Unpopular Opinions.

Quorum

krudler wrote: »

Just nope, its the best thing on tv at the moment.

I like it, but different strokes, eh? If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it!

AudreyHepburn

The North/South divide should as it is.....I firmly believe any attempt to reunify the country would reignite The Troubles again. The North is at peace now....lets leave it that way.

Religion does have a place in society and we are all entitled to worship as we please...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

The bankers/developers/politicians are not the only ones responsible for the recession....ordinary innocent joe/joan soap played their parts too.

Taxes/Cuts/Price Hikes are a necessary part of running an economy.....getting our services for free whilst expecting the government to make money appear out of nowhere is not.

Taxing the rich alone doesn't work.

Science and religion are not imcompatible.

Being athiest does not make you smarter, being religious does not make you thick or weak minded.

Men should have the same rights re parenting as women.

mikemac1

Coffee is awful

I hate the smell of it and groan to myself when the girl in the office who sits beside me brings it to our desk

Had coffee once several years ago and I couldn't finish even a third of the cup

Paddy Cow

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The bankers/developers/politicians are not the only ones responsible for the recession....ordinary innocent joe/joan soap played their parts too.

I have yet to hear any justification for that. Yes people took out more credit than they could pay back but only because they were allowed. Bankers etc are supposed to be the ones with the knowledge to properly plan for these things. If they hadn't given out so much money willy nilly, then there wouldn't have been such a huge crash. It's like saying "I went to my doctor and told him I wanted X, Y and X drugs and he just gave them to me, so the fall out is my own fault". Any doctor worth their salt will only give out what is needed, not what you want. The banks got greedy, pure and simple and it's the taxpayer who are paying for it.

Yamanoto

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The North/South divide should as it is.....I firmly believe any attempt to reunify the country would reignite The Troubles again. The North is at peace now....lets leave it that way.

I'd wager that's quite a popular opinion

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Religion does have a place in society and we are all entitled to worship as we please...as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Yep, that too

fasttalkerchat

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The North/South divide should as it is.....I firmly believe any attempt to reunify the country would reignite The Troubles again. The North is at peace now....lets leave it that way.

The North is at peace because people have faith with the way things are moving. After 10 years and no more progress support will shift towards armed struggle again.

krudler

Quorum wrote: »

I like it, but different strokes, eh? If someone doesn't like it, they don't like it!

Oh people can not like it, but y'know, they're wrong :pac:

nacimroc

People of 'small stature' (including small women), Shouldn't be allowed in the emergency services!

If you can't drag someone out of a burning car, you shouldn't be a 'first responder'

Curly Judge

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I have yet to hear any justification for that. Yes people took out more credit than they could pay back but only because they were allowed. Bankers etc are supposed to be the ones with the knowledge to properly plan for these things. If they hadn't given out so much money willy nilly, then there wouldn't have been such a huge crash. It's like saying "I went to my doctor and told him I wanted X, Y and X drugs and he just gave them to me, so the fall out is my own fault". Any doctor worth their salt will only give out what is needed, not what you want. The banks got greedy, pure and simple and it's the taxpayer who are paying for it.

And block layers who demanded, and got, 3 euro per block?
And plasterers who demanded 1000 euro per day for himself and two polish helpers?
The block layer is now working for 50 cent per block - if he can get any work, that is- but the teacher is still holding on to his/her boom time salary [and pension]

cruais

Georgia salpa looks like a tranny

fergiesfolly

Paddy Cow wrote: »

If you want to save the economy money, why not have that sort of system implemented for politician's expense accounts? What they spend on the card could be made public at the end of each month (minus the name of the cardholder). I reckon people would soon shift from the mentality that it's everyone on the social who are wasting their hard earned tax payers money and start demanding that politicians lead by example. Of course there's no way in hell it would be allowed to happen.

Thats a feckin brilliant idea. Everything recorded and open to inspection by the general public. Can't imagine it wouldn't reduce the expenses of politicians when it'd be so closely monitored.

token101

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I have yet to hear any justification for that. Yes people took out more credit than they could pay back but only because they were allowed. Bankers etc are supposed to be the ones with the knowledge to properly plan for these things. If they hadn't given out so much money willy nilly, then there wouldn't have been such a huge crash. It's like saying "I went to my doctor and told him I wanted X, Y and X drugs and he just gave them to me, so the fall out is my own fault". Any doctor worth their salt will only give out what is needed, not what you want. The banks got greedy, pure and simple and it's the taxpayer who are paying for it.

It is your own fault FFS :pac: The doctor is there to advise, not be your ****ing babysitter! If you knew the consequences before you took the drugs, like anyone taking on debt should know, then it is 100% your fault! Passing it off on the doctor, or the bank, is just a complete abdication of any personal responsibility. Banks, like every other business, exist to make a profit. You know when you take on a debt that you're responsible for it, and if you're too stupid to realise it, that's your fault. Jesus with this sort of horse**** logic the government would treat every single citizen as a toddler. If you walk into the local shop and order 50 Snickers, they will just take your money, they dont try to stop you by reinforcing how they will make you fat and rot your teeth FFS!

steddyeddy

token101 wrote: »

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I have yet to hear any justification for that. Yes people took out more credit than they could pay back but only because they were allowed. Bankers etc are supposed to be the ones with the knowledge to properly plan for these things. If they hadn't given out so much money willy nilly, then there wouldn't have been such a huge crash. It's like saying "I went to my doctor and told him I wanted X, Y and X drugs and he just gave them to me, so the fall out is my own fault". Any doctor worth their salt will only give out what is needed, not what you want. The banks got greedy, pure and simple and it's the taxpayer who are paying for it.

It is your own fault FFS :pac: The doctor is there to advise, not be your ****ing babysitter! If you knew the consequences before you took the drugs, like anyone taking on debt should know, then it is 100% your fault! Passing it off on the doctor, or the bank, is just a complete abdication of any personal responsibility. Banks, like every other business, exist to make a profit. You know when you take on a debt that you're responsible for it, and if you're too stupid to realise it, that's your fault. Jesus with this sort of horse**** logic the government would treat every single citizen as a toddler. If you walk into the local shop and order 50 Snickers, they will just take your money, they dont try to stop you by reinforcing how they will make you fat and rot your teeth FFS!

Actually doctors can be held liable as should bankers.

Quorum

nacimroc wrote: »

People of 'small stature' (including small women), Shouldn't be allowed in the emergency services!

If you can't drag someone out of a burning car, you shouldn't be a 'first responder'

I know some very strong short people inc. some women. Not sure I understand your point?

token101

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually doctors can be held liable as should bankers.

Held liable for what? What should bank managers be held liable for? I'm not talking about Sean Fitz or Fingleton and the likes here, people like to conveniently drop names like that into the mix to obfuscate the situation. I'm talking about the ordinary bank manager, the one most people go to when they look for a mortgage or loan. You've gone to him or her, because they don't go door to door where I live, and you've asked for X amount, to be repaid over Y number of years. You've made an agreement based on your circumstances. Now your circumstances have changed and you can't pay. I'd be the first to say the bank should negotiate with you and come to an arrangement, can't get blood from a stone and lots of banks do. But to then take up this position of moral outrage and say they are liable criminally or in any other way is complete bull**** and a total cop out.

steddyeddy

token101 wrote: »

Held liable for what? What should bank managers be held liable for? I'm not talking about Sean Fitz or Fingleton and the likes here, people like to conveniently drop names like that into the mix to obfuscate the situation. I'm talking about the ordinary bank manager, the one most people go to when they look for a mortgage or loan. You've gone to him or her, because they don't go door to door where I live, and you've asked for X amount, to be repaid over Y number of years. You've made an agreement based on your circumstances. Now your circumstances have changed and you can't pay. I'd be the first to say the bank should negotiate with you and come to an arrangement, can't get blood from a stone and lots of banks do. But to then take up this position of moral outrage and say they are liable criminally or in any other way is complete bull**** and a total cop out.

So you dont expect a loan manager to have any degree of expertise? By your logic people who were prescribed thalidomide by their doctor have only themselves to blame. Bankers deal with large amounts of money they should have some basic expertise. During the celtic tiger they either hadnt got that or they didnt use it. I do blame people for taking mad motgages and the banks should forclose but they should take more of a hit on their mistake aswell.

token101

steddyeddy wrote: »

So you dont expect a loan manager to have any degree of expertise?

