it should of been redundancies but if you wish to move fine, god almighty what is it coming to. In my day if you could not get to the workplace then you did not get the work.

in the 80s if I worked away from home my allowance was £12.00 and told because I am working away I will be working longer so earning more ! I refused and got a job close to home.
so in fact the reason to go to Manchester to save money has cost money.

BBC or not it does seem a bit extravagant

If the company you work for relocates your work then that company has to pay for you to move. Either that or it offers you redundancy. Most companies will try and retain as many of its workers as possible as it saves on retraining and disruption to productivity.
On a relocation, all of the removal costs, estate agents fees, solicitors fees etc, are normally paid by the company. And rightly so.

Was the move worth it? It is too soon to tell. Ask in another 5 years.

I appreciate that this may go against the normal anti-BBC rants we normally see but there you have it.

I’m sure the loss of London Weighting would have been part of their re-location settlement.
If some got £100k and the average is £28k then it goes without saying that some will have received less than £28k.

Anyway, I’m not sure MPs are best placed to criticize other’s allowances.

As predictable as night follows day. An anti-BBC post by charliehunt.

£28k doesn’t sound too much for a company relocation. I had to relocate 25 years ago and I reckon the figures would be comparable.

Are there no believers who want to come out to play? :dev2:

One of the things religion is often rightly criticized for is intolerance of other’s beliefs.
It’s odd that that is exactly what some of the “atheists” posting on here seem to be exhibiting.

If anyone has need of faith or wants to adhere to any particular set of values, then that is their own affair. It’s only when anyone religious or otherwise becomes intolerant then the trouble starts.

Oh, I don’t deny it has been entertaining but nowadays it has becone lazy with same format, same races and challenges and same boorish Clarkson. Since their drive to the “North Pole” (which turned to be the magetic north pole, or at least somewhere near where it used to be) I’ve had a rather sceptical attitude to the challenges.
It’s the sort programme I watch on Dave on a Sunday lunchtime when you can’t be bothered finding anything else.

I for one, will in future ignore you completely.
Lincoln .7

It’s going to be tough but I think I’ll cope.

Basically you want a discussion forum where everyone agrees with you. Good luck with that.:rolleyes:

No, I agree, the BBC isn’t populated by idiots or commies or anything else. I just think that Top Gear is all about indulging the presenters and little else. It may be popular but that doesn’t necessarily make it good.

However, if I’m ever in the market for a £100k super car, Top Gear will be top of my list to watch for objective reviews 🙂

Ah well, Even more rubbish to add to your ever growing pile DF, BTW, What car do you own and drive?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

You really are going to have to work on your debating skills!

Either way none of ‘Top Gear’ is at the licence-payers ‘expense’.

So how exactly did the BBC fund buying the oaf Clarkson’s production company if it wasn’t license-payers money?

Sorry to drag this off-topic (again) but that seems to be the norm around here.