Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, ramboacdc said:

did you see me post 3 minutes before you or did we have the same train of thought at the same time? 

 

I saw your post. 

 

[The Floyd]

6 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Copenhagen is shit.

A lot of European cities are incredibly overrated

[Countryfox]

2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

 

Last year my daughter was pissing around before school and wouldn't put her shoes on. We were late and I lost my rag and 'smacked' her leg (which left a mark). An hour later I was dragged in to see the Headmistress who .....    had my trousers down and gave me 10 hard slaps on my quivering firm buttocks ...     

 

 

You lucky bugger Muzzett ...   

[Innovindil]

2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

When I was a kid 35/40 years ago, I got a constant clip around the ear from parents, grandparents and uncles - and I probably deserved it. I always try to give fair verbal warning to my tow kids but I've got a short fuse and then see the red mist. I'm not proud of my actions but every parent has a breaking point I think. 

 

The kids at our school are told to report any physical 'abuse' and they're encouraged to recite the Childline phone number off by heart. Is a clip around the ear really 'abuse' though? This is my point. I'm confused what's acceptable these days and I know for a fact I'm not the only parent who occasionally smacks their kids...

 

Last year my daughter was pissing around before school and wouldn't put her shoes on. We were late and I lost my rag and 'smacked' her leg (which left a mark). An hour later I was dragged in to see the Headmistress who warned me that if I did it again she'd get the authorities involved. Shit myself and been on edge ever since.

 

 

My single parent brother had the social services called on him by the school because his daughter had a bruise on her back. She got it falling off one of those plastic boxes you keep books in. 

 

Worlds gone mad. I'm all against belting kids and smacking them about, but a light slap on the back of a hand or whatever should be sufficient for teaching discipline. 

 

[shen]

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

 

When I was a kid 35/40 years ago, I got a constant clip around the ear from parents, grandparents and uncles - and I probably deserved it. I always try to give fair verbal warning to my tow kids but I've got a short fuse and then see the red mist. I'm not proud of my actions but every parent has a breaking point I think. 

 

The kids at our school are told to report any physical 'abuse' and they're encouraged to recite the Childline phone number off by heart. Is a clip around the ear really 'abuse' though? This is my point. I'm confused what's acceptable these days and I know for a fact I'm not the only parent who occasionally smacks their kids...

 

Last year my daughter was pissing around before school and wouldn't put her shoes on. We were late and I lost my rag and 'smacked' her leg (which left a mark). An hour later I was dragged in to see the Headmistress who warned me that if I did it again she'd get the authorities involved. Shit myself and been on edge ever since.

IMO, smacking a defenseless kid is cowardly. You are abusing your status as physically superior. Kids mostly do silly things like that because they do not understand the consequences of their actions. Hitting them is not going to teach them anything useful and risks being mentally very harmful short and long term, which will just end up biting you (and them) in the ass.

[shen]

10 minutes ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

Copenhagen is shit.

As a citizen here, I can see where you're coming from. In certain aspects, Copenhagen is pretty shit, yeah. In others, it's superior to many European cities I've visited. Guessing that applies to nearly every place.

[Footballwipe]

There's too much football on TV

 

[Mike Oxlong]

Babestation is for w@nkers.

[Nalis]

Feel there is lot of negative unpopular thoughts (including my own) so how about some positives?

 

In respect of beauty, England is one of the most underrated places to travel from an non-English persons perspective.

[bovril]

1 minute ago, Nalis said:

 

In respect of beauty, England is one of the most underrated places to travel from an non-English persons perspective.

Agree. It's a beautiful country with amazing history and culture. 

 

I think the most beautiful country in Europe is Romania, which I guess counts as an unpopular opinion.

[Finnegan]

23 minutes ago, shen said:

As a citizen here, I can see where you're coming from. In certain aspects, Copenhagen is pretty shit, yeah. In others, it's superior to many European cities I've visited. Guessing that applies to nearly every place.

 

When you go somewhere as a tourist you tend to go to the nice parts of a city and not the slums. 