They explained the mortgage, loan, they sold to people and handed them the T/Cs in the contract. What else are they supposed to be experts in? Predicting how your life will turn out and if you'll have a job in 5 years?

steddyeddy wrote: »

By your logic people who were prescribed thalidomide by their doctor have only themselves to blame.

What are you talking about? The people taking thalidomide didn't know the consequences of their actions unlike people taking out a loan of any sort. There's no comparison FFS, just more of this obfuscating nonsense some people love.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bankers deal with large amounts of money they should have some basic expertise. During the celtic tiger they either hadnt got that or they didnt use it. I do blame people for taking mad motgages and the banks should forclose but they should take more of a hit on their mistake aswell.

Expertise in what? What has handling cash got to do with anything FFS? People go to them looking for a mortgage, they assess if they can pay it back and give the money based on that. But the onus is on you to pay! You took the money! And if your circumstances change you are still liable for the debt that you signed the contract for and if you weren't aware of that you are a moron.

You don't think banks are taking a hit? Have you not seen the waves of bank redundancies in every newspaper over the last 12 months? And the fact that they are loath to give any small business any credit lines?

AudreyHepburn

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I have yet to hear any justification for that. Yes people took out more credit than they could pay back but only because they were allowed. Bankers etc are supposed to be the ones with the knowledge to properly plan for these things. If they hadn't given out so much money willy nilly, then there wouldn't have been such a huge crash. It's like saying "I went to my doctor and told him I wanted X, Y and X drugs and he just gave them to me, so the fall out is my own fault". Any doctor worth their salt will only give out what is needed, not what you want. The banks got greedy, pure and simple and it's the taxpayer who are paying for it.

Ah here now....a bit of common sense please.

Do you seriously believe people were dragged kicking and screaming to take out huge loans or buy multiple properties? Or that they were so innocent as to not know what they were getting themselves into?

Taking out mortgage or buying a home is a decision you and you alone take....no one forces you to do it.

Don't be so deluded......we are not the poor innocent victims we would like to be.

AudreyHepburn

Yamanoto wrote: »

I'd wager that's quite a popular opinion



Yep, that too

Hmmm....you'd be surprised.

Have you ever looked at the athiesm threads on here?

And I have heard many people admit they'd prefer a united Ireland.

king_of_inismac

The truth about whose to blame lies somewhere in the middle. The lender and the borrower both have responsibility.

My opinion on this (and most other issues), is that anyone with too strong an opinion on any side of an argument hasn't thought about it very much.

Fromthetrees

Foreign nationals who have been found guilty of a crime warranting jail time of more than 6 months should be deported from Ireland back to their home country immediately after serving their sentence and banned from ever being allowed into Ireland again.

nacimroc

Anyone walking into a bank thinking the bank is on their side and impartial, is lying or a complete idiot. That was their job. You wouldn't sue the sweetshop owner for pushing sweets on you if you got fat. They never miss-sold. Circumstances change and thats not their fault.

king_of_inismac

nacimroc wrote: »

Anyone walking into a bank thinking the bank is on their side and impartial, is lying or a complete idiot. That was their job. You wouldn't sue the sweetshop owner for pushing sweets on you if you got fat. They never miss-sold. Circumstances change and thats not their fault.

The job of the bank is to lend prudently to people who can afford to repay their loans.

Equally it's the job of the borrower to only borrow what they can afford to repay.

There's responsibility on both sides.

token101

king_of_inismac wrote: »

The job of the bank is to lend prudently to people who can afford to repay their loans.

Equally it's the job of the borrower to only borrow what they can afford to repay.

There's responsibility on both sides.

But circumstances changed dramatically for a lot of people. How was the bank to foresee this if the borrower couldn't?

Yamanoto

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Hmmm....you'd be surprised.

Have you ever looked at the athiesm threads on here?

Don't mistake boards for an accurate representative sample. The populous at large have far more sense.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And I have heard many people admit they'd prefer a united Ireland.

I honestly have not.

As Northern Irish society normalises over time, we may reach a point where its people are less inclined to rigidly subscribe to a Unionist or Nationalist identity. If they manage to forge a shared future, the prospect of a united Ireland becomes less likely imo. I'd agree with you though, leave well enough alone.

king_of_inismac

token101 wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

The job of the bank is to lend prudently to people who can afford to repay their loans.

