Explore every episode of the podcast The Niall Boylan Podcast (They Told Me To Shut Up)

Niall talks to housing campaigner Peter Dooley about a proposal from Social Democrats TD Rory Hearne to put a constitutional right to housing before the Irish people.

Hearne is bringing forward a Bill using wording proposed by the Housing Commission, arguing that putting a right to housing into the Constitution would place a legal responsibility on the State to ensure people have access to adequate housing. He has said this could require stronger measures to prevent homelessness and evictions.

Supporters believe a secure and affordable home should be recognised as a basic right and that constitutional protection would force successive governments to take the housing crisis more seriously.

Critics question exactly what such a right would mean in practice, how far the State’s legal obligations could extend and whether the Constitution should guarantee housing rather than access to shelter and support. The Housing Commission itself did not reach unanimous agreement on the issue, with the Government previously describing it as complex.

Niall and Peter debate what a constitutional right to housing could actually mean for homeowners, renters, landlords and taxpayers.

Would you vote Yes to put a right to housing into the Constitution?

#895 Artificial Intelligence: Our Greatest Invention or Biggest Mistake?

Niall talks to Podcaster Nick Delahanty about the growing debate surrounding artificial intelligence and whether the technology is advancing faster than society can safely handle.

AI promises enormous benefits, from breakthroughs in medicine and education to major changes in business, productivity and everyday life. But with that progress come serious questions. Could artificial intelligence replace millions of jobs? Could it become powerful enough to shape the information people see, influence public opinion and decide which ideas or conversations are promoted or suppressed?

There are also concerns about who ultimately controls the technology. If the most powerful AI systems are owned by a small number of governments and multinational companies, how much influence could they have over society, politics, the media and even our understanding of reality?

Niall and Peter discuss the opportunities, the risks and whether regulation can realistically keep pace with a technology developing at extraordinary speed.

Should we embrace artificial intelligence and everything it could offer, or should we be genuinely worried about where it is taking us?

Just when you thought there was nothing left to tax, along comes another charge on your online shopping!

Niall Boylan is joined by podcaster and restaurateur Paul Treyvaud to discuss new EU charges on goods ordered from outside the European Union, including popular websites such as Temu and Shein.

With a new €2 handling fee being added to existing customs charges, could cheap online bargains soon become a thing of the past?

Is this about protecting Irish and European businesses from unfair competition, or simply another way of squeezing more money out of hard-pressed consumers?

Niall and Paul debate whether these charges will encourage people to shop locally or simply punish families trying to save a few quid.

The Government is delivering 2.2 million copies of its new “Be Emergency Ready” booklet to households across Ireland, but is it sensible preparation for an uncertain world, or is it unnecessarily frightening the public?

Niall Boylan is joined by journalist John McGuirk to discuss the Government's so-called doomsday handbook, which advises households on how to prepare for emergencies, major disruptions and potential crises.

With taxpayers footing the bill for millions of booklets, Niall questions whether this is money well spent and asks why the Government feels the need to issue such advice now.

Some listeners have expressed genuine concern, wondering whether the Government knows something the rest of us don't. With ongoing international conflicts and growing tensions between world powers, is the threat of a wider war something we should seriously consider?

Are we right to be concerned about the possibility of World War Three, or are we allowing ourselves to worry about disasters that may never happen?

Niall and John discuss the booklet, the Government's intentions, public reaction and whether Ireland really needs to prepare for the worst.

Fuel prices are soaring again, with diesel reaching around €2.20 a litre in some areas and petrol close to €2, adding even more pressure to households, motorists, farmers and businesses already struggling with the cost of living.

In this episode, Niall speaks to Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín and John Dallon, one of the organisers and speakers behind the fuel price campaign, following a packed public meeting at The Well in Moate. More than 1,000 people reportedly attended, with organisers demanding that the Government scrap the carbon tax, reduce other taxes on fuel and take stronger action to bring prices down.

Supporters of the campaign argue that Government taxation is making an already serious international fuel crisis considerably worse. The Government, meanwhile, has pointed to global supply problems and conflict in the Middle East as major factors driving prices upwards, while signalling that further measures may be considered in the upcoming Budget.

Niall asks whether the Government should dramatically cut taxes on petrol and diesel, whether the carbon tax should be abolished completely, and what happens to the wider cost of living if fuel prices continue climbing.

Are the fuel protesters making reasonable demands, or are they expecting the Government to protect motorists from price increases largely caused by events outside Ireland?

Niall puts those questions to Peadar Tóibín and John Dallon and hears what they believe should happen next.

A listener has contacted the show with an admission most parents would probably be afraid to say out loud. She says she despises her own 14 year old daughter.

She describes a home filled with constant rows, disrespect and resentment. She says she has tried grounding her daughter, taking away her phone and laying down rules, but every time she attempts to discipline her, her husband steps in. He believes the punishments are too harsh and accuses her of treating their daughter differently from their other two children.

The listener says things have now reached breaking point. She admits she genuinely dislikes her daