Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Facecloth]

26 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

It really doesn't though. It is comfortably a city no matter how you measure it.

 

Just for some context the biggest non city is currently Reading which is about half the size of Leicester

Bournenouth is bigger in terms of population, as are a few others. 

 

Trying to say what a city is tough because there's so many variables, in terms of population, area covered, area governed by the council, history etc. London, and Great London are different things. City of London isn't everything inside the M25, its a small area next to another City in the centre called Westminster. Carlisle is actually the biggest city in the UK by council area.

 

Oh and @Heathrow fox Preston is already a city, it was the last place to get the status. But they don't grant city staus every year, places have to earn it. I doubt we'll ever have Skegness city. Northampton, Ipswich, Milton Keynes, Bournemouth, maybe Middlesbrough could be lined up but until they grow more nowhere else.

Edited 15 August 2020 by Facecloth

[peach0000]

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Bournenouth is bigger in terms of population, as are a few others. 

 

Trying to say what a city is tough because there's so many variables, in terms of population, area covered, area governed by the council, history etc. London, and Great London are different things. City of London isn't everything inside the M25, its a small area next to another City in the centre called Westminster. Carlisle is actually the biggest city in the UK by council area.

 

Oh and @Heathrow fox Preston is already a city, it was the last place to get the status. But they don't grant city staus every year, places have to earn it. I doubt we'll ever have Skegness city. Northampton, Ipswich, Milton Keynes, Bournemouth, maybe Middlesbrough could be lined up but until they grow more nowhere else.

It depends how you define population the population of the town of bournemouth is about 190,000 where the town of reading is 210,000 but if you look at the suburbs and metropolitan area bournemouth would be bigger.

[Facecloth]

4 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

It depends how you define population the population of the town of bournemouth is about 190,000 where the town of reading is 210,000 but if you look at the suburbs and metropolitan area bournemouth would be bigger.

Which actually backs up the point about there being too many variables to give a definitive answer. Some metropolitan areas have huge populations but the city/town is much smaller.

[Heathrow fox]

17 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Bournenouth is bigger in terms of population, as are a few others. 

 

Trying to say what a city is tough because there's so many variables, in terms of population, area covered, area governed by the council, history etc. London, and Great London are different things. City of London isn't everything inside the M25, its a small area next to another City in the centre called Westminster. Carlisle is actually the biggest city in the UK by council area.

 

Oh and @Heathrow fox Preston is already a city, it was the last place to get the status. But they don't grant city staus every year, places have to earn it. I doubt we'll ever have Skegness city. Northampton, Ipswich, Milton Keynes, Bournemouth, maybe Middlesbrough could be lined up but until they grow more nowhere else.

I know that’s why I used them.It’s been on the news a fair bit and is what got me started.Bournemouth is never bigger than Leicester by the way.No matter what method you use,Leicester gets in the top 10/13.It’s the biggest free standing city in the uk and the council moan that it’s population is underestimated.Meaning less funding.I’m not disputing it’s size

[Stadt]

Leicester is the 2nd or 3rd most densely populated city in the country too. Which I find a bit difficult to believe because comparatively, it’s not a city full of tower blocks and flats. Maybe it’s just underbounded.

[ealingfox]

Probably not even an unpopular opinion but all this Eddie Hearn-based patter really is dull as shite.

[Facecloth]

45 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I know that’s why I used them.It’s been on the news a fair bit and is what got me started.Bournemouth is never bigger than Leicester by the way.No matter what method you use,Leicester gets in the top 10/13.It’s the biggest free standing city in the uk and the council moan that it’s population is underestimated.Meaning less funding.I’m not disputing it’s size

I never said Bournemouth is bigger than Leicester, I was replying to a post about Reading being the biggest non city in the uk.

[Heathrow fox]

30 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Leicester is the 2nd or 3rd most densely populated city in the country too. Which I find a bit difficult to believe because comparatively, it’s not a city full of tower blocks and flats. Maybe it’s just underbounded.

Small boundaries and more than it’s fair share of terrace houses maybe?

[Heathrow fox]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I never said Bournemouth is bigger than Leicester, I was replying to a post about Reading being the biggest non city in the uk.

Yes read that wrong,apologies 

[UniFox21]

I don't understand why posters feel the need to try to impose themsleves as an 'itk'. If someone is actually itk then by just posting normal comments it'll become clear.

[Tuna]

9 hours ago, ealingfox said:

Probably not even an unpopular opinion but all this Eddie Hearn-based patter really is dull as shite.

