UpsideDownMan

Good advice. But was the "bananas" and "eyes peeled" pun intended? :biggrin:

Quite right. Television is a very competitive industry and as Auntie Beeb operates in this space she has cut her cloth accordingly in order to achieve success in the ratings war (assuming this is the principal measure of success that I understand it to be). Does the Beeb have to compete on these terms given that she's funded through a mandated form of taxation? Sadly yes, as despite receiving notable income through the licence fee she also has to make commercially attractive content that sells in the global marketplace in order to supplement that income. This allows her to at least produce some content that meets the less marketable but still costly aspects of her charter. Some friends of mine hate the way the Beeb has "dumbed down" content as a result over the years and I agree with the sentiment even if I'm not sure I really like that particular turn of phrase. Appreciate I've spun off on a slight tangent here but I think it's relevant as it might go some way to explaining why the 'conflict story' is seen to be more important to the WDU production team than the 'fact' based programme long time members of this forum would maybe prefer to see. So, in short, I think your advice to "have your eyes open" is quite wise!

Agreed. I've recently said on a separate thread on the programme that migration generates conflict within families; whether it be between partners (as is typically, but not always, portrayed), children and partners, or families and extended families. Conflict of this nature is likely to be apparent in a large percentage of migration stories and can often generate some very powerful emotions, as such the producers seek to explore this aspect as THE central theme.

I don't think it quite holds true that the cost-of-living comparison shows Australia to always be the winner, but I'd agree that ostensibly there may be a general trend to that effect. From my experience I think this stems from the use of the same financial tool to dissect a broad mix of financial situations, a tool that is pretty blunt and very inflexible. The net effect is that different circumstances and personal nuances are lost and the result lends itself to favouring one outcome over another. For what it's worth I don't think it's a deliberate ploy on behalf of the producers, just a limitation of the tool. Is this a weakness of the programme? Well perhaps yes, but it's only intended as an indicator and in the same way that 'caveat emptor' is good advice we all know to take when buying products or services I'm sure we all know to do the same when assessing the financial implications of ones own emigration. I trust I haven't slighted anyone in anyway in offering these thoughts.

The WDU comparison sheet is a blunt tool that may serve the purposes of the TV programme but falls way short of being of any practical use. Because it's generic in nature we found it didn't cater for the nuances of our personal situation. In fact, it was full of holes so is good for the show but fell way short of reality. Suggest you follow the guidance of other comments in this thread and that whatever tool or spreadsheet you end up using you should be prepared to tailor it for your own incomings, outgoings and lifestyle remembering to take into account things like costs of public transport and/or, commuting costs, cars, fuel, utilities, eating out, insurance, entertainment, white goods and so on.

I really wouldn't worry about it. Not because it won't happen, but because if it does the first and last thing we're likely to know about it is wondering what that big bang was before being reduced to our constituent atoms. Apophis is only one of tens of thousands of asteroids we know about. Conservative estimates reckon there are perhaps a billion of the sneaky little beggars in the solar system, of which millions are large enough to send us back to a time when we were bacteria or do to us what the KT impact did to the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Of these perhaps hundreds of thousands are on 'near earth' orbits. Fortunately, the solar system is a pretty big place and it's pretty easy to lose a billion or so objects in it, even ones the size of, say Sydney. So I say worry about it when it happens. Even if you haven't long since already shuffled off this mortal coil you won't be worrying for very long. That said, on average the Earth is hit by a seriously big lump of fast moving devastation every 600,000 years or so. The last one? Mmmmmmm... that would be 630,000 years ago.

Ironic perhaps that the call in the opening of this thread was for people - specifically participants in WDU - to stop and think about what they're about to say before they say it. Yet in making the call, what 'thinking' has been given to the circumstances in which the programme participants find themselves in? Think on this: The WDU production team are focussing on specific lines of interest and are constantly seeking to tease out anything that gives the show some punch - to make each story slightly unique, a little contentious maybe, but ultimately watchable. They also have the power of the 'edit'. They're professionals, and they're very good at it. Participants may find having a TV camera and production crew following them around to be a new and uniquely surreal experience. For example; being constantly 'encouraged' to say what you see and feel and then asked to do it again and again and again can be a little disorienting and wearing. They're amateurs, and they may not be very good at it. So perhaps it's possible they end up saying and doing things that in more natural or familiar situations they would rephrase or do differently with the benefit of further consideration. In principle I agree with the sentiment; people should think more before they speak. Absolutely. But remember, we all have the opportunity to do exactly that before we click 'submit' on an internet forum so we have no excuses. WDU participants haven't quite got the same luxury

Bravo Davo1 ... ! I too am fortunate enough and delighted to be appearing with my family on this series of WDU, an experience I found to be many things, most great, some bad, all cathartic. I know two things from being involved: firstly, that I am eternally grateful to the BBC for providing us with this unique and fantastic opportunity; and secondly that I've opened me and mine up to small minded criticisms, petty pokes and ill considered jibes. Bring it on I say, I only ask those more vociferous than I to consider the following wise words before they speak: “The motive behind criticism often determines its validity. Those who care criticize where necessary. Those who envy criticize the moment they think that they have found a weak spot.” ― Criss Jami So I say again, bravo Davol - well done you and sincerest best wishes as your adventure unfolds!