Another bizarre "equality" case

[mmj_uk]

You don't understand the word equal do you?

Its equal pay for equal work. Obviously you can disappear down the rabbithole of 1 meaningless TV program vs another but brain surgeon vs cleaner? lol!

Could he be a BETTER presenter perhaps? more likeable? more interesting topics on his show attracting a bigger audience? there are countless differences if you study the situation for more than 3 seconds and look past the sex of those involved.

Should a conference footballer be paid the same as a Premier League star? they both run around and kick a round ball right? what's the difference?

 

[R.P.L]

Why is some equality real and some woke? How do you decide which is which?

Allowing people the opportunity to earn the market rate regardless of age, sex, race etc. is equality. Punishing discrimination against someone based on those attributes is enforcing equality. Someone claiming that they should be paid the same as someone else despite valid reasons to the contrary (usually experience, competency etc.) is woke.

I suspect that you already knew that and you're being a tad disingenuous in asking that question though.

 

[ianh]

Why is some equality real and some woke? How do you decide which is which?

Purely my own spin on this but i find that "woke" equality is not about actual equality but is instead about being quite hypocritical whilst appearing to be all for "real" equality and I find that "real" equality is very rarely found in people who talk about it the most.

Others opinions may differ I know.

 

[Gray2233]

Purely my own spin on this but i find that "woke" equality is not about actual equality but is instead about being quite hypocritical whilst appearing to be all for "real" equality and I find that "real" equality is very rarely found in people who talk about it the most.

Others opinions may differ I know.

I'd mostly agree with this.

The "woke" side of things often focuses on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, while also ignoring individual worth.

 

[StriderX]

I'm sure this discussion wont be a regurgitation of every other similar discussion before it. We shall learn nothing new, there shan't be any epiphany or action taken. Anyway, I don't go anywhere near the BBC licence, not because they're 'woke' since practically every company is, but because they suck.

/grabs popcorn.

 

[matt100]

I've no idea what the right answer is but I'm 1000% sure inequality is still very much a thing.. I mostly just love how this forum gets all blotchy about this sort of thing

 

[james.miller]

This totally does away with the concept of individual value. Itll lead to no presenter being allowed to be paid more than any other, and It'll likely spew in to other professions as well. That'll work well in sports ... Absolute lunacy.

 

[matt100]

This totally does away with the concept of individual value. Itll lead to no presenter being allowed to be paid more than any other, and It'll likely spew in to other professions as well. That'll work well in sports ... Absolute lunacy.

No it doesn't, they were doing ostensibly the same thing. Nobody is suggesting a local news presenter should get the same as ant and dec.. calm down.

What it means is if 2 people are doing roughly the same thing they should get roughly the same money..

Also I'm fairly sure your average sports person is technically self employed so none of this matters a bit.

 

[FoxEye]

No it doesn't, they were doing ostensibly the same thing.

In part it comes down to the Tribunal's decision that they was "no skill" in the work that either Samira or Jeremy were doing.

And that popularity of presenters/charisma/popularity of their programmes or products was not a valid means to discriminate in terms of pay. So a popular show should pay the same as a bad one.

Anyway various commentators have said this is going to be a "massive financial hit" for the BBC - due to hundreds of similar claims waiting in the wings.

These are now all likely to be successful.

Great news for tax payers.

 

[james.miller]

They were hosting two different shows. They are two different people with different experiences and viewer appeal. Yet this ruling deems them equal. They arent, and it's nothing to do with sex.

Nobody is suggesting a local news presenter should get the same as ant and dec.. calm down.

Did Holly get equal pay when she stepped in on I'm a celeb? What about Bradley Walsh, does he get the same as Clarkson given they're both game show hosts? Does Armstrong get the same as well? And because this is a gender case, what about Toksvig?

Great news for tax payers.

Ha!

 

[NVP]

Most people won't have even seen Samira Ahmed on TV. She doesn't present any of the big shows. Everyone knows who Jeremy Vine is.

I didn't know her name but recognised her face, I've heard his name but have no idea what he looks like.

I don't go anywhere near the BBC licence, not because they're 'woke' since practically every company is, but because they suck

That's interesting, that's the same reason I stay close to yo momma

 

[R.P.L]

If the BBC are paying 3 grand per show for a job with no skill involved, I'm there!

 

[matt100]

They were hosting two different shows. They are two different people with different experiences and viewer appeal. Yet this ruling deems them equal. They arent, and it's nothing to do with sex.


Did Holly get equal pay when she stepped in on I'm a celeb? What about Bradley Walsh, does he get the same as Clarkson given they're both game show hosts? Does Armstrong get the same as well? And because this is a gender case, what about Toksvig?


Ha!

I dunno? I hope so?

 

[mjt]

What really annoys me is clothing and shoe prices. My partner and I bought more or less the same shoes recently. Cause she has small feet she gets away with buying kids sizes It was something like £145 for me and £60 for her. Furious.
I also hate that my clothes in medium cost the same price as clothes in XXXL despite not using as much material. Life eh?

VAT is 20%, so her shoes were significantly cheaper than yours even before you get into the VAT discussion.
Your should would've been around £120 + VAT, whereas hers would only have been £70 with VAT...

I have always felt that the Child/Adult distincion regarding VAT liability based on shoe size is bizarre.

An "Adult" buying a cheap shoes for £20 because they are poor gets to pay VAT, while little Tarquin down the road with his £150 Nikes gets them VAT free because his feet are small.

I think it should be based on price. Cheap shoes (Up to a certain price point) VAT free, All sizes. Expensive shoes, Pay the damn tax too!

Perhaps it's because not everybody who has children calls them Tarquin and can afford £150 on a pair of new fresh crepes.
Also, adult feet tend to stop growing and you can keep shoes for years if looked after properly.
Children can wear shoes out within weeks and their feet grow ******* quickly!
My son is already outgrowing children's size 11 and he's only 4..

How else would you distinguish the VAT on shoes if not by size? Asking for age when purchasing them??

 

[R.P.L]

F1 not very woke

 

[matt100]

VAT is 20%, so her shoes were significantly cheaper than yours even before you get into the VAT discussion.
Your should would've been around £120 + VAT, whereas hers would only have been £70 with VAT...



Perhaps it's because not everybody who has children calls them Tarquin and can afford £150 on a pair of new fresh crepes.
Also, adult feet tend to stop growing and you can keep shoes for years if looked after properly.
Children can wear shoes out within weeks and their feet grow ******* quickly!

How else would you distinguish the VAT on shoes if not by size? Asking for age when purchasing them??

I guess one way of looking at that is are clothes a luxury?

And if some are and some aren't, where do you draw the line?

I bet the answer will normally lie roughly around wherever the individual has to pay more...

Folks should have a choice of basic clothes with no VAT and non basic with VAT, kids and adults alike.

but we don't like commies!

 

[mjt]

F1 not very woke

Are these really salaries, or does this include sponsorship, etc?

 

[R.P.L]

Are these really salaries, or does this include sponsorship, etc?

Well the pic says salaries but to be fair I did no verification of the numbers. I don't think it matters - the point is that there is a huge discrepancy between the top drivers and the rest, which is the case with or without sponsorship. A lot of racing drivers have to bring money to the team via sponsorship or otherwise making their salaries effectively negative, although based on that graphic that's no longer the case in F1.

 

[Dis86]

Can.
Of.
Worms.

Sunday league footballers now deserve 200k per week.

 

[james.miller]

My son is already outgrowing children's size 11 and he's only 4..

Yep, I'm 5'11 but I wear size 11s. My eldest is 9 and hes a size 5. Youngest is 3 (just!) and hes already In children's 10s. We all have boat feet