The Niall Boylan Podcast (They Told Me To Shut Up)

Niall Boylan is joined by Laura Perrins, journalist with Gript Media, to discuss the growing controversy around e-scooters and calls for tougher regulation.Green Party leader Roderic O’Gorman has called for the law to clamp down on retailers selling e-scooters, following reports that six children were admitted to Temple Street Hospital ICU in recent days after e-scooter related accidents. Minister of State for Road Safety Sean Canney is also reported to be considering stricter rules, including mandatory registration, tax and insurance obligations similar to those placed on cars.But is this common sense regulation, or another example of politicians encouraging a trend and then punishing the public when things go wrong?There is an obvious irony in the Green Party, long associated with promoting electric transport and alternatives to cars, now calling for tougher restrictions on e-scooters. Supporters of regulation say these machines are not toys and that children are being seriously injured, with pedestrians and road users also put at risk. They argue that if e-scooters are being used on public roads, riders should face proper rules, enforcement and accountability.Others say making e-scooters subject to tax, insurance and registration could destroy the very purpose of them: affordable, convenient and environmentally friendly transport. Would tougher laws protect children and pedestrians, or would they simply punish responsible users?Should e-scooters and certain e-bikes be over-18s only? Should riders be licensed, taxed and insured like drivers? Or is this a heavy-handed response that will make cheap electric transport impossible for ordinary people?Niall and Laura discuss safety, personal responsibility, political hypocrisy and whether Ireland needs tougher laws before more children are seriously injured.

Should Every Government Service Be Forced to Accept Cash?Niall speaks to Aontú Senator Sarah O’Reilly about her campaign against businesses, sporting venues and State services refusing to accept cash.Senator O’Reilly has strongly criticised the National Driver Licence Service, which does not accept cash, cheques or postal orders at its centres. Customers must instead pay using a debit or credit card, Apple Pay, Google Pay or a Payzone voucher. She argues that it is astonishing for an essential public service operating on behalf of the State to continue refusing direct cash payments.The Government’s National Payments Strategy, launched in October 2024, states that Government departments and bodies operating under their authority should accept both electronic and cash payments, or provide a way for people to facilitate a cash payment, when charging for public services, goods, fines or fees. Senator O’Reilly argues that the NDLS policy makes a mockery of that commitment.Niall asks whether requiring someone to purchase a Payzone voucher really amounts to accepting cash, or whether State agencies should be required to take notes and coins directly at the counter.Senator O’Reilly says the move towards a cashless society is discriminatory against older people, those without smartphones or reliable internet access, people who struggle with technology and citizens who do not have bank accounts. She argues that cash allows people to budget, protects privacy and gives everyone the ability to participate in society without relying on a bank or technology company.She also raises serious concerns about victims of domestic abuse. Financial control is commonly used by abusers, including taking possession of a victim’s bank card, monitoring transactions or restricting access to an account. Cash can provide a degree of privacy and independence to someone attempting to escape a controlling relationship.Ireland’s Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025 came into operation on 30 June 2025. It is intended to protect reasonable access to ATMs and cash services and to preserve the resilience of the country’s cash infrastructure. However, it does not create a general legal requirement for every shop, business or service provider to accept cash.Although cash is legal tender, that does not automatically mean every business must accept it in every transaction. A business can generally refuse cash when it clearly tells customers in advance that another form of payment is required. The Central Bank says that where no restriction has been agreed or displayed, legal tender must normally be accepted to settle an existing debt.But should different rules apply to essential public services funded or authorised by the State?Niall asks Senator Sarah O’Reilly whether cash acceptance should now be placed on a statutory footing, whether the Government’s policy is being ignored and whether refusing cash is excluding some of the most vulnerable people in society.Should customers always have the right to choose between cash and card? Is refusing cash genuinely more efficient, or is it forcing people into a financial system that can monitor every purchase they make? And when the next major power cut, banking outage or worldwide technology failure occurs, will Ireland regret allowing cash to disappear?

Should Children Be Banned from Pubs and Beer Gardens?**Niall speaks to callers after a listener contacted the show to say he and his wife were disgusted by what they witnessed during a visit to a large local bar.The couple had gone out for dinner, but the beer garden was packed with families and young children. According to the listener, many of the children appeared bored, were running around unsupervised and were completely out of control, while heavily intoxicated adults shouted, swore and held conversations that were clearly unsuitable for children.He claimed that many of the adults were not even eating and appeared to have been sitting in the beer garden drinking for hours, while their children were left to entertain themselves in what was effectively an outdoor drinking area.The listener says he would never have brought his own children into that environment and believes children should be banned from licensed premises altogether. His view is simple: bring children to the park, the beach, a playground or a family restaurant, but not somewhere primarily designed for adults to consume alcohol.But is that fair?Many parents argue that pubs and beer gardens can be perfectly suitable for families, particularly during the day, provided children are supervised and adults behave responsibly. They say families should be able to enjoy a meal and a drink without being judged because of the behaviour of a minority.Others believe the culture has gone too far and that some beer gardens have effectively become unofficial playgrounds while parents drink for hours and expect staff and other customers to tolerate badly behaved children.Should children be banned from pubs after a certain time? Should licensed premises be allowed to introduce adult only areas? Or have some parents simply lost sight of where it is appropriate to bring young children?Niall hears from callers on whether children belong in pubs and beer gardens, and whether responsible families are now being unfairly blamed for the behaviour of parents who have completely lost the run of themselves.

Niall speaks to callers and former RTÉ correspondent, now Independent Ireland MEP Ciarán Mullooly, about the national broadcaster’s demand for another guaranteed, multi annual Government funding package when its current arrangement ends in 2027.The Government has already committed €725 million in public funding to RTÉ for the three years from 2025 to 2027. This combines television licence income with increasingly large taxpayer funded top ups intended to guarantee the broadcaster an agreed level of funding. RTÉ received approximately €183 million from licence fees last year, along with a €41 million Exchequer top up. For 2026, it expects roughly €185 million from licence sales and a further €54 million from the Government. Reports suggest that, once the present agreement expires, RTÉ could require an additional €60 million to €65 million from taxpayers in 2028 if licence revenue continues to fall. RTÉ says it is not requesting money beyond the existing agreement at present, but it has strongly appealed for another guaranteed multi annual deal to be negotiated in 2027.The collapse in television licence payments remains at the centre of the crisis. Licence sales are now reported to be 19 per cent lower than they were in 2022. Only 299,373 licences were sold during the first five months of 2026, generating just under €48 million and representing a further year on year fall of approximately 4.5 per cent. Separate Department figures indicate that television licence revenue fell by €58.4 million in the two years following the RTÉ payments scandal, with 365,000 fewer licence transactions recorded compared with the previous two year period.With fewer households paying the €160 licence, renewed suggestions have emerged that it could eventually be replaced by a compulsory household broadcasting charge covering televisions, phones, laptops and other connected devices. That could mean households being required to fund public service broadcasting whether they watch RTÉ or not.Supporters argue that RTÉ provides essential news, current affairs, Irish language, cultural and sporting coverage that commercial broadcasters could never fully replace. Critics say it remains an outdated, oversized organisation that has failed to regain public trust following the secret payments controversy, governance failures and years of financial mismanagement.Has RTÉ genuinely reformed enough to deserve another taxpayer guarantee? Should people who never watch or listen to RTÉ be forced to fund it through a new household charge? Is the broadcaster an essential national institution, or is the Government simply pouring more public money into an organisation that has become financially unsustainable?Niall asks Ciarán Mullooly whether his former employer has earned another rescue package and whether Ireland would truly miss RTÉ if taxpayers finally refused to keep writing the cheques.

Not Suitable For Broadcast – "Dont Call me Darling!"This week's episode of Not Suitable For Broadcast didn't quite go to plan… and it may just have turned out even better because of it!With AJ Walsh away, Niall was faced with a dilemma. Cancel the show, or find someone brave enough to step into the hot seat. Enter his wife, Karen Boylan, who had never appeared on a radio show or podcast before. Thrown in at the deep, Karen proved to be a natural, bringing honesty, humour and plenty of opinions to the conversation. Could this be the beginning of a brand new husband and wife podcast? Together, Niall and Karen tackle another packed week of headlines, asking whether Donald Trump should be welcomed to Ireland or protested against, whether the soaring cost of living is forcing people to leave the country, and if politicians have become too sensitive to criticism. They also debate the controversial proposal to classify miscarriage and abortion under the same term of "pregnancy loss", the growing calls for stricter regulation of e-scooters, and RTÉ's latest request for even more taxpayers' money.The conversation also turns to Ireland's EU Presidency and Ursula von der Leyen's visit, the shocking murder investigation into Jamey Carney in Kerry, and they wrap things up with a lighter discussion about Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's awkward podcast confession involving Kylie Minogue.It's an episode full of laughs, lively debate, unexpected chemistry and the kind of honest conversation that Not Suitable For Broadcast is becoming known for.Was Karen a one-off stand in, or have Niall and Karen just stumbled upon the next podcast you didn't know you needed? Listen now and let us know what you think.

In this episode, Niall talks to journalist John McGuirk about a question that goes right to the heart of Irish identity: does becoming an Irish citizen automatically make someone Irish?The debate follows a wider conversation about citizenship, nationality, belonging and what it really means to be part of a country. According to official Dáil figures, 100,471 certificates of naturalisation were issued in Ireland between 2021 and 2025. That included 10,490 in 2021, 14,249 in 2022, 19,464 in 2023, 29,868 in 2024 and 26,400 in 2025. The latest citizenship ceremonies took place in Killarney on 22 and 23 June 2026, where around 4,600 people from more than 139 countries were due to become Irish citizens.For many people, those ceremonies are a powerful and emotional moment. They represent years of living in Ireland, working here, raising families here, contributing to communities and making a formal declaration of fidelity and loyalty to the State.But does that legal act answer the deeper cultural question?Niall asks John whether Irishness is simply a matter of a passport, or whether it is also tied to ancestry, culture, history, loyalty, language, shared values and a genuine sense of belonging. If someone moves to Ireland, lives here long enough, receives citizenship and contributes to society, are they Irish in exactly the same way as someone whose parents, grandparents and great grandparents were born and raised here?Or is there a difference between being an Irish citizen and being culturally, historically or ancestrally Irish?Niall also raises the comparison many people instinctively understand: if an Irish person moved to India, lived there for years and eventually became an Indian citizen, would that make them Indian, or simply an Irish person with Indian citizenship?This is not just a legal debate. It is an emotional one. It touches on immigration, integration, national identity, culture, respect for the host country and the future of what Ireland means. Some will argue that citizenship is enough and that anyone who commits to Ireland should be accepted fully as Irish. Others will say Irishness is something deeper than paperwork and cannot be granted by the State alone.So where do we draw the line? What makes someone Irish? A passport, ancestry, culture, loyalty, community, or something more difficult to define?Niall and John McGuirk discuss the issue, and we want to hear from you.

In this episode, Niall looks at the Government’s latest crackdown on vaping, and asks whether this is a sensible public health measure or another example of the nanny state treating adults like children.The Public Health (Single-Use Vapes) Bill 2025 has now passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas, paving the way for a ban on the sale of disposable vapes in Ireland. Once the law is commenced, retailers are expected to be given six months to sell off existing stock before enforcement begins. After that, health enforcement officers will be able to carry out inspections to make sure single-use vapes are no longer being sold.Supporters say the ban is long overdue. They argue that disposable vapes are cheap, colourful, easy to hide and clearly attractive to children and teenagers. They also point to the environmental damage caused by millions of plastic, battery-operated devices being thrown away.But this is only one part of the Government’s wider plan.A separate piece of legislation, the Public Health (Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products) (Amendment) Bill 2026, is also moving through the Oireachtas. That Bill would bring in much stricter rules on how vapes are sold and presented. It would ban retail advertising, restrict point-of-sale displays in mixed retail outlets such as supermarkets, garages and newsagents, and place new controls on the colours, images and packaging used on vaping products.Most controversially, it would limit vape flavour names to tobacco and unflavoured. That means popular flavours such as fruit, menthol, sweets, desserts and drinks could effectively disappear from ordinary legal sale.The Government says this is about protecting children from nicotine addiction and stopping companies from using bright colours, sweet flavours and cartoon-style packaging to lure young people into vaping. The Oireachtas research digest notes that around 7% of adults vape daily, while youth vaping rates are higher, with one study showing 13% of 12 to 17-year-olds had vaped in the previous 30 days, and another showing 16% of 15 to 16-year-olds vaping.But many adult vapers are furious. They say vaping helped them get off cigarettes, and that flavours were a major part of that. They argue that banning flavours will not stop teenagers getting products, but it may push adults back towards smoking, or push both adults and young people into the black market.So is the Government right to act strongly to protect children from nicotine addiction, or is it punishing adults who used vaping as a way to stop smoking?Should disposable vapes and flavoured liquids be banned, or should adults be free to make their own choices?Niall discusses the issue and asks whether Ireland is protecting public health, or simply banning anything the State does not like.

Niall Boylan is joined by former journalist Larissa Nolan to ask a question that always sparks strong memories and strong opinions: what was the best time in Ireland to grow up?Was it the Ireland of the 60s, 70s or 80s, where children played on the streets, neighbours looked out for each other and family and community seemed stronger? Or was that Ireland far tougher than we sometimes remember, with less money, fewer opportunities, harsher schools and a society where many people had little freedom or choice?Niall and Larissa look back at the Ireland of the past and compare it with the Ireland of today. We may now have more wealth, better education, more technology and greater opportunity, but have we lost something important along the way? Has modern Ireland become more disconnected, more anxious, less safe and less rooted in family and community?They also discuss politics then and now. Ireland’s politicians of the past were far from perfect. Figures like Charlie Haughey became associated with corruption, while Bertie Ahern faced questions over truth and trust. But many people still feel that, flawed as they were, politicians of that era had a stronger sense of national identity and a greater connection to ordinary people. Is that fair, or is it just nostalgia?Was Ireland better when we had less but expected less? Were people happier when life was simpler? Or do we look back through rose-tinted glasses and forget the poverty, silence, emigration and lack of opportunity?Niall and Larissa invite listeners to share their own memories of growing up in Ireland. What era would you choose, taking into account lifestyle, happiness, family, community, crime, safety, education and life in general?Was Ireland better when you were young, or is the best time to grow up actually now?And if you have never been on air before but would like to join the conversation, send a WhatsApp saying, “Let me on.”

In this episode, Niall talks to Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín about Aontú’s Private Members’ Bill aimed at stopping planned fuel tax increases due on August 1st.Aontú says the bill is designed to block Government plans that could see petrol rise by 27 cent per litre and diesel by 32 cent per litre when temporary excise cuts expire. The party is also calling for a halt to further carbon tax increases, arguing that ordinary families, workers, farmers, hauliers and small businesses are already being crushed by the cost of living.Peadar Tóibín says Ireland has become one of the most expensive countries in the EU for essentials such as housing, health, alcohol and electricity, and argues that Government policy is making daily life even harder for people who need their cars for work, school, shopping and family life. Aontú’s “Reduce the Cost of Living” motion also takes aim at rising prices across fuel, electricity, groceries and public charging points, warning that families cannot keep absorbing extra costs while wages fail to keep pace.Niall asks the bigger question. What is the real solution to Ireland’s cost of living crisis? Retailers, restaurants, hotels, fuel suppliers and service providers are charging prices many people simply cannot afford, but they are unlikely to cut those prices voluntarily. Should Government intervene more directly? Should taxes be cut? Should wages rise, or would that simply push prices even higher again?As more people ask whether Ireland is becoming unaffordable for ordinary workers and families, Niall and Peadar discuss fuel taxes, carbon taxes, wages, business costs, Government policy and whether Ireland is reaching a point where people simply cannot afford to live here anymore.

In this episode, Niall talks to Sandra Adams, advocate for women’s sex-based rights, child safeguarding and fact-based education, about the reported plan to classify both miscarriage and abortion under the same heading of “pregnancy loss” for the purposes of paid leave.The proposal has opened up a difficult and deeply sensitive debate. Supporters say this is about compassion, privacy and dignity in the workplace. They argue that women should not be forced to explain to an employer whether a pregnancy ended through miscarriage or abortion in order to access time off. Both can involve physical recovery, emotional distress and a need for privacy.But Sandra Adams strongly objects to the classification. She argues that miscarriage and abortion are not the same thing and should not be treated as though they are. A miscarriage is the involuntary loss of a pregnancy, while abortion, in elective cases, is the intentional ending of one. Sandra believes placing both under the same neutral administrative term blurs an important moral, emotional and factual distinction.Niall asks whether this is a compassionate workplace policy or whether language is being used to deliberately soften and sanitise abortion. Should paid leave be available in both cases without asking women to disclose deeply private medical details? Or does calling both miscarriage and abortion “pregnancy loss” ignore the very real difference between losing a baby and choosing to end a pregnancy?This is a conversation about language, truth, women’s rights, workplace compassion, abortion, miscarriage and whether the State should treat both situations the same when it comes to paid leave.

In this episode, Niall is joined by Senator Sharon Keogan to discuss a new Women for Election report which claims women in Irish politics are facing widespread online abuse, sexualised harassment and threats of violence.The report, titled Recognize, Resist, Rise Up, was part of a five country European study on gender based violence against women in politics. It found that 96% of female TDs and Senators surveyed said they had experienced online violence, 88% reported psychological violence, 71% said they had received threats targeting themselves or people close to them, 63% reported sexualised violence and 42% reported physical violence or threats involving specific weapons. The research also found that many women had changed how they use social media, with some avoiding comment sections, delegating accounts to staff or reducing their online presence altogether.Niall asks whether these figures reflect a serious and growing threat to democracy, or whether the definition of online violence has become too broad. All threats of violence should be condemned without hesitation, but do people believe that 96% of women in politics have genuinely been threatened, or is there a difference between abuse, insults, harassment and credible threats?Some will argue that online abuse has become an ugly part of modern politics, and that anyone who enters public life needs to develop a thick skin. Others will say that threats, sexualised abuse and intimidation are not part of the job, and that no politician, male or female, should be expected to tolerate it.Niall and Senator Keogan discuss whether public representatives are now expected to absorb abuse as the price of speaking out, whether social media has made politics more hostile, and whether the problem is especially severe for women in public life.If you were a politician, would you accept verbal abuse as part of the job, or has public debate crossed a dangerous line?

In this episode, Niall is joined by election candidate and podcaster Nick Delehanty to discuss Donald Trump’s proposed visit to Ireland for the Irish Open at Doonbeg this September.Trump’s possible arrival has already divided opinion. Sinn Féin TD Louise O’Reilly has said she is more likely to be with the protesters than welcoming him, pointing to objections over his relationship with Israel. Cian O’Callaghan TD, from the Social Democrats, has described Trump as “the worst possible representation of the States” and predicted large protests if he comes.But is this really about principle, or political theatre? Niall and Nick ask whether Ireland should protest the visit of a sitting US President, or whether the country should recognise the importance of the Irish American relationship, tourism, diplomacy, and American investment in Ireland. With US companies employing hundreds of thousands of people here, should Ireland be careful about how it treats one of its most powerful international partners?Should Trump’s visit be opposed because of his politics, foreign policy and polarising public image? Or should Ireland welcome him respectfully, even if many strongly disagree with him?Will the streets be filled with protesters, or will it be a handful of activists with angry placards? And should this be treated as an official state visit, or simply a private visit to a golf tournament?

What happens when you strip away the stigma, the myths, and the taboos surrounding sex?In this fascinating and completely uncensored episode, Niall sits down with Clarity Mills, one of Ireland's best known dominatrices and a professional sex educator, for a candid conversation that explores a side of human sexuality many people are curious about but rarely discuss openly.Together they delve into the world of BDSM, fetish culture, power exchange, dominance and submission, and why millions of people around the world are drawn to these experiences. Clarity explains the psychology behind consensual kink, the importance of trust, communication, boundaries, and aftercare, and why pain and pleasure can sometimes exist side by side.The conversation also explores some of the most common fetishes, how they develop, and the misconceptions that surround them. Are people born with fetishes, or do they develop over time? What separates fantasy from reality? Why do some people enjoy giving up control, while others find satisfaction in taking it?Niall asks the questions many people are too embarrassed to ask, covering everything from dominance and submission to the science of arousal, the role of consent, the emotional connection between partners, and how society's attitudes towards sex have evolved over the years.Whether you're simply curious, looking to better understand alternative lifestyles, or interested in the psychology of human sexuality, this is an open, honest, and thought provoking discussion that challenges assumptions and offers a rare insight into a world that is often misunderstood.This is an adult conversation about sex, relationships, consent, intimacy, fetish, BDSM, pain, pleasure, and the fascinating line where psychology and sexuality intersect.

It's that time of the week again as Niall Boylan is joined by his former producer and good friend AJ Walsh to break down the biggest stories making headlines in Ireland and around the world.This week, they discuss Metallica's generous €80,000 donation to Irish charities during their Dublin visit, RTÉ's decision to make dozens of presenters employees after the bogus self employment controversy, fuel prices as excise duty changes begin to take effect, and the US Supreme Court's decision to uphold birthright citizenship in a major setback for Donald Trump.They also examine the bizarre Empire State Building marriage proposal that divided the internet, the guilty verdict in the horrific Parnell Square knife attack, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's visit to Dublin as Ireland begins its EU Presidency, and growing calls for tougher border controls following new polling on immigration and the Irish border.As always, expect plenty of laughs, strong opinions, behind the scenes stories from decades in broadcasting, and the kind of lively conversation that regularly disappears down unexpected rabbit holes.Whether you agree with them or not, this is a fast paced, entertaining look at the week's biggest talking points that you won't want to miss.

Few criminal cases have shocked Ireland as deeply as the attack that left three young children fighting for their lives and an entire nation searching for answers.In this episode, Niall is joined by journalist Fatima Gunning to examine the case of Riad Bouchaker, who has been found guilty on all eight counts of attempted murder of three young children, assault causing serious harm to their carer, assault causing harm to two other children and a young French man, along with production of a 36cm kitchen knife.Fatima takes us through the evidence presented during the trial, the key moments that convinced the jury, and the events that unfolded on that horrific day. They also discuss the wider questions the case raises, from public safety and policing to whether there are lessons Ireland still refuses to learn.This episode contains discussion of serious violence that some listeners may find distressing.

Should Ireland bring back the death penalty?In this episode, Niall opens the lines to hear what listeners really think about one of the most divisive questions in criminal justice. If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote to restore capital punishment for the most horrific crimes, or should Ireland never return to state executions?Supporters argue that some crimes are so evil that life imprisonment simply isn't enough. They believe the death penalty delivers justice for victims and their families, protects society from the worst offenders, and ensures that those guilty of the most heinous crimes can never offend again.Opponents argue that no justice system is infallible and that executing an innocent person can never be undone. They also question whether the death penalty actually deters crime, pointing to research suggesting countries without capital punishment are not necessarily less safe. Others believe that, regardless of the crime, the State should never take a human life.Around the world, capital punishment remains a reality in roughly 55 countries, while more than 140 have abolished it in law or no longer carry out executions. In the United States, the death penalty is still authorised in 27 states, although many rarely use it. Around 2,000 people remain on death row across America, while the number of executions each year is relatively small by comparison, typically measured in the dozens rather than hundreds.Ireland has long since turned its back on capital punishment. The last execution carried out in the State was that of Michael Manning in 1954. The last death sentence imposed was in 1957, although it was later commuted to life imprisonment. Capital punishment was abolished for ordinary criminal offences in 1964, completely abolished in 1990, and its return was constitutionally prohibited following a referendum in 2001.So where do you stand? Should Ireland ever bring back the death penalty for the worst crimes imaginable, or is life imprisonment the only punishment a modern democracy should allow?

Is Ireland's Bottle Return Scheme delivering on its environmental promises, or has it become an expensive inconvenience for consumers?In this episode, Niall is joined by journalist Larissa Nolan to discuss one of the country's most divisive environmental initiatives. Larissa has been a vocal critic of the scheme and is even organising a live event to highlight what she believes are its many flaws.They examine where millions of euro in unclaimed deposit money goes, why so much has been spent promoting the scheme, and whether it has genuinely increased recycling rates or simply added another cost and inconvenience for shoppers. Is the scheme encouraging better environmental behaviour, or has it become what critics describe as a stealth charge on ordinary consumers?Supporters argue that the Bottle Return Scheme is helping to reduce litter, increase recycling rates, and bring Ireland into line with successful systems operating across Europe. Critics, however, say people were already recycling through household bins and civic amenity centres, and that the scheme has created unnecessary queues, extra costs for businesses, and additional hassle for consumers.Niall also opens the phone lines to hear from listeners. Is the Bottle Return Scheme a success that deserves time to work, or has it become one of Ireland's biggest environmental mistakes?

