What’s your most controversial opinion? **Read OP** **Mod Note in Post #3372**

People doing mental gymnastics to declare Conor McGregor as "English" because what Irish person could possibly be a throughly dislikable rapey cnut?

He'd be a celeb off the bat of a sports career though, where he actually had tangible talent.

I'd count a celeb as someone famous for being famous.

My controversial opinion: these new speed limits are a load of hogwash and will make a miniscule difference in the long run if at all.

I've yet to see the demographic of people most associated with fast driving doing so during the day. It's in middle of the night when roads are quieter and policing is non-existent. Anyone who lives near a motorway will regularly hear them late at night. The new limits aren't going to thwart them.

Sure its impossible to do so during the school/work run anyway with the volume of traffic.

They neglect to mention the state of the roads involved too.

Its nanny stateism, all its doing is adding a few minutes onto the journey of the majority (especially those in tracked vehicles). They may as well cut down every tree that lines a road in case one of them falls on a car and kills someone too (which has happened I think twice in the last fortnight nationally).

Come on, its absoluetly laughable that you think this is in any way a possibility! Even jokingly

In one way it's an over-reaction to some unfortunate deaths on the road in recent times, and a ploy to fool the public into thinking they're doing something about it.

In fact, they have done something about it. I'll give successive governments one thing, the issue of road safety has been on in which in general they have been proactive (in general) over the decades. Different governments have introduced various measures over the years (mandatory seat-belts, limited numbers in cars, drink driving laws, NCT, improved roads) to curb it, and in the main it has worked.

There's over 2 million vehicles in Ireland, and yet our death rate is down to 1940's levels where bikes, trains and carts were still the norm. Our worst decade was the 70's where it hovered around (and went above a few times) the 600 deaths mark, and that was with one tenth of the vehicles we have now.

Credit where credit is due, in the main, successive governments have done the job with regard to road safety.

What this is now is to show they're still doing something to curb road deaths. But it's over-reach. Yes, one death is one too many but road deaths are going to happen, and drastically lowering speed limits in areas that don't need to be lowered isn't going to change that.

The second thing, if conspiracy theorists are to be believed, is to push people away from the countryside towards towns/villages to cut down on the need for resources, seeing as it's mainly people living in the country that will be affected by this. A sort of social engineering, if you will.

And to be honest, that's what it feels like a bit. This won't affect people in towns and cities too much, given the slower flow of traffic in general, but it will affect people living out the country. School drops/collections will be 5/6 minutes longer, getting to work will be 5/6 minutes longer, dropping kids to sports/activities will be 5/6 minutes longer, going somewhere yourself, return included. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but an extra 15/20/25 minutes a day adds up for people, it certainly doesn't make it easier for them.

Personally, I can see it getting over-turned. Rural voters and rural politicians going mental, some urban drivers, particularly those commuting too as good roads don't need reduced limits. It might only be 5/6 minutes extra, but it's an annoyance that's not needed. The big one will be delivery drivers, and seeing as everything is click and collect these days, that's one industry that's going to be hit hard. Can't imagine businesses or the general population being happy with delays in deliveries.

If you're from the city and used to good roads. Country people can drive them, they do it every day, and usually are the only ones driving them. And if half the deaths are on rural roads, then the other half aren't, so pinning it on rural roads seems senseless.

What would actually make more sense is if the lowered the speed in parts of the road that were more dangerous than others instead of the entire road network.

The road I drop the kids to school on has no markings for most of it, but can comfortably accommodate two cars passing each other 90% of the time, with the exception of two parts in the road that have a series of bends where you shouldn't go over 60, and are safest at 50. Stick a sign up that says 50 at the dodgy part and then at the part that can accommodate cars passing make it 80 again, it would be far more sensible instead of making everything 60 where there's no need for it and doesn't really solve the bad part.

The Nordie Tayto isn't bad

Ok. You first.

Not sure if this controversial. I love politics and current affairs but I despise it creeping into every single facet a day-to-day life. The less I know about somebodies actual politics the better. In the US it has gone completely overboard to the point it now is truly a game and you pick a team akin to following a sports team.

It really hits me when I look at the likes of Bohs football club, DEI in the workplace and many others.

I've worked for companies that were truly progressive and respectful places to work. It genuinely didn't need to be sugar coated and given a name. It was always do your job and treat people fairly. Same as the Bohs example. You're a football club. Worry about playing football.

The big attendance at the Aviva last weekend would suggest plenty of fans want to watch them.

"My club cares about people, I'm not going any more."

What was actually going on there at the weekend? I'm sure there must have been reduced ticket prices or something?

Like when the women broke the attendance record and most of them didn't pay.

Out of interest, and cause I dont follow soccer, what is the issue? Is it that they are taking a stance on issues or they dont agree with the issues the stance is being taken on?

You do know that your OH can still do that if he wants to? No one has to engage in anything that the club does or advocates.

Not hard to keep supporting the football. Just look across the sea and you’ve loads of examples of fans who dislike “the owners” of the club but still support the team.

Those fans tend to arrange protests, maybe your OH could start something like that? Is it the anti-racism, anti-homophobia or pro-refugee stuff that he’s against? Or is it to do with Guinness/Diageo being the new sponsor?