There will always be some people more equal than others

So, a dozen BBC women are poised to take the corporation to tribunal over equal pay.

This was announced as broadcaster Samira Ahmed launched a case for £500,000 in back pay.
She is arguing that as a presenter of Newswatch she was doing an equivalent job to Jeremy Vine when he was presenter of Points of View.
But she was paid £440 per episode while Vine received up to £3,000 per show.
Apparently the programmes have similar formats, airing viewers’ concerns about BBC content and interviews with the executives responsible.
The BBC said that the roles were not equal because Points of View has a long history as a popular entertainment programme, and Vine is a household name.
Samira Ahmed is the first BBC presenter to take her equal pay claim all the way to tribunal in a movement that began when the corporation was compelled to publish details of its gender pay gap in 2017, sparking a revolt by women employees.
I know this may not be a popular view but why should Ahmed be paid the same as Vine?
There are pay variances in all professions and it is virtually impossible to compare, say, an editor of one weekly newspaper with another in a different part of the country.
Surely geography, general pay rates, experience plus many other factors have to be taken into account?
My take on the current BBC issues is quite simple – lower the ridiculously high salaries of the highest earners and then begin a thorough investigation about pay equality.
For Jeremy Vine to receive £3,000 a show is, to me, bonkers. For Samira Ahmed to receive £400 a show seems mean and cheap in comparison.
But surely Vine has more perceived “value” as a presenter and much more experience so he should earn more? End of?