On today's podcast, Niall is joined by Sandra Adams, advocate for women's sex based rights, child safeguarding and fact based education, to discuss growing concerns over the Government's decision to require parents to use a Public Services Card to participate in the Department of Education's online consultation on school meals.The consultation is intended to gather parents' views on the future of Ireland's school meals programme, but critics are questioning why people must verify their identity through the Public Services Card simply to submit their opinions. Supporters argue it is a sensible measure that prevents duplicate or fraudulent submissions and ensures the consultation reflects the views of genuine participants. Others believe it creates an unnecessary barrier to public participation and raises wider questions about privacy and government data collection.The discussion also explores whether this is simply an isolated administrative decision or part of a broader shift towards digital identity. With the EU Digital Identity Wallet due to be introduced across member states over the coming years, some people fear Ireland is gradually becoming accustomed to using digital credentials to access an increasing number of public services. Others argue that secure digital identification will make life easier, reduce fraud, and improve access to government services without threatening individual freedoms.So where should the line be drawn? Should proving who you are become a routine part of interacting with the State, even when responding to a public consultation? Or should citizens be able to express their views anonymously without having to verify their identity?

If You Were Housing Minister for One Day, What Would You Do?Ireland's housing crisis has dominated political debate for years, yet for many people the dream of owning a home seems further away than ever. House prices remain high, rents continue to soar, and thousands of people are still waiting for social housing while homelessness remains at record levels.On today's podcast, Niall is joined by Independent Ireland Councillor Noel Thomas to ask a simple question with no easy answer: If you were Housing Minister for one day, what would you actually do to solve Ireland's housing crisis?The discussion follows comments from Housing Minister James Browne, who told Gript that reducing housing demand is not really his responsibility, insisting that the crisis is "all about supply." Browne pointed to the delivery of more than 36,000 homes last year, the highest number of social homes ever built by the State, rising planning permissions and increased housing commencements as evidence that Government policy is beginning to work. However, he also acknowledged that the pace of building must accelerate before house prices begin to moderate in any meaningful way.The Minister also highlighted that Ireland's population has increased by around 810,000 people since 2014, equivalent to housing demand for roughly 250,000 homes, arguing that population growth, alongside years of underbuilding, has placed enormous pressure on the housing market. While acknowledging that migration has contributed to that growth, Browne said many newcomers are working in essential sectors such as healthcare and technology, adding that his role is to ensure enough homes are built for everyone living in Ireland.But is the Government focusing on only half the problem? Should immigration be reduced until housing catches up? Should planning laws be radically overhauled? Should the State stop purchasing private homes for social housing? Should Ireland begin building entirely new towns, or is there another solution politicians are refusing to consider?Join Niall and Councillor Noel Thomas as they debate the policies, challenge the assumptions, and ask listeners what they would do if they were handed the keys to the Department of Housing for just one day.

Did We Get Covid Wrong? New Documents, Fauci, Wuhan and Ireland’s Covid InquiryOn today’s podcast, Niall is joined by journalist John McGuirk from The Statement to discuss newly released White House documents that supporters of the lab leak theory say raise serious questions about Dr Anthony Fauci, US funding of coronavirus research in Wuhan, and whether people once dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" were written off too quickly during the Covid pandemic.The conversation also turns to Ireland’s own Covid Inquiry, which has been criticised by some campaigners and commentators as lacking the independence and scrutiny needed to answer the biggest questions surrounding the Government’s handling of the pandemic. Is the inquiry a genuine search for the truth, or is it more about protecting political and institutional reputations?Niall and John also examine John's recent article in The Statement, "Gabbard’s Files Shatter the Myth of Fauci as Neutral Observer." In the article, McGuirk argues that newly released documents disclosed by former US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard appear to show that Anthony Fauci was more closely involved with intelligence agencies than previously understood, that US taxpayer funding reached coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through EcoHealth Alliance, and that the documents raise fresh questions about Fauci's testimony before Congress and his role in shaping the public narrative surrounding the origins of Covid. McGuirk contends that the releases warrant a major re examination of the lab leak hypothesis and the official response during the pandemic.Were legitimate questions ignored because they were politically inconvenient? Have governments and public health authorities been sufficiently transparent? And what lessons, if any, have we really learned from one of the biggest global events of modern times?Join the debate as Niall and John McGuirk examine the evidence, the unanswered questions, and why the arguments over Covid are still far from over.

Should your employer be allowed to tell you when it's time to retire?On this episode, Niall opens the phone lines to discuss whether mandatory retirement ages should become a thing of the past.The debate comes as new legislation has come into effect in Ireland giving many employees the right to refuse compulsory retirement before the State pension age of 66. Workers whose employment contracts require them to retire before 66 can now formally notify their employer that they wish to continue working. Employers must consider the request and can only refuse if they can objectively justify enforcing the retirement age. The changes are designed to give older workers greater choice and flexibility, while helping bridge the gap to the State pension.With people living longer and remaining healthier than ever before, should age alone determine when someone's career comes to an end?Supporters of abolishing mandatory retirement say experience is invaluable, many older people still have plenty to contribute, and in an ageing society the economy needs skilled workers to stay in employment for longer. They also argue that forcing somebody out of work simply because they reach a certain birthday is outdated and amounts to age discrimination.Others disagree. They believe mandatory retirement creates opportunities for younger workers, helps organisations plan for succession, and recognises that some jobs become more physically and mentally demanding with age. Critics also argue that older employees staying in the workplace longer could slow career progression for younger generations.So where do you stand?Should retirement be a personal choice based on your ability to do the job, or should there still be an age at which it's time to step aside?Niall hears from callers on both sides of one of the biggest workplace debates facing Ireland today.

A new Red C poll suggests that public attitudes towards Ireland's border are changing, with more than a third of voters saying they would support the return of a hard border with Northern Ireland if it helped tackle illegal immigration. The findings come amid growing concern over claims that some asylum seekers are travelling into the Republic via Northern Ireland after first arriving in the UK, raising fresh questions about how Ireland protects its borders.On this episode, Niall is joined by journalist and former barrister Laura Perrins, whose writing on immigration, border security and Irish politics has sparked widespread debate through her Substack, The West Brit. Laura has argued that Ireland needs a more realistic conversation about immigration, asylum policy and the state's ability to control who enters the country.Supporters of tighter border controls say protecting the integrity of the asylum system is essential and that failing to properly police the border only encourages abuse, putting further pressure on housing, public services and taxpayers. Critics argue that any move towards a hard border would risk damaging North South relations, undermine the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and create political tensions that many believed had been left in the past.So where should the balance be struck? Is it time to accept that stronger border controls are necessary to restore confidence in Ireland's immigration system, or would reintroducing a hard border create more problems than it solves?Join Niall and Laura Perrins for a robust discussion on one of the most divisive political questions facing Ireland today.

On today's episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall is joined by podcaster and social commentator Elaine Mullally to debate one of the most controversial questions facing modern policing.Should Gardaí have the power to seize your mobile phone without first obtaining a search warrant if they reasonably believe it contains evidence of a serious crime?The debate has intensified following comments by former RTÉ broadcaster Joe Duffy, who argued that Gardaí should be able to confiscate mobile phones immediately if they suspect they contain vital evidence, even before obtaining judicial approval. Duffy suggested that waiting for a warrant can allow crucial evidence to be deleted or destroyed, prompting calls for stronger powers to help investigators tackle serious crime. His remarks have sparked fierce criticism from privacy advocates and some legal experts, who warn that allowing Gardaí to seize phones "on a hunch" could represent a significant erosion of civil liberties.Smartphones now contain almost every aspect of our lives, from private messages and photographs to banking information, health records, location history, and confidential work documents. Supporters of stronger Garda powers argue that modern criminals increasingly rely on encrypted devices and that investigators need the ability to act immediately before evidence disappears. Opponents argue that innocent people should never risk having their most private information seized without independent judicial oversight.Niall and Elaine discuss where the balance should lie between protecting the public from serious crime and protecting every citizen's right to privacy.Should Gardaí be trusted with greater powers to seize mobile phones when they suspect criminal activity, or should a judge always have to approve it first? Join the debate as Niall also hears the views of callers from across Ireland.

On today's episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall is joined by journalist and Aontú communications officer Larissa Nolan to debate whether wheel clamping has outlived its usefulness.Dublin City Council clamped more than 45,000 vehicles in 2024, making Ireland one of the few countries in Europe where wheel clamping remains a routine parking enforcement tool. While most European countries rely on fines, penalty points, or towing repeat offenders, motorists here can return to find their car immobilised until they pay a release fee.Clamping was originally introduced to reduce the burden on the courts by avoiding prosecutions for unpaid parking fines. But in an age of instant online payments, automatic number plate recognition, and more efficient enforcement, is wheel clamping still necessary, or is it simply an outdated and heavy handed way of punishing motorists?Niall and Larissa discuss whether clamping is an effective deterrent against illegal parking, or whether it unfairly leaves people stranded, causes unnecessary stress, and should be replaced with tougher fines for those who refuse to pay.Should wheel clamping be outlawed, or is it the only language inconsiderate drivers understand? Join the debate as Niall also hears from callers with strong opinions on both sides of this divisive issue.

On this week's News Round Up, Niall is joined by his good friend and former producer AJ Walsh to take a look back at the biggest stories making headlines over the past week, some deeply serious, others downright bizarre.They discuss the guilty verdicts against Sir Jeffrey Donaldson and Lady Eleanor Donaldson, the growing calls to decriminalise all drugs for personal use, and the debate over whether single sex schools have a future in Ireland.The conversation also turns to some of the week's lighter stories, including the Kentucky criminals caught with a bag labelled "Definitely Not a Bag Full of Drugs", the cow that brought the M1 motorway to a standstill, the latest cosmetic craze dubbed "Ozempic Ears", and new technology that could allow your car to decide whether you're fit to drive.With plenty of laughs, a few disagreements and their usual honest opinions, Niall and AJ separate the serious from the ridiculous as they wrap up another unforgettable week in the news.

TDs and Senators from across the political spectrum have recommended one of the biggest changes to Ireland's drug laws in decades, calling for the possession of all illegal drugs for personal use to be fully decriminalised. The recommendation, contained in the final report of the Oireachtas Committee on Drugs Use, follows similar proposals made by the Citizens' Assembly on Drug Use and argues that addiction should be treated primarily as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. The report also recommends expanding harm reduction services and moving Ireland further towards a health-led approach. In the past two days, Taoiseach Micheál Martin has confirmed the Government will give the recommendations "serious consideration", while supporters including committee chair Gary Gannon and the Social Democrats say the current system has failed and that criminalising addiction only pushes vulnerable people further from treatment.On today's podcast, Niall is joined by Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín and Cllr Gavin Peppper, who strongly opposes the proposals. Tóibín argues that decriminalising possession of drugs such as cocaine and heroin would normalise drug use, weaken deterrence, and send the wrong message to young people at a time when Ireland is already facing a growing drugs crisis. He believes addiction should be treated compassionately, but insists that removing criminal sanctions would ultimately make the problem worse rather than better.Is it time to accept that the war on drugs has failed and treat addiction as a public health issue? Or would decriminalising all drugs simply encourage more drug use and leave communities paying the price? Niall hears from Peadar Tóibín before opening the phone lines to ask listeners: Should Ireland decriminalise the possession of all drugs for personal use, or would it be a dangerous mistake?

Should single sex schools become a thing of the past?A new Department of Education survey has found that more than 73% of households with children attending single sex primary schools would like their school to become co educational. The findings come as the Government continues its policy of encouraging schools to reconfigure to mixed education where there is local demand, arguing that parents should have greater choice and that schools should better reflect modern Irish society.On today's podcast, Niall opens the phone lines to ask whether Ireland should phase out single sex schools altogether, or whether they still have an important role to play.Supporters of co educational schools argue that educating boys and girls together better prepares children for adult life, helping them develop stronger social skills, mutual respect and healthier relationships from an early age. They also say mixed schools break down gender stereotypes, encourage equality and reflect the real world, where men and women study, work and live together.However, supporters of single sex education point to research suggesting there can be academic benefits. Some studies have found that girls in all girls schools are more likely to pursue subjects such as maths, science and engineering, while boys in all boys schools may participate more confidently in classroom discussions without feeling pressured by gender expectations. Other research has suggested fewer behavioural distractions and improved exam performance in certain subjects, although large international reviews have found that once factors such as family background and school selection are taken into account, the overall academic advantage of single sex education is small or inconsistent.So, are single sex schools outdated in today's society, or do they still provide the best environment for children to learn and succeed? Should Ireland continue moving towards co education, or should parents always have the choice of sending their child to a boys only or girls only school?Niall hears the opinions of callers from across the country as they debate one simple question:Do you think single sex schools should be abolished?

Birth rates across Europe and the wider Western world are falling at an unprecedented rate, with many countries now well below the level needed to maintain their populations. Some demographers warn that if current trends continue indefinitely, human populations could shrink dramatically over the coming centuries, raising serious questions about the future of society itself.On this episode, Niall is joined by David Quinn, founder and spokesperson for the Iona Institute, to discuss why fewer people are having children and whether society is willing to have an honest conversation about the causes. Are young people simply choosing different lifestyles, or have housing costs, economic pressures and uncertainty made starting a family increasingly difficult? Has modern culture devalued marriage, parenthood and family life, or are traditional views being unfairly blamed for a problem driven by economics?Niall and David also explore the long-term mathematical implications of falling birth rates and ask what happens when each generation is significantly smaller than the one before it. Could ageing populations, labour shortages and declining communities become the defining challenge of the century?As always, Niall opens the phone lines to hear what listeners think. Are we facing a genuine population crisis, or are concerns about declining birth rates being exaggerated? Is society ignoring uncomfortable truths about family, fertility and demographics because the conversation has become too politically sensitive?

Ireland's long-awaited Covid inquiry is finally underway, and already it is raising difficult questions. This week, Taoiseach Micheál Martin faced extensive questioning from the inquiry panel about the Government's handling of the pandemic, but unlike the public inquiries seen in the UK and elsewhere, the interviews are being conducted behind closed doors. No transcripts will be published and the inquiry team has repeatedly stated that its role is not to "point fingers" or assign blame.On today's programme, Niall is joined by callers to the show discuss whether that approach goes far enough. After years of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, business closures, travel restrictions and unprecedented limits on personal freedoms, should the inquiry focus on identifying mistakes and holding decision-makers accountable? Or is the real purpose of the inquiry to learn lessons and ensure Ireland is better prepared for the next pandemic?Niall and Karl examine some of the most controversial aspects of Ireland's Covid response, including restrictions on businesses, school closures, nursing home policies, public health messaging and the economic impact of prolonged lockdowns. They also discuss whether a private inquiry can ever satisfy families, business owners and citizens who feel they deserve answers about decisions that affected every aspect of their lives.As always, Niall opens the phone lines to hear from listeners. Should the Covid inquiry be about accountability and responsibility, or would a blame game achieve nothing and simply distract from preparing for future crises?WhatsApp your thoughts to 085 100 22 55.

Ireland's long-awaited Covid inquiry is finally underway, and already it is raising difficult questions. This week, Taoiseach Micheál Martin faced extensive questioning from the inquiry panel about the Government's handling of the pandemic, but unlike the public inquiries seen in the UK and elsewhere, the interviews are being conducted behind closed doors. No transcripts will be published and the inquiry team has repeatedly stated that its role is not to "point fingers" or assign blame.On today's programme, Niall is joined by Karl Deeter discuss whether that approach goes far enough. After years of lockdowns, vaccine mandates, business closures, travel restrictions and unprecedented limits on personal freedoms, should the inquiry focus on identifying mistakes and holding decision-makers accountable? Or is the real purpose of the inquiry to learn lessons and ensure Ireland is better prepared for the next pandemic?Niall and Karl examine some of the most controversial aspects of Ireland's Covid response, including restrictions on businesses, school closures, nursing home policies, public health messaging and the economic impact of prolonged lockdowns. They also discuss whether a private inquiry can ever satisfy families, business owners and citizens who feel they deserve answers about decisions that affected every aspect of their lives.As always, Niall opens the phone lines to hear from listeners. Should the Covid inquiry be about accountability and responsibility, or would a blame game achieve nothing and simply distract from preparing for future crises?

On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall is joined by podcaster and commentator Elaine Mullally to discuss a growing trend among modern parents, tracking their children's every move through smartphone apps.With location-sharing technology now available at the touch of a button, many parents say it offers peace of mind and an extra layer of protection in an increasingly unpredictable world. They argue that knowing where your child is can help keep them safe from online predators, dangerous situations and emergencies.But critics warn that constant surveillance could be doing more harm than good. They say teenagers need freedom, trust and the opportunity to make their own decisions. Some psychologists have even suggested that excessive monitoring may damage parent-child relationships and prevent young people from developing independence and confidence.So where should the line be drawn? Do parents have a right to know where their children are at all times, especially when they're still living under their roof? Or is 24-hour phone tracking creating a generation that feels constantly watched and controlled?Niall and Elaine debate whether tracking apps are a sensible parenting tool or a step too far, before opening the phone lines to hear from listeners with strong opinions on both sides of the argument.Would you track your teenager's phone? Or would you see it as an invasion of privacy that risks destroying trust between parents and children?

On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall is joined by social commentator, podcaster and restaurateur Paul Treyvaud for a no-holds-barred discussion on the Government's latest plans to tackle money laundering through luxury retailers.Under proposals currently being discussed, businesses selling high-end watches, jewellery and designer goods could be encouraged to share information about customers whose spending patterns are deemed suspicious. Supporters argue that organised crime gangs often use luxury goods to launder money and that retailers have a role to play in helping authorities identify criminal activity. Critics, however, say it is yet another example of the State expanding its surveillance powers and treating ordinary citizens like suspects.Has the Government lost the run of itself? Are we moving towards a society where every large purchase is monitored and every customer is viewed with suspicion? Or is this simply a sensible measure to target criminals and protect the economy?Paul gives his thoughts on where the line should be drawn between privacy and crime prevention, whether businesses should be expected to police their customers, and why many people are becoming increasingly concerned about growing State intrusion into everyday life.As always, the conversation doesn't stop there. Paul also shares his views on some of the other stories making headlines this week, from political controversies and government decisions to the issues that are frustrating ordinary people across Ireland.Expect strong opinions, plenty of laughs, a few rants, and a lively discussion on the stories everyone is talking about.

Should Welfare Payments Come With Spending Restrictions?In this episode, Niall opens the phone lines to discuss a proposal that has divided opinion in several countries around the world. Australia and parts of the United States have already introduced welfare payment cards that restrict how benefits can be spent, while politicians in the UK have also debated introducing similar measures.Supporters argue that welfare is intended to provide for basic needs and that taxpayers have a right to expect public money is spent on essentials such as food, clothing, rent and household necessities. They believe restricting welfare payments from being spent on alcohol, gambling and other non-essential items could help tackle addiction, reduce social problems and increase public confidence in the welfare system.Critics, however, say the vast majority of welfare recipients are responsible people who are already struggling to make ends meet. They argue that once someone is legally entitled to a welfare payment, it should be their decision how that money is spent. They believe a restricted welfare card would be intrusive, humiliating and would unfairly stigmatise those who rely on State support.Should Ireland introduce a welfare debit card with spending restrictions? Should taxpayers have a say in how welfare payments are used? Or is it nobody else's business how people spend their money once they receive it?Niall hears passionate opinions from callers on both sides of one of the most controversial welfare debates Ireland could face.

Should Irish Still Be Mandatory in Schools?In this episode, Niall speaks to school teacher and Aontú representative Eric Nelligan about the growing debate over the Irish language in education.Eric questions whether Irish should remain a compulsory subject throughout secondary school and whether it is fair that students who sit certain State examinations through Irish can receive additional CAO points. Supporters of the current system argue that Irish is a fundamental part of Ireland's culture, identity and heritage, and that removing compulsory Irish would further accelerate the decline of the language. Critics, however, believe students should have the freedom to choose the subjects that best suit their interests and future careers, rather than being forced to study a language many will rarely use outside the classroom.Niall and Eric discuss the future of the Irish language, the effectiveness of how it is taught in schools, the controversy surrounding bonus CAO points and whether making Irish optional would strengthen or weaken the language in the long term. As always, listeners have their say on one of Ireland's most passionate and divisive debates.

Did Political Correctness Cost Baby Preston His Life?In this powerful and deeply emotional discussion, Niall speaks with journalist John McGuirk from The Statement about the shocking murder of 13 month old Preston Davey at the hands of his adoptive parents, Jamie Varley and John McGowan-Fazakerley.John examines the serious questions now being asked of British social services and child protection agencies after a catalogue of missed warning signs, including repeated hospital visits, unexplained injuries and concerns that appear to have been overlooked. The pair discuss whether authorities failed in their duty to protect Preston, and whether fears of appearing discriminatory may have influenced decision making when assessing the suitability of prospective adoptive parents.The conversation also explores wider concerns surrounding adoption, child safeguarding, institutional failures and whether difficult questions are being avoided because they involve sensitive social and political issues.Later in the discussion, Niall and John turn their attention to British politics and growing pressure on Prime Minister Keir Starmer. With criticism mounting over immigration, policing, public services and declining public confidence in government, they discuss why some political commentators are already speculating about Starmer's future and whether calls for his resignation are likely to grow in the months ahead.A challenging and thought provoking conversation about accountability, child protection and the state of modern Britain.

he Weekly Round-Up with Niall Boylan & AJ WalshThis week Niall is joined by his former producer and long-time friend AJ Walsh for a lively and no-holds-barred look back at the stories that got everyone talking.They discuss the horrific Preston Davey case and the questions being asked following the convictions. They also look at the growing debate around trust in the media as the BBC faces major cuts in an effort to save hundreds of millions of pounds, with programmes and jobs on the chopping block.The pair debate the Government's move to back the removal of Ireland's three-day abortion waiting period and ask whether it is a long overdue change or a step too far. They also examine the UK's plans to introduce tougher restrictions on social media access for young people and whether such measures are about protecting children or controlling online speech.Finally, they discuss the listener whose marriage is under strain after his wife adopted a vegan lifestyle and began encouraging their children to do the same. Is veganism a personal choice, or can it become a source of division within families?As always, Niall and AJ bring their own opinions, challenge each other, and take a look at the stories that sparked the biggest debates of the week.

Has The Irish Flag Been Tarnished? | Niall Talks to John McGuirkOn this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall speaks to journalist John McGuirk from The Statement about the growing controversy surrounding the Irish tricolour and what it represents in modern Ireland.The debate was sparked after former President Mary McAleese criticised the use of Irish flags to intimidate people, saying that using the national flag in that way dishonours Ireland's history and echoes the discrimination once faced by Irish emigrants abroad. She argued that the tricolour should be a symbol of inclusion, not exclusion.John McGuirk strongly pushed back, arguing that some commentators are too quick to associate the Irish flag with racism and that many ordinary people are simply expressing pride in their country. He also suggested that the tricolour itself has suffered because of decades of association with republican violence during the Troubles, leaving some people uncomfortable with displays of national identity.So where do you stand? Has the Irish flag been unfairly tarnished by its association with the IRA and political violence, or is it offensive to suggest that Ireland's national flag carries any negative connotations? Are some people deliberately trying to demonise expressions of Irish identity, or are concerns about intimidation and exclusion legitimate?Niall and John debate the issue, while callers share their views on whether the tricolour remains a symbol of unity for all Irish people or whether it has become one of the most contested symbols in the country.

In this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall sits down with popular influencer, commentator and outspoken gay man Sean Ako for a wide-ranging and candid conversation about some of the most contentious issues facing society today.Sean opens up about his own life, experiences growing up gay, and why he believes many people are afraid to challenge prevailing narratives. The discussion explores gender ideology, transgender activism, gender theory in schools, and why Sean feels many within the LGBT community are reluctant to question certain aspects of the movement.Sean also explains why he wants nothing to do with Pride parades or modern Pride events, arguing that they no longer represent people like him. He shares his concerns about identity politics, free speech, and what he sees as the growing divide between ordinary gay people and activist organisations.The conversation then turns to Ireland and the country's ongoing immigration challenges. Niall and Sean discuss the pressures on housing, public services, community relations, and whether the Government has lost control of immigration policy.It's an honest, thought-provoking and at times controversial discussion that challenges assumptions and asks difficult questions about identity, politics, culture and the future of Ireland.

On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall speaks to Councillor Gavin Pepper about one of the most divisive issues in Irish politics today, who should get priority for social housing when there simply aren't enough homes to go around.The discussion follows comments by Nigel Farage, who has pledged that under a Reform UK government, foreign nationals would be barred from accessing social housing and would instead be expected to secure private accommodation or potentially face deportation. Supporters say citizens should come first when housing is in short supply, while critics argue that anyone who is legally living, working and paying taxes deserves equal treatment.The debate has also reignited questions here in Ireland. While access to social housing is subject to strict eligibility rules, many people believe foreign nationals are being allocated homes ahead of Irish citizens who have spent years on waiting lists. Others insist this is a misconception and that housing is allocated based on need, family circumstances and legal entitlement rather than nationality.Niall asks Gavin Pepper whether foreign nationals are genuinely jumping the queue for social housing and, if so, how that is happening. Are loopholes in the system being exploited? Is the public being misled about who gets housing and why? Or are politicians avoiding an honest conversation about the pressures immigration is placing on an already overwhelmed housing system?The conversation also explores whether social housing should primarily be reserved for citizens and long-term taxpayers, or whether anyone who is legally resident in the country should have equal access to support. As housing shortages continue to worsen, who should come first when there simply aren't enough homes for everyone?Niall and Gavin debate the facts, the politics and the public anger surrounding one of the most controversial issues facing Ireland today.

On today's podcast, Niall discusses a message from a listener who says his wife's decision to become vegan has transformed their home life into a battleground. What began as a personal dietary choice has evolved into a major source of conflict, with the listener claiming his wife now refuses to buy animal products, wants their young children raised vegan and regularly criticises his own eating habits.Joining Niall is Cathal Leahy from PAWS, who argues that concerns about animal welfare, factory farming and environmental damage are legitimate reasons for people to change their lifestyles and encourage others to do the same. The discussion also hears from an animal rights activist who believes society has become too comfortable with the treatment of animals and that more people should question where their food comes from.But many callers strongly disagreed. Some argued that while adults are free to choose any diet they wish, imposing veganism on young children is unfair and potentially harmful if not carefully managed. Others said the real issue isn't veganism itself, but when any belief system becomes so dominant that it creates tension and division within a family.Should parents have the right to raise their children vegan? Is encouraging a plant based lifestyle a responsible moral choice, or are some activists so passionate about their cause that they end up alienating friends and family?The debate sparked passionate reactions from callers on both sides, making for a lively and thought provoking discussion.

On today's podcast, Niall speaks to Niamh Uí Bhriain, Assistant Editor of Gript Media, and Clare Mills, pro-choice advocate, about one of the most contentious issues currently before the Dáil.Government leaders, including Taoiseach Micheál Martin and Tánaiste Simon Harris, have indicated they will support a Sinn Féin bill to abolish the mandatory three-day waiting period for women seeking an abortion in early pregnancy. A free vote is being held in the Dáil today, with the legislation expected to pass to the next stage. The current law requires a woman seeking an abortion within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy to wait three days between her initial consultation and the procedure. Sinn Féin argues the delay is unnecessary, while supporters of the existing law say it was one of the safeguards presented to voters during the 2018 referendum.During the debate, Taoiseach Micheál Martin said he intends to support the legislation progressing, acknowledging that there are arguments on both sides of the issue. Simon Harris has also confirmed he will vote in favour, saying his position reflects engagement with women and medical professionals.Supporters of the change argue that the waiting period is "patronising and paternalistic" and places additional stress on women who have already made a difficult decision. Sinn Féin's David Cullinane has described the proposed legislation as a straightforward measure designed to remove a barrier to healthcare.Opponents argue that the three-day pause serves an important purpose by giving women time to reflect on a life-changing decision. Pro-life organisations and campaigners maintain that some women have changed their minds during the waiting period and that its removal would weaken one of the few remaining safeguards in Irish abortion law.Should the waiting period be abolished, or does it still serve an important purpose? Is it an unnecessary obstacle to healthcare, or a valuable safeguard that should remain?Niall, Niamh Uí Bhriain and Clare Mills debate the issue and hear the views of callers from across the country.

On today's podcast, Niall Boylan speaks to journalist Laura Perrins from Gript about one of the most disturbing child abuse and murder cases in recent years.At Preston Crown Court, 37-year-old Jamie Varley was convicted of the murder of 13-month-old Preston Davey, along with child cruelty offences, sexual offences involving a child, the production of indecent images and the distribution of an indecent image. His partner, 32-year-old John McGowan-Fazakerley, was convicted of allowing the death of a child, child cruelty and sexual assault.The case has shocked many people across Britain and Ireland, raising difficult questions about child protection, safeguarding failures and whether warning signs were missed before this tragedy unfolded. Niall and Laura discuss the details of the case, the public reaction, the role of social services and the wider debate about accountability when vulnerable children fall through the cracks of the system.This is a difficult but important conversation about one of the most heartbreaking cases to come before the courts in recent years.

On today's podcast, Niall Boylan is joined by Sunday Times economics columnist Cormac Lucey to discuss a growing crisis that goes far beyond politics and economics, the collapse of public trust in the media.New figures published in the Digital News Report Ireland 2026 show that trust in "most news" has fallen sharply in Ireland, dropping from 51% to 42% in just one year. According to the report, Ireland recorded one of the steepest declines in news trust of any country surveyed. While confidence in individual news brands has remained relatively stable, trust in the wider media landscape continues to erode.At the same time, a fierce debate has erupted over censorship and freedom of expression following the UK's proposed social media restrictions. Critics, including Elon Musk, have argued that measures presented as online safety protections could become tools for surveillance and control. Supporters insist stronger regulation is necessary to tackle harmful content, misinformation and online abuse.Niall and Cormac discuss why so many people no longer trust traditional news organisations, whether journalists and media outlets have become too closely aligned with political and ideological agendas, and what role censorship, fact-checking and government regulation may be playing in the public's growing scepticism.As public confidence continues to fall, the conversation asks a fundamental question: are people losing trust in the news because the media is failing the public, or because social media has fundamentally changed how we consume and judge information?It's a thought-provoking discussion about trust, journalism, censorship, free speech and who gets to decide what information the public should be allowed to see.

On today's podcast, Niall Boylan opens the lines to callers to debate a controversial new pilot scheme being introduced in Irish prisons.Under the initiative, prisoners in the Dóchas Centre and the Training Unit on the Mountjoy campus will, for the first time, be able to receive direct phone calls from approved family members and friends straight to telephones in their cells. The Irish Prison Service says the three month pilot is designed to strengthen family connections, improve prisoner stability and support rehabilitation. Calls will be limited, monitored and can be withdrawn as a privilege if prisoners misuse the system or breach prison rules. Prisoners will be restricted to two inbound calls per day, each lasting up to 10 minutes, and all calls will be recorded.Supporters argue that maintaining contact with loved ones is one of the most effective ways to reduce reoffending and help prisoners successfully reintegrate into society after release. They say prison should not simply be about punishment but also about rehabilitation, and that stronger family ties can play a vital role in preventing future crime. The Irish Prison Service has said the scheme is specifically intended to enhance family support and improve rehabilitation outcomes.Critics, however, have reacted angrily online. Many believe prison is supposed to be a punishment and that inmates already enjoy too many privileges. Some have questioned why offenders should receive direct phone access to their cells when many law-abiding citizens struggle with rising costs and long waits for public services. Others argue that victims and their families are too often forgotten in discussions about prisoner welfare.So where do you stand?Are direct calls to prison cells a sensible rehabilitation measure that could reduce reoffending and improve behaviour, or is this another example of prisoners being given comforts they simply don't deserve?Should prison focus primarily on punishment, rehabilitation, or both?And are we becoming too soft on crime?Niall hears from callers on both sides of this increasingly heated debate

On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall is joined by social commentator Sandra Adams, Paul Treyvaud and secondary school teacher Eric Nelligan to discuss one of the most controversial proposals yet in the battle over children's online safety.UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced sweeping new "Australia-plus" social media restrictions that would effectively ban under-16s from accessing major social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube and X. The plans would also introduce additional restrictions for older teenagers, including limits on late-night scrolling, possible social media curfews for 16 and 17-year-olds, and a ban on under-18s using romantic or sexual AI chatbots. To enforce the measures, age verification could require facial recognition technology, digital identity checks and official documents such as passports. Starmer described the proposals as "a real change for our children and our future" and said it was time to "call time on a system that's failing our kids", arguing that governments must stand with parents rather than leave families to battle powerful technology companies alone. According to the UK government, more than 90% of parents who responded to a recent consultation supported raising the minimum age for social media access to 16.Supporters of the proposals say social media is damaging children's mental health, exposing them to harmful content, fuelling addiction and making it easier for online predators to target young people. They argue that governments have a duty to intervene where technology companies have failed to protect children.Critics, however, warn that the measures could become the foundation of a wider digital ID system, requiring adults and children alike to prove their identity before accessing online services. Others question whether the restrictions will work at all, pointing to evidence from Australia that many young people have already found ways around similar bans. Some teachers have also raised concerns that students increasingly rely on platforms such as YouTube for educational content, exam revision and independent learning.So where should the balance lie? Should governments have the power to decide what teenagers can access online? Is age verification a reasonable safeguard or an invasion of privacy? Are these measures genuinely about protecting children, or are they the beginning of much greater control over the internet?Niall, Paul and Eric debate the benefits, the risks and the unintended consequences of one of the most far-reaching attempts yet to regulate life online.

On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall opens the lines to callers to discuss a controversial new proposal that could see owners of derelict properties hit with massive annual tax bills.Finance Minister Simon Harris is bringing proposals to Cabinet for a new Derelict Property Tax that would replace the existing derelict sites levy and allow Revenue to collect the charge directly. Under the plan, owners of derelict properties could face an annual tax of at least 7% of the property's market value unless the building is renovated and brought back into use. The government says the move is necessary because local authorities have "badly failed" to enforce the current system and thousands of potentially usable properties remain vacant during Ireland's housing crisis. The new tax is expected to apply initially in more than 100 towns and cities across the country and will be backed by Revenue's enforcement powers. According to Simon Harris, property owners have a choice: bring the property back into use or face what he described as a "hefty tax". Latest estimates suggest there are almost 19,500 derelict residential properties across Ireland.Supporters argue that with so many people struggling to buy or rent a home, it is unacceptable for thousands of properties to sit empty and deteriorate. They say owners have had years to act and that strong financial penalties are needed to force unused homes back onto the market.Critics, however, see it as another attack on property rights. They point out that owners have already paid income tax on the money used to buy the property, paid stamp duty when purchasing it and continue to pay various property-related taxes. They argue that the State is now effectively imposing a recurring penalty simply because somebody chooses not to use their property in a way the government approves of.For some owners, the bill could run into tens of thousands of euro every year. A property valued at €500,000 could face a charge of €35,000 annually under a 7% tax rate.So where should the balance lie? Should the State have the power to financially punish people for leaving a property vacant? Is this a reasonable response to a housing emergency, or a dangerous precedent that undermines private property rights?Niall asks callers: if you own something, should the government be able to tax you into using it, selling it or renovating it? Or is this exactly the kind of action needed to tackle Ireland's housing crisis?

Join Niall Boylan and his good friend and former producer AJ Walsh for their weekly catch-up as they take a look at some of the biggest, strangest and most talked-about stories making headlines this week. From the shocking stabbing in Belfast that left a man with life-changing injuries and sparked public disorder, to a car mysteriously ending up in the pond at St Stephen's Green, Niall and AJ discuss the stories that have dominated the news cycle and social media feeds over the past few days.They also delve into some lighter moments, including a heartbroken gorilla in Japan that went viral after appearing to sit alone reflecting on an argument with his mate, and the reality TV couple from Married At First Sight Australia who found love with each other despite being matched with different partners on the show.The conversation turns to more serious matters too, including a controversial new mortgage scheme that could allow first-time buyers to borrow up to five times their income, raising concerns that Ireland may be drifting back towards the risky lending practices of the Celtic Tiger era. They also discuss workplace bullying after a listener revealed she is considering confronting her husband's boss over the way he is being treated at work.Niall and AJ debate Lewis Hamilton's call for limits on personal wealth despite being worth hundreds of millions himself, discuss the growing controversy around people becoming parents later in life following Jon Snow's Alzheimer's diagnosis, and explore a range of other stories that have divided opinion this week.As always, expect plenty of laughs, strong opinions, lively debate and the kind of honest conversation that only comes from two friends who have spent years working together both on and off the air.

Social Democrats TD Sinéad Gibney has called for much stronger action against social media platforms, arguing that harmful and dangerous content is spreading online with little accountability. She has repeatedly criticised what she sees as failures by governments and regulators to properly control Big Tech and has advocated stronger regulation of online platforms and algorithms.Now, in the wake of recent riots, violent protests and growing public disorder, a new debate has emerged. Some politicians argue that graphic videos showing assaults, stabbings, riots, street violence and criminal attacks are fuelling public anger, increasing tensions and helping to radicalise people online. They believe social media companies should be forced to remove violent content much faster and that regulators should have greater powers to compel platforms to take it down.Others strongly disagree. They argue that these videos are often evidence of real events that the public has a right to see. They believe politicians are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with citizens witnessing crime, disorder and violence for themselves, rather than relying on filtered reports from mainstream media or official statements. Critics say that once governments gain the power to decide what people can and cannot see online, it becomes a slippery slope towards censorship.On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall asks a simple but controversial question:Should violent videos be removed from social media, or do people have a right to see what's really happening?Is sharing graphic footage helping to expose reality, or is it making society more angry, divided and dangerous?Where should the line be drawn between protecting the public and protecting free speech?Join the conversation as callers share their views on one of the most important debates of the digital age.

The UK Government has announced plans to spend £3.7 billion on immigration enforcement over the next three years as it attempts to tackle illegal immigration, strengthen border security and speed up removals. The announcement comes amid growing public concern about migration levels and follows recent unrest in parts of the UK where immigration has become a major political issue.But for people living on the island of Ireland, the debate raises a difficult question.Some campaigners argue that if governments are serious about stopping illegal immigration, they cannot ignore the movement of people across the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. They believe stronger checks and enforcement measures are needed, even if that means some inconvenience for travellers.Others say that would be a huge step backwards. For decades, people have enjoyed the freedom to travel seamlessly between North and South for work, shopping, tourism, family visits and everyday life. They argue that reintroducing border checks would damage trade, hurt local communities and undermine one of the most important achievements of the peace process.On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall asks:If tighter border controls reduced illegal immigration, would you be willing to sacrifice the freedom to travel freely between Northern Ireland and the Republic?Would occasional checkpoints, passport checks or border controls be a reasonable price to pay for greater security?Or is the open border simply too important to risk, regardless of the immigration challenges governments are facing?Is there a way to secure borders without disrupting the lives of ordinary people?Join Niall and callers from both sides of the border as they debate one of the most divisive political issues facing Ireland and the UK today.

Former Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow has revealed that he has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease at the age of 78. The announcement has reignited a debate that many people find uncomfortable but increasingly relevant in a world where more people are becoming parents later in life.Jon Snow and his wife, who is 30 years younger than him, welcomed a baby boy through surrogacy in 2021 when Jon was 73 and his wife was 48. At the time, some people celebrated the news as proof that families can be created at any age. Others questioned whether it was fair to bring a child into the world when one parent was already in their seventies.On this episode of the podcast, Niall is joined by psychotherapist and author Stella O'Malley to discuss one of the most emotionally charged questions surrounding modern parenthood.Is there an age at which someone is simply too old to become a parent?Advances in IVF, surrogacy and fertility treatments mean that parenthood is now possible much later in life than ever before. But just because science makes something possible, does that mean it is always in the best interests of the child?Some argue that a loving, financially secure home is far more important than the age of the parents. Others believe that children deserve the best chance possible of having their parents present throughout their childhood and into early adulthood.Should there be an upper age limit for IVF and surrogacy? Is it selfish to have a child in your fifties, sixties or even seventies, or is it nobody else's business? What responsibilities do prospective parents have to consider their own health, life expectancy and ability to care for a child as they grow older?Niall and Stella explore the psychological, ethical and practical realities of late-life parenthood and ask whether society has become afraid to discuss the child's interests when talking about reproductive rights.If you could become a parent at 50, 60 or even 70, would you? And more importantly, should you?