 

As a Leicester resident you think of the Saff and the Maffews and Granby street and you think it's vile. You compare that to Tivoli and Nyhavn and obviously Copenhagen is going to look like paradise. 

 

But you'd take the Lanes in Leicester over Glostrup or Brondby. 

 

That said, what I saw of inner city Copenhagen was pretty nice. I liked it. 

Edited 13 September 2017 by Finnegan

[Arriba Los Zorros]

52 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Chocolate and mint/orange is an abomination. Anyone that eats it should be ashamed. 

 

 

 

I respectfully disagree: case in point:

 

[Izzy]

31 minutes ago, shen said:

IMO, smacking a defenseless kid is cowardly. You are abusing your status as physically superior. Kids mostly do silly things like that because they do not understand the consequences of their actions. Hitting them is not going to teach them anything useful and risks being mentally very harmful short and long term, which will just end up biting you (and them) in the ass.

Yep, agree with all that.

 

I'm just a shit parent really...

[FoxesDeb]

8 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Yep, agree with all that.

 

I'm just a shit parent really...

I think you're just human like most of the rest of us! Yes I've smacked my children, occasionally when they were younger and no I'm not particularly proud of it. Mainly because I lost my temper, but goodness they know how to push your buttons. I don't necessarily agree that it doesn't teach them anything, it usually taught mine pretty quickly not to do whatever they were doing again. Not the best way to go about it, but like I said we're all human and sometimes we don't react the way we probably should. 

 

In my experience most people berating parents for smacking are not usually parents themselves. 

 

The fact that you recognise it's probably not ideal means you are actually a great parent. 

 

As before I have no wish to get into a big debate within this thread, but good grief, from what I've read on here you're far from being a shit parent. 

[davieG]

45 minutes ago, shen said:

IMO, smacking a defenseless kid is cowardly. You are abusing your status as physically superior. Kids mostly do silly things like that because they do not understand the consequences of their actions. Hitting them is not going to teach them anything useful and risks being mentally very harmful short and long term, which will just end up biting you (and them) in the ass.

Whilst I agree with you on the smacking I don't  agree about the children thing and I think you under estimate their intelligence from my experience there's plenty of kids that know exactly what they are doing and the consequences. As for the potential risks I went through school when the cane and the slipper were the norm and an every day occurrence likewise at home I must have been risk free because it's not really left a scar on me just provides talking points when I want to bore people. Oh and the school I went the teachers were just as likely to be the victims of violence because there were plenty of nasty bullying youths.

[TiffToff88]

49 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Babestation is for w@nkers.

 

Campanology is for bell ends

[Ian Nacho]

19 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

go on, i'll bite...

in what way?

 

 

Fans going without tickets.

[Fox92]

4 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

The Beatles were crap and most of their lyrics sound like they were written by a 10 year old girl.

 

I'm not biting or turning this into a Beatles debate (I've been warned about that before) because you've got an opinion and fair play but "crap" is incorrect. 

 

You need to put yourself in the early 60s to realise their impact. It's overlooked now because everything seems so simple. The BBC played jazz and that's it (well, 'big band' music). This is what @The Doctor doesn't understand either. Yes Elvis was around, Berry, Perkins, Everley Brothers... all of which big influences on bands like the Beatles (and I like them too - particularly I like the Everley Brothers who's harmonies are unreal) but they're American. I don't think this Country had anything of that sort - I've often heard historians talk of England trying to "copy" America at that time. I'm pretty sure someone like @davieG (without mentioning age here ) could let on what it was like at that time - I've read a lot but I obviously wasn't around.

 

The Beatles were different, original, and whether you like them or not did things first and always reinvented. There's no other band that changed so much in a short space of time and I include the Stones, Dylan and Bowie in that.

 

I agree their early songs aren't great lyrically. At all. I don't like their early stuff. But between 1966 and 1968 they had written Tomorrow Never Knows, Helter Skelter, Revolution, Strawberry Fields and A Day In The Life - all of which had never been heard before. There are plenty of songs ahead of their time by artists (Subterranean Homesick Blues by Dylan is a great example) and Strawberry Fields Forever, for instance, falls into that category. Even now listening to Strawberry Fields I struggle to get my head around how amazing it is because we're talking mid 60s when it was released. These songs are only three/four years after basic stuff like I Want To Hold Your Hand.