Really irritates me when I see my twitter clogged with those crap out of context Hearn videos. 

[The Bear]

21 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Really irritates me when I see my twitter clogged with those crap out of context Hearn videos. 

It doesn't help that I don't like the bloke. Another arrogant mockney dick like his dad. 

Edited 15 August 2020 by The Bear

[Nalis]

19 hours ago, ealingfox said:

Probably not even an unpopular opinion but all this Eddie Hearn-based patter really is dull as shite.

You're right, it's not an unpopular opinion.

[Sampson]

I guess it's context.

 

We have 3 cities in Hampshire.

 

Leicester "feels" like twice the size of Southampton or Portsmouth and about 5 times the size of Winchester (which is only a city for historical reasons being the capital of England pre-1066).

 

And I'd consider Southampton abd Portsmouth to probably be roughly "standard" UK city size.

 

Leicester feels like quite a big city by standard UK city size. 

 

You compare it to a Nordic or Baltic city as well and it would be considered positively huge, like the 2nd city of any country in those regions behind the capital.

[Sampson]

On 15/08/2020 at 08:13, Facecloth said:

What's your status then? Size? Population? History? Depending on the source and the area used Leicester is top 10 or 15 on population. The Leicester built up urban area is 14th biggest in the UK, ahead of Cardiff, but behind Bournemouth, which you haven't included. There are 69 cities in the UK, there's plenty that need to lose that status before Leicester if we're talking size or population. Or it could be just left as it is, as they are mostly well spread out, some are huge, some medium sized, a few tiny ones that have the status for historical reasons, but its all part of our rich history, which Leicester has played its part in.

Built up urban areas and metro areas are just what councils use to get more money though. They're not the actual city.

 

Bournemouth isn't particularly big and its definitely town-sized not city-sized. It's definitely a lot smaller than Leicester. It's not big enough for the city. The urban and metro areas try to claim Poole which is also a similarly large town as part of Bournemouth as well when it clearly isn't and no one from Poole would claim they're from Bournemouth and no one from Bournemouth would claim they're part of Poole.

 

There's also the South Hampshire urban area which tries to claim Portsmouth and Southampton and all the towns in between are part of the same large city which is obviously ludicrous as there's a 45 minute motorway drive in between them and no one living there would ever recognise, but it's just a way for Hampshire council to get more money. It would be a bit like saying Leicester, Coventry, Hinckley, Nuneaton, Warwick and Leamington Spa are all part of the same city.

 

Metro and urban areas will try and claim Salford, Bolton and Oldham are part of Manchester or West Bromwich, Wolverhampton and Dudley are part of Birmingham and things like that even when they're clearly not to inflate their population numbers.

Edited 16 August 2020 by Sampson

[Finnaldo]

Leicester not being a city is a bit strange o think, it’s got pretty much everything pointing to it being a city. 
 

Demographically & Geographically it’s the most central settlement of it’s size, so it make sense from a strictly pragmatic view. 
 

Historically, it was the power base of the area we’d identify as the East Midlands today. It’s what historians would identify as the capital of the pre-Roman Brythonic Corieltauvi tribe (covering roughly the East Mids), it’s position and walls made it the civic capital for political and religious affairs of the Ango-Saxon Mercian capital (which had vassalised the entirety of England at one point) even if the King’s seat was Tamworth. It was the most powerful and affluent of the Five Boroughs of Danelaw (again covering the East Mids) and the closest to a capital a decentralised system like that would have, and it only really lost it’s place to Nottingham following the Norman ascension. 
 

I think the only reason it’s seen as ‘towny’ is because as Stadt said it had it’s city status stripped between the Restoration after the English Civil War (where it was so devastated by Royalist forces it was actually used as a charge against the King when he was captured and eventually executed) and up to 1919. But historically and just now, it’s quite clear it’s always destined to be a city, especially judging by some cities in the U.K. 

[Heathrow fox]

12 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Built up urban areas and metro areas are just what councils use to get more money though. They're not the actual city.

 

Bournemouth isn't particularly big and its definitely town-sized not city-sized. It's definitely a lot smaller than Leicester. It's not big enough for the city. The urban and metro areas try to claim Poole which is also a similarly large town as part of Bournemouth as well when it clearly isn't and no one from Poole would claim they're from Bournemouth and no one from Bournemouth would claim they're part of Poole.

 

There's also the South Hampshire urban area which tries to claim Portsmouth and Southampton and all the towns in between are part of the same large city which is obviously ludicrous as there's a 45 minute motorway drive in between them and no one living there would ever recognise, but it's just a way for Hampshire council to get more money. It would be a bit like saying Leicester, Coventry, Hinckley, Nuneaton, Warwick and Leamington Spa are all part of the same city.

 

Metro and urban areas will try and claim Salford, Bolton and Oldham are part of Manchester or West Bromwich, Wolverhampton and Dudley are part of Birmingham and things like that even when they're clearly not to inflate their population numbers.

Causes massive confusion.Before the internet,if you wanted to find information regarding population you would reach for the yearly British Almanac.Pretty much one straight answer.Now the net gives you about 4.The give away is when you visit the actual place.

[Stadt]

The semantics of population metrics is why Manchester City actually have quite good support. Manchester itself isn’t particularly huge, it’s just that greater Manchester is. Even allowing that a lot of Man City fans come from Stockport, Manchester’s population is ~550k, they share a city with one of the biggest clubs in the world and their average attendance this season is 54,391 in their 55,000 capacity ground.

[Finnaldo]

15 minutes ago, Stadt said:

The semantics of population metrics is why Manchester City actually have quite good support. Manchester itself isn’t particularly huge, it’s just that greater Manchester is. Even allowing that a lot of Man City fans come from Stockport, Manchester’s population is ~550k, they share a city with one of the biggest clubs in the world and their average attendance this season is 54,391 in their 55,000 capacity ground.

Yeah, even if it’s not huge I feel Manchester’s importance is conflated massively by it’s cultural output. Especially since the 80s, Manchester’s art, music and general culture output to British culture as a whole is massive, and there always feels like there’s something going on up there, same with Sheffield on a smaller scale.
 

Compare that to say, Birmingham where their biggest export is a few Ska bands & Human League, and a choice few areas outside the Bullring don’t feel like a complete dump. Manchester feels ten times more of a ‘second city’, but Birmingham gets the title because it’s a sprawling grey labyrinth with more bodies in it.  
 

I know that wasn’t really relevant to your point, but it was something I felt I had to vent  

Edited 16 August 2020 by Finnaldo

[Bellend Sebastian]

14 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Yeah, even if it’s not huge I feel Manchester’s importance is conflated massively by it’s cultural output. Especially since the 80s, Manchester’s art, music and general culture output to British culture as a whole is massive, and there always feels like there’s something going on up there, same with Sheffield on a smaller scale.
 

Compare that to say, Birmingham where their biggest export is a few Ska bands & Human League, and a choice few areas outside the Bullring don’t feel like a complete dump. Manchester feels ten times more of a ‘second city’, but Birmingham gets the title because it’s a sprawling grey labyrinth with more bodies in it.  
 

I know that wasn’t really relevant to your point, but it was something I felt I had to vent  

That's a bit harsh, especially given that the Human League are from Sheffield.

 

You'll have both Phil Oakey AND Ozzy Osbourne after you now

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

That's a bit harsh, especially given that the Human League are from Sheffield.

 

You'll have both Phil Oakey AND Ozzy Osbourne after you now

Im sure I read on here somewhere that Phil Oakley was from Hinckley. 

[Heathrow fox]

16 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Yeah, even if it’s not huge I feel Manchester’s importance is conflated massively by it’s cultural output. Especially since the 80s, Manchester’s art, music and general culture output to British culture as a whole is massive, and there always feels like there’s something going on up there, same with Sheffield on a smaller scale.
 

Compare that to say, Birmingham where their biggest export is a few Ska bands & Human League, and a choice few areas outside the Bullring don’t feel like a complete dump. Manchester feels ten times more of a ‘second city’, but Birmingham gets the title because it’s a sprawling grey labyrinth with more bodies in it.  
 

I know that wasn’t really relevant to your point, but it was something I felt I had to vent  

The media decided that Manchester was going to be the 2nd city and I’m afraid Birmingham didn’t put up much resistance.Tony Wilson had a lot to do with that.Tbf it is the capital of the north.Grt Manchester is a huge urban sprawl slightly bigger than the WestMids and has knocked out some great culture.A certain IRA bomb helping aswell.

[StanSP]

12 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

I don't understand why posters feel the need to try to impose themsleves as an 'itk'. If someone is actually itk then by just posting normal comments it'll become clear.

but then when you do give info out it's used against you 

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

but then when you do give info out it's used against you 

It's a weird mix. I'd assume with so few rumours of substance around our transfer dealings, some posters hang off every word. 

[StanSP]

3 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

It's a weird mix. I'd assume with so few rumours of substance around our transfer dealings, some posters hang off every word. 

I got banned for it so who knows what happens