Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
bovril

Unpopular Opinions You Hold

By bovril, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

ozleicester

ozleicester

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

But their not competing they dont have advertising so they dont need to drive traffic to raise revenue. The Story of Bobby Duncan leaving Liverpool to jion Fiorentina with Ghezzal jioning them tagged on the end on the Leicester news feed its not like the costs of having the two storys seperate would make any odds its just laziness why the f do they think the average fan gives a toss about a teenager from a different club going out on loan. 

Modern capitalist society has placed "KPI's" in almost every area, including the BBC, they arent competing for $$ but they have had expected view/click/read numbers placed on them. The same applies for call centre numbers or even sales in retail outlets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

But their not competing they dont have advertising so they dont need to drive traffic to raise revenue. The Story of Bobby Duncan leaving Liverpool to jion Fiorentina with Ghezzal jioning them tagged on the end on the Leicester news feed its not like the costs of having the two storys seperate would make any odds its just laziness why the f do they think the average fan gives a toss about a teenager from a different club going out on loan. 

 

Did you even read the post you quoted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UniFox21

UniFox21

Posted
Posted

On the News this morning there was a report on a cystic fibrosis drug and how various governments (England and Wales) had rejected the drug based on cost, whilst Scotland had accepted a small trial but rejected long term on cost. 

Now, the speaker on was blaming the government's for not taking on these drugs, and saying how the manufacturer was offering all these stats to prove this drug was good. 

Yet all this blame was at the Government not providing these drugs, but what wasn't said was how these companies charge 100k a year per person, and choose to work on these long term illnesses due to the length of time they can make money off of people. 

 

If the manufacturers really wanted to help, they'd charge less or produce funds to help those in need access their drug. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickey O'Neil

Mickey O'Neil

Posted
Posted
On 13/09/2019 at 08:34, UniFox21 said:

On the News this morning there was a report on a cystic fibrosis drug and how various governments (England and Wales) had rejected the drug based on cost, whilst Scotland had accepted a small trial but rejected long term on cost. 

Now, the speaker on was blaming the government's for not taking on these drugs, and saying how the manufacturer was offering all these stats to prove this drug was good. 

Yet all this blame was at the Government not providing these drugs, but what wasn't said was how these companies charge 100k a year per person, and choose to work on these long term illnesses due to the length of time they can make money off of people. 

 

If the manufacturers really wanted to help, they'd charge less or produce funds to help those in need access their drug. 

While I mostly agree with you (I’m not arguing), I suppose the main sticking point is cost (which is what your post says). 

Drugs companies have to pay millions and millions for research and development of a drug for each country it markets the drug in. They have to get back their outlay somewhere. 

 

We we are the losers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Footballwipe

Footballwipe

Posted
Posted

 

11 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Maybe not completely unpopular; but 'content creators' or 'youtubers' get paid way too much for what they actually do.

Does it depend for you on what they do? The ones who do "pranks" or "hauls" or just make a fool of themselves to earn ££ I'd agree. I'd then get biased and say people like Techmoan, LGR & Technology Connections, passionate retro tech/tech YouTubers who not only spend their own money purchasing/resotring/presenting obsolete systems deserve what they earn. They do serious in-depth research and are respected for what they do, it's interesting (to me, anyway) and a niche that wouldn't see the light of day anywhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UniFox21

UniFox21

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Footballwipe said:

 

Does it depend for you on what they do? The ones who do "pranks" or "hauls" or just make a fool of themselves to earn ££ I'd agree. I'd then get biased and say people like Techmoan, LGR & Technology Connections, passionate retro tech/tech YouTubers who not only spend their own money purchasing/resotring/presenting obsolete systems deserve what they earn. They do serious in-depth research and are respected for what they do, it's interesting (to me, anyway) and a niche that wouldn't see the light of day anywhere else.

Those that do things like you mentioned I understand. Referring more to the gamers etc who can earn ridiculous money.

 

Maybe I'm just annoyed they get paid to game. Always baffles me when they take themselves so seriously though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnaldo

Finnaldo

Posted
Posted

Seeing as we're on the topic: let the Queen see out her reign, as I do think she has been a good civil servant over the years, then disband the monarchy.

 

Most claims they bring in what they earn is false, Buckingham Palace gets less visitors than the Palace of Versailles and might get increase if it was a fully public space/museum, the weddings cost us a fvcking bomb, the crown lands could be put to more industrious uses and that's without factoring how much bloody benefits that whole family gets.

 

Also, fvck Charles being King.

 

Here's a good video on the topic:

 

 

I believe the pressure group 'Republic' is planning, following the Queen's death, mourning period and funeral, but before Charles' coronation, to mount a campaign for a referendum (:ph34r:) to abolish the monarchy. Fingers crossed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jattdogg

Jattdogg

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Seeing as we're on the topic: let the Queen see out her reign, as I do think she has been a good civil servant over the years, then disband the monarchy.

 

Most claims they bring in what they earn is false, Buckingham Palace gets less visitors than the Palace of Versailles and might get increase if it was a fully public space/museum, the weddings cost us a fvcking bomb, the crown lands could be put to more industrious uses and that's without factoring how much bloody benefits that whole family gets.

 

Also, fvck Charles being King.

 

Here's a good video on the topic:

 

 

I believe the pressure group 'Republic' is planning, following the Queen's death, mourning period and funeral, but before Charles' coronation, to mount a campaign for a referendum (:ph34r:) to abolish the monarchy. Fingers crossed.

Unlikely to occur. I dont see brits doing away with it yet. I do think in the next 100 years it will happen (although not in my lifetime).

 

With the state of British politics might need to get rid of all politicians first  and will need a king/queen lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted

I ****ing love having a cold.

 

Because despite feeling very unwell, sneezing, a spluttering cough, headaches, occasionally not being able to trust a fart... I have the dirtiest laugh imaginable. I find myself laughing out loud about about absolutely anything, even thoughts in my own head, which always makes me feel jolly and therefore better. 

 

I don't care if that's just me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted
On 25/09/2019 at 08:20, Trav Le Bleu said:

Princess Merkal of Sussex, always banging on about women.

 

Sexist?

Perhaps.

She seems quite 'dominating' at times, in the limelight.

Wouldn't be surprised if she bossed Harry around at home..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
On 25/09/2019 at 10:30, Finnaldo said:

Seeing as we're on the topic: let the Queen see out her reign, as I do think she has been a good civil servant over the years, then disband the monarchy.

 

 

An unpopular opinion with me, I'm afraid.......pending further information, at least.

 

If we didn't already have a hereditary head of state, there's no way I'd advocate it as the way forward.

But we do, it doesn't seem to work too badly......and I'd seriously want to know what sort of head of state & constitutional system we'd replace them with, if we ditched the monarchy.

 

What would you like instead?

 

The US has a combined head of state / head of government in the President, who is then held accountable by Congress as the legislature.

But they seem to have plenty of problems - and not just because of Trump. There seems to have been institutionalised conflict & gridlock between White House & Congress dating back decades.

 

France has a powerful, highly political head of state (President) focusing on foreign policy & major issues, plus a PM, appointed by the President, who governs domestic issues.....again, plenty of President/PM clashes, suggestions that the President is too powerful & the PM too weak etc.

 

Germany, Italy & Ireland have heads of state / presidents who have little involvement in politics. The PM dominates politics, while the head of state does ceremonial stuff, addresses constitutional issues & maybe the odd grand moral issue.

That seems to work OK.....but, if we opted for that and replaced the monarch, would we elect someone or appoint someone? If we elected someone, I'd see a big risk of them becoming powerful and politicised, rivaling or even eclipsing the PM in the public imagination.....and it's not as if the power of the aristocracy is a major problem now; the problem is the power of global capital & the excessive influence of its interests and lobbyists.

 

Until someone comes up with a comprehensive new constitutional settlement under a republic, I'd say "if it ain't (too) broke, don't fix it!"

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I ****ing love having a cold.

 

Because despite feeling very unwell, sneezing, a spluttering cough, headaches, occasionally not being able to trust a fart... I have the dirtiest laugh imaginable. I find myself laughing out loud about about absolutely anything, even thoughts in my own head, which always makes me feel jolly and therefore better. 

Roll on the next bubonic plague pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...