 

The Beatles influenced pretty much every major band after them. Including Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, Motorhead (Ozzy Osbourne and Lemmy were huge Beatles fans), Fleetwood Mac, Sex Pistols (John Lydon once said he didn't like the Beatles but cannot deny their influence), The Jam, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen.... Even at the time in the 60s, they were influencing The Beach Boys (Brian Wilson wrote Pet Sounds after being influenced by Rubber Soul), The Byrds and The Rolling Stones (they even wrote the Stones' first single).

 

Like I said, I don't like their early stuff either but '65 onwards was genius. I feel anybody that calls them "crap" probably hasn't listened to them extensively enough.

 

 

Edited 13 September 2017 by Fox92

[Carl the Llama]

every time.

[Fox92]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

every time.

Man I try and stop myself but came crawling back to this thread.

Edited 13 September 2017 by Fox92

[davieG]

On 11/13/2015 at 15:15, davieG said:

In the late 50s early 60s the charts were filled with American male solo 'pop' stars like

 

Frankie Avalon

Dion

Bobby Darin

Pat Boone

Ricky Nelson

Paul Anka

Bobby Rydell

Johnny Tillotson

Bobby Vee

Bobby Vinton

etc

 

Clean cut yanks singing mushy ballads that were there to pacify the American mid west who weren't that keen on the likes of Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry and the early Elvis.

 

Even Elvis and British artists like Cliff, Marty Wilde had followed the American Trend and gone all soft.

 

When the Beatles burst on to the scene they got the same reaction in England that the likes of JLL, LR & CB got in America they were campaigns by the middle classes to have them banned at every opportunity.

 

Their influence was not just musical but cultural changing the whole tone of the music and fashion industries and opened up the way for bands like the Rolling Stones pllenty of whom took delight at cocking a snoop at the establishment and were major contributors to the death of Tin Pan Alley and the British equivalent Denmark St with their self penned songs.

 

Of course some of the 60s bands did get success by having a 'boy band' type image with clean looks and mushy music but as someone who spent their early teens listening to that list of American male singers there's no doubt in my mind the impact that the Beatles made. 

 

12 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

I'm not biting or turning this into a Beatles debate (I've been warned about that before) because you've got an opinion and fair play but "crap" is incorrect. 

 

You need to put yourself in the early 60s to realise their impact. It's overlooked now because everything seems so simple. The BBC played jazz and that's it (well, 'big band' music). This is what @The Doctor doesn't understand either. Yes Elvis was around, Berry, Perkins, Everley Brothers... all of which big influences on bands like the Beatles (and I like them too - particularly I like the Everley Brothers who's harmonies are unreal) but they're American. I don't think this Country had anything of that sort - I've often heard historians talk of England trying to "copy" America at that time. I'm pretty sure someone like @davieG (without mentioning age here ) could let on what it was like at that time - I've read a lot but I obviously wasn't around.

 

The Beatles were different, original, and whether you like them or not did things first and always reinvented. There's no other band that changed so much in a short space of time and I include the Stones, Dylan and Bowie in that.

 

I agree their early songs aren't great lyrically. At all. I don't like their early stuff. But between 1966 and 1968 they had written Tomorrow Never Knows, Helter Skelter, Revolution, Strawberry Fields and A Day In The Life - all of which had never been heard before. There are plenty of songs ahead of their time by artists (Subterranean Homesick Blues by Dylan is a great example) and Strawberry Fields Forever, for instance, falls into that category. Even now listening to Strawberry Fields I struggle to get my head around how amazing it is because we're talking mid 60s when it was released. These songs are only three/four years after basic stuff like I Want To Hold Your Hand.

 

The Beatles influenced pretty much every major band after them. Including Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, Motorhead (Ozzy Osbourne and Lemmy were huge Beatles fans), Fleetwood Mac, Sex Pistols (John Lydon once said he didn't like the Beatles but cannot deny their influence), The Jam, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen.... Even at the time in the 60s, they were influencing The Beach Boys (Brian Wilson wrote Pet Sounds after being influenced by Rubber Soul), The Byrds and The Rolling Stones (they even wrote the Stones' first single).

 

Like I said, I don't like their early stuff either but '65 onwards was genius. I feel anybody that calls them "crap" probably hasn't listened to them extensively enough.

 

 

I'll bite as well from a post of mine in 2015.

[Benguin]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Martin George was a great chairman for LCFC

A pint of shandy is tastier than a pint of lager

Germans are not efficient, if they were they wouldn't have lost the two major wars

Reading a book or a newspaper is the most underrated thing in the World along with a good sit down

People should be paid for not having children rather than having them

 

Love a good sit down, me. 

[stripeyfox]

14 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

I'm not biting or turning this into a Beatles debate (I've been warned about that before) because you've got an opinion and fair play but "crap" is incorrect. 

 

You need to put yourself in the early 60s to realise their impact. It's overlooked now because everything seems so simple. The BBC played jazz and that's it (well, 'big band' music). This is what @The Doctor doesn't understand either. Yes Elvis was around, Berry, Perkins, Everley Brothers... all of which big influences on bands like the Beatles (and I like them too - particularly I like the Everley Brothers who's harmonies are unreal) but they're American. I don't think this Country had anything of that sort - I've often heard historians talk of England trying to "copy" America at that time. I'm pretty sure someone like @davieG (without mentioning age here ) could let on what it was like at that time - I've read a lot but I obviously wasn't around.

 

The Beatles were different, original, and whether you like them or not did things first and always reinvented. There's no other band that changed so much in a short space of time and I include the Stones, Dylan and Bowie in that.

 

I agree their early songs aren't great lyrically. At all. I don't like their early stuff. But between 1966 and 1968 they had written Tomorrow Never Knows, Helter Skelter, Revolution, Strawberry Fields and A Day In The Life - all of which had never been heard before. There are plenty of songs ahead of their time by artists (Subterranean Homesick Blues by Dylan is a great example) and Strawberry Fields Forever, for instance, falls into that category. Even now listening to Strawberry Fields I struggle to get my head around how amazing it is because we're talking mid 60s when it was released. These songs are only three/four years after basic stuff like I Want To Hold Your Hand.

 

The Beatles influenced pretty much every major band after them. Including Led Zepplin, Black Sabbath, Motorhead (Ozzy Osbourne and Lemmy were huge Beatles fans), Fleetwood Mac, Sex Pistols (John Lydon once said he didn't like the Beatles but cannot deny their influence), The Jam, David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen.... Even at the time in the 60s, they were influencing The Beach Boys (Brian Wilson wrote Pet Sounds after being influenced by Rubber Soul), The Byrds and The Rolling Stones (they even wrote the Stones' first single).

 

Like I said, I don't like their early stuff either but '65 onwards was genius. I feel anybody that calls them "crap" probably hasn't listened to them extensively enough.

 

 

Yeah, I get that. If you were there, it was probably brilliant, and very unlike anything which had gone before.

 

I was being a bit naughty I suppose

 

But it's not the worst opinion expressed in this thread...

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

If you ever fancy winding anyone up, Fox92 is basically the easiest target  

[stripeyfox]

34 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

Fans going without tickets.

I suggest you educate yourself.

 

The overall number of fans in the Leppings Lane end did not exceed the capacity of it (although exact numbers are difficult to come by, but even the upper end of estimate is not higher than capacity).

 

Large crowds can be dangerous, particularly boisterous football crowds. This is why good policing, stewarding and stadium design are important. The man in charge by his own admission was not familiar with the layout and did not read safety briefings and had never policed a large scale football match before. 

 

The Liverpool fans were not at fault, as the enquiry eventually found.  

 

You really couldn't be more wrong

 

Still, you accept it is an unpopular opinion