Equality?

[tobyjugg2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/holly-willoughby-pay-rise-salary-itv-this-morning-phillip-schofield_uk_599e6f0fe4b0821444c0b549

 

Now how many people think that Holly Willoughby would even be on the show with Schofield (unimpressive as he is) let alone worth the same salary if she was a bloke doing the same sort of things she does in the same way?

 

Not me.

 

She aint no Sue Barker or Gabby Logan, let alone a Joe Coburn.

[determindator]

Sorry TJ confused with why you don't think two presenters doing the same job, the reason the pay increase was awarded, would not be paid the same salary?

 

She isn't a bloke as the show requires a male and female dynamic. Two blokes can't do that as the dynamic would change.

 

What's your particular reasons why not as you haven't clarified.

[tobyjugg2]

Sorry TJ confused with why you don't think two presenters doing the same job,

 

Do you mean that they are both 'presenters'

In that case, everyone who 'presents' should be on 600k

 

or is it just that they are both 'lead presenters' on the show.

I would disagree. Only watched them a few times at my daughter's, but schofield seems leagues ahead to me and to carry the show - my daughter (who watches it often) agrees.

Willoughby seems pretty 'significant content free' - which is saying a lot when schofield is the (low) benchmark.

 

These aren't x pounds per hour jobs.

 

 

 

 

Ant and Dec might disagree with your other point, as would I.

 

 

My point is that it seems to me she has got this raise on the back of PC because she is a woman, not based on quality,

and if it had been a bloke, that bloke wouldn't have got the raise - he would have been told - you aint as good or as valuable.

 

 

 

(If it had been pretty much ANY of the loose women - I would have said they should be paid more than schofield)

[determindator]

You do not know what else is involved in the job for the particular presenter. Research and content can come into your job role so you don't know who's doing what behind the scenes. Mr S may seem a lead to you but HW may have other responsibilities.

 

Ant and Dec is a totally different subject. They can't be a male and female dynamic for a morning show. They're blokes:madgrin:

[determindator]

Another thing is many people tune in to see Holly W and viewers ratings could drop significantly if HW not on the show. remember we're in the era of people looking at people. Take big bro, love island etc as an example.

[Mr.P]

She [Holly Willoughby] aint no Sue Barker or Gabby Logan, let alone a Joe Coburn.

 

Sorry, not heard of any of them. Do they deliver the morning papers or something ?

[tobyjugg2]

You do not know what else is involved in the job for the particular presenter.

 

Research and content can come into your job role

 

Haw Haw HAW

Now I know you're having a laugh.

 

 

Ant and Dec is a totally different subject. They can't be a male and female dynamic for a morning show. They're blokes:madgrin:

 

How sexist.

The loose women are all women.

[determindator]

Well TJ you're either teasing or you're not seeing my point. From a psychological aspect a male and female dynamic (as in the psychological context) is different to an all male dynamic and an all female dynamic. So no i'm not sexist, it's the others:madgrin:

 

Whatever your perspective on a presenter, the BBC wouldn't pay equivalent salary beecause someone asks for it. They would weigh up why it should be given and I would say it's poss , as a thought, Holly W may have said I'll walk then. The BBC would decide if this would affect TV viewing ratings, if it would be detrimental the salary is justified. I'm not commenting on how much they get, another subject.