confusing. Does it mean he could appeal discrimination too, but only if he self-identifies as a woman?
Poor Ray Snoddy ploughed the Newswatch beat prior to Samira taking over. Wonder if he'll think it's worth a punt?
Update: Via the 40-page written decision of the Tribunal (h/t Charlie) I see that Ray Snoddy did get mentioned.
Samira's side evidently registered the point about her (male) predecessor's pay being equal to hers and argued that she should have got more than Ray because she had broadcasting experience prior to to being given the Newswatch job while he hadn't had any broadcasting experience when he was appointed to the role, and the judge agreed.
Just look at Point 113 in the ruling. It states that Ray Snoddy, on his appointment as the host of the BBC's Newswatch in 2014, "had no experience of presenting radio or television shows".
This confuses me because I remember Ray Snoddy very well from a Newswatch-style Channel 4 programme he presented in the 1980s (my late teens). I watched it every week.
I've just looked it up now and the programme was called Hard News. It's on his LinkedIn page. He did it for two years.
Obviously, I'd rather not get into scraps with employment tribunals over something that doesn't really concern me in the slightest, but when Employment Judge Grewal rules that Ray Snoddy "had had no broadcasting experience" before being appointed to his role at Newswatch in 2014, I'm stating - with massive confidence - that Judge Grewal is wrong.
Seriously, a sweary acronym is needed here: WTF?
And that's not even to mention Ray's regular appearances presenting What The Papers Say in its glory days - which I also remember well.
As you know, this is an unfunded, free-to-view, spare time, two-person blog, but are we really the only ones reporting this story to spot that the judgment got it wrong over Samira Ahmed's predecessor as presenter of Newswatch Raymond Snoddy, with possible repercussions for her case?
At which point I'll naturally add: Or am I missing something?
*******
Update: Via the 40-page written decision of the Tribunal (h/t Charlie) I see that Ray Snoddy did get mentioned.
Samira's side evidently registered the point about her (male) predecessor's pay being equal to hers and argued that she should have got more than Ray because she had broadcasting experience prior to to being given the Newswatch job while he hadn't had any broadcasting experience when he was appointed to the role, and the judge agreed.
Just look at Point 113 in the ruling. It states that Ray Snoddy, on his appointment as the host of the BBC's Newswatch in 2014, "had no experience of presenting radio or television shows".
I've just looked it up now and the programme was called Hard News. It's on his LinkedIn page. He did it for two years.
Obviously, I'd rather not get into scraps with employment tribunals over something that doesn't really concern me in the slightest, but when Employment Judge Grewal rules that Ray Snoddy "had had no broadcasting experience" before being appointed to his role at Newswatch in 2014, I'm stating - with massive confidence - that Judge Grewal is wrong.
Seriously, a sweary acronym is needed here: WTF?
And that's not even to mention Ray's regular appearances presenting What The Papers Say in its glory days - which I also remember well.
*******
As you know, this is an unfunded, free-to-view, spare time, two-person blog, but are we really the only ones reporting this story to spot that the judgment got it wrong over Samira Ahmed's predecessor as presenter of Newswatch Raymond Snoddy, with possible repercussions for her case?
At which point I'll naturally add: Or am I missing something?