Equally it's the job of the borrower to only borrow what they can afford to repay.

There's responsibility on both sides.

But circumstances changed dramatically for a lot of people. How was the bank to foresee this if the borrower couldn't?

That's precisely my point. Both parties are responsible (who has more of the responsibility is case-specific IMO)

token101

king_of_inismac wrote: »

That's precisely my point. Both parties are responsible (who has more of the responsibility is case-specific IMO)

I'd argue that the borrower has the majority of the responsibility in most cases. No one had a gun held to their head, there are always alternatives. They were seduced by the easy credit the bank was selling, which is their job. I'm not saying I don't feel for lot of people in the situation, but to turn around and castigate the banks as criminally liable and attempt to absolve borrowers entirely like some here have done is a bit ridiculous and irritating.

steddyeddy

token101 wrote: »

They explained the mortgage, loan, they sold to people and handed them the T/Cs in the contract. What else are they supposed to be experts in? Predicting how your life will turn out and if you'll have a job in 5 years?

Indeed they did I dont doubt the chap in question is feigning ignorance Im argueing that the banks should take some responsibility.

What are you talking about? The people taking thalidomide didn't know the consequences of their actions unlike people taking out a loan of any sort. There's no comparison FFS, just more of this obfuscating nonsense some people love.

You stated doctors are there to advise and not force it down your throat. I was pointing out that doctors have wrongly prescribed meds before and been struck of or disciplined for it. They are cetainly liable if they misprescibe drugs.

I am arguing that people working in loans should be able to make a rational decision regarding a loan. I have no problem with the loan made here but in some cases the loan given was a joke. One man was a newly qualified 18 year old carpenter who was offered a loan over 100 grand. Giving out loans are a risk the banks take and part of risk is potential loss. I expect my local bank to be staffed by professionals and not the clowns who gave thought risk assessment was a dirty word.

Expertise in what? What has handling cash got to do with anything FFS? People go to them looking for a mortgage, they assess if they can pay it back and give the money based on that. But the onus is on you to pay! You took the money! And if your circumstances change you are still liable for the debt that you signed the contract for and if you weren't aware of that you are a moron.

The people giving out large loans to certain parites where not simply "handling cash". Expertise in economics would be usefull. Im not defending the people who took a reasonable mortgage. I just think that in banks where large amounts of money is looked after expertise is essential.

[/QUOTE]You don't think banks are taking a hit? Have you not seen the waves of bank redundancies in every newspaper over the last 12 months? And the fact that they are loath to give any small business any credit lines?[/QUOTE]

So? Banks are not innocent in a large amount of cases. People like this who cant or dont pay their mortgages are not the cases I am talking about. Bankers in this country fuelled the property bubble. Its not surprising that they would take a hit on their gambling losses.

Paddy Cow

token101 wrote: »

It is your own fault FFS :pac: The doctor is there to advise, not be your ****ing babysitter! If you knew the consequences before you took the drugs, like anyone taking on debt should know, then it is 100% your fault! Passing it off on the doctor, or the bank, is just a complete abdication of any personal responsibility. Banks, like every other business, exist to make a profit. You know when you take on a debt that you're responsible for it, and if you're too stupid to realise it, that's your fault. Jesus with this sort of horse**** logic the government would treat every single citizen as a toddler. If you walk into the local shop and order 50 Snickers, they will just take your money, they dont try to stop you by reinforcing how they will make you fat and rot your teeth FFS!

If you order 50 snickers and rot your teeth, then it only effects you. If your teeth rot, I don't have to pay your dentist to pull them out through a Universal Dentist Charge. It cracks me up when people talk about the "good times". I can't be the only person, but despite the "boom" and "Celtic Tiger", I was never on a great salary. It never bothered me until suddenly I have to fork out for the stupidity of bankers who gave out too much money.

I have said in a previous post how I was suprised when a few years ago I went to the bank to get a small loan of €600. At the time I was only earning €300 a week so I had carefully thought about how much I could afford to pay back. I expected to be asked about my outgoings and if I could make the repayments. The bank told me that I was pre-approved to take out a loan of €10,000! What the fcuk were they thinking pre-approving someone on my salary for a loan of ten grand??? It wasn't even a mortage, just a personal loan. They were willing to give me ten grand, no questions asked and then they wonder why we are in the situation we're in?

I can see people's points about how the government shouldn't treat adults like toddlers but in fairness, there has to be proper regulations in place. Let's face it, some people are greedy and there's always going to be some chancer who thinks that (s)he has the next big development as long as they get the funding from the banks, and government approval, they're not going to care about the long term implications on the taxpayer.

My longwinded point is, it's not the people who have to deal with the fallout who should be regulated, it's the people who create the situation who should be accountable.

Galwayguy35

Paddy Cow wrote: »

If you order 50 snickers and rot your teeth, then it only effects you. If your teeth rot, I don't have to pay your dentist to pull them out through a Universal Dentist Charge. It cracks me up when people talk about the "good times". I can't be the only person, but despite the "boom" and "Celtic Tiger", I was never on a great salary. It never bothered me until suddenly I have to fork out for the stupidity of bankers who gave out too much money.

I have said in a previous post how I was suprised when a few years ago I went to the bank to get a small loan of €600. At the time I was only earning €300 a week so I had carefully thought about how much I could afford to pay back. I expected to be asked about my outgoings and if I could make the repayments. The bank told me that I was pre-approved to take out a loan of €10,000! What the fcuk were they thinking pre-approving someone on my salary for a loan of ten grand??? It wasn't even a mortage, just a personal loan. They were willing to give me ten grand, no questions asked and then they wonder why we are in the situation we're in?

I can see people's points about how the government shouldn't treat adults like toddlers but in fairness, there has to be proper regulations in place. Let's face it, some people are greedy and there's always going to be some chancer who thinks that (s)he has the next big development as long as they get the funding from the banks, and government approval, they're not going to care about the long term implications on the taxpayer.

My longwinded point is, it's not the people who have to deal with the fallout who should be regulated, it's the people who create the situation who should be accountable.

Yes and we all did maths going to school, everyone knows how much they will make in the year so a 5 minute calculation would tell someone if they could afford a loan.

king_of_inismac

token101 wrote: »

I'd argue that the borrower has the majority of the responsibility in most cases. No one had a gun held to their head, there are always alternatives. They were seduced by the easy credit the bank was selling, which is their job. I'm not saying I don't feel for lot of people in the situation, but to turn around and castigate the banks as criminally liable and attempt to absolve borrowers entirely like some here have done is a bit ridiculous and irritating.

I think borrowers have to take responsibility for their mistakes. Many knowingly stretched themselves by over-borrowing and have to deal with the consequences.

On the other side, the banks can limit their risks by varying their loan to net income ratio (e.g. only lending 3 x net income rather than 6/7 x net income).

The difference in the Irish case is the Irish taxpayer is paying for the bank's lack of responsibility (by recapitalising the banks).

I wasn't involved in property and don't have a mortgage, but I can understand the frustration of the borrowers.

sbsquarepants

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I have said in a previous post how I was suprised when a few years ago I went to the bank to get a small loan of €600. At the time I was only earning €300 a week so I had carefully thought about how much I could afford to pay back. I expected to be asked about my outgoings and if I could make the repayments. The bank told me that I was pre-approved to take out a loan of €10,000!
My longwinded point is, it's not the people who have to deal with the fallout who should be regulated, it's the people who create the situation who should be accountable.

I once applied for a loan of €8,000 and was refused, the bank told me i'd have to take €15,000 for them to lend to me! Now that is fúcking ridiculous, i didn't take the loan cos quite simply i didn't want to borrow that much, i had no use for it and would have just blown it - but i'm sure a lot of people in my position would have taken it and probably suffered because of it. That is hardly professional banking behaviour, of course they should share the blame if it all goes tits up.

Paddy Cow

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yes and we all did maths going to school, everyone knows how much they will make in the year so a 5 minute calculation would tell someone if they could afford a loan.

If it was that easy, the country wouldn't be in the position it is now.

MJ23

Gay Byrne is an annoying old fart

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

To the poster who claimed a newly qualified 18 year old carpenter was offered a 100k loan, that can't be true as a carpentry apprenticeship takes four years and you can't begin one until you're 16.

handlemaster

MJ23 wrote: »

Gay Byrne is an annoying old fart

Hes so patronising.

Now don't get me started on Craig Doyle ......

Slurryface

The youth of today have no repect, bring back the cane!




Except of course for my kids who are little angels and paragons of respectfullness:D

handlemaster

Slurryface wrote: »

The youth of today have no repect, bring back the cane!




Except of course for my kids who are little angels and paragons of respectfullness:D

My little Johnny and Mary are always angels !!

gobnaitolunacy

JFK, bedhopping US president who nearly sparked off WW3.

He'd be barely remembered if he wasn't good-looking and assassinated.

nacimroc

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

JFK, bedhopping US president who nearly sparked off WW3.

He'd be barely remembered if he wasn't good-looking and assassinated.

And sparked a US recession for a decade by spending so much on NASA. (Still glad he did though)

Real Life

handlemaster wrote: »

Hes so patronising.

Now don't get me started on Craig Doyle ......

from 2.28, they got him spot on i think

fatherted1969

Why should people who were responsible with their finances be forced to carry the can for some people who were complete gob****es with theirs. Now i know some people were caught out when the bubble burst but for every one of them theres also someone who walked into a bank and got another 50k over the value of their homes so they could buy the cars and get the latest gadgets.

Really does my head in, at the end of the day its your name at the bottom of your mortgage not mine. I've made plenty of bad financial decisions in my time but i'll take responsibility for them. It just so happens that i thought long and hard about mins and yes i paid over the odds at the time for it and i wasn't in what you would call stable employment at the time but thats my problem.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, DONT COME CRYING TO US WHEN THINGS GO TITS UP

The King of Moo

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Why should people who were responsible with their finances be forced to carry the can for some people who were complete gob****es with theirs. Now i know some people were caught out when the bubble burst but for every one of them theres also someone who walked into a bank and got another 50k over the value of their homes so they could buy the cars and get the latest gadgets.

Really does my head in, at the end of the day its your name at the bottom of your mortgage not mine. I've made plenty of bad financial decisions in my time but i'll take responsibility for them. It just so happens that i thought long and hard about mins and yes i paid over the odds at the time for it and i wasn't in what you would call stable employment at the time but thats my problem.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, DONT COME CRYING TO US WHEN THINGS GO TITS UP

Like the time you bet the winter heating allowance on The King of the Sheep competition and lost.

fatherted1969

The King of Moo wrote: »

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Why should people who were responsible with their finances be forced to carry the can for some people who were complete gob****es with theirs. Now i know some people were caught out when the bubble burst but for every one of them theres also someone who walked into a bank and got another 50k over the value of their homes so they could buy the cars and get the latest gadgets.

Really does my head in, at the end of the day its your name at the bottom of your mortgage not mine. I've made plenty of bad financial decisions in my time but i'll take responsibility for them. It just so happens that i thought long and hard about mins and yes i paid over the odds at the time for it and i wasn't in what you would call stable employment at the time but thats my problem.

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, DONT COME CRYING TO US WHEN THINGS GO TITS UP

Like the time you bet the winter heating allowance on The King of the Sheep competition and lost.

Eh !!!???

The King of Moo

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Eh !!!???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirpy_Burpy_Cheap_Sheep

omahaid

fatherted1969 wrote: »

Why should people who were responsible with their finances be forced to carry the can for some people who were complete gob****es with theirs.

I agree, I've never understood why anyone gets the Non-Contributory State Pension. If you can't be responsible then tough. I hope they cut this in the budget.

glynf

Bit simplistic, but I would love to see the health system completely scrapped, and re-built from ground up, with everyone re-interviewed for their jobs, with fair but competitive salaries paid based on performance. All dead weight like overstaffed HSE departments gutted, and get rid of all the nepotism and 'jobs for the boys' brigade.

A fixed amount of a persons income/social welfare should be put into a national health fund that cannot be accessed by any other government department. The amount a person pays should be based on their health, if their illness is due to being obese/overweight due to being lazy or unfit-they pay more. People should be more responsible and accountable for their ****ing selves, and the burden they put on the system. end of.

Napper Hawkins

It's my opinion that the unpopular opinions thread has become a boring heap of ****e.

mikemac1

Most of the last page are popular opinions, especially the one about the Health Service

This thread needs a boost

Kerrigooney

Shane McGowan is the sexiest man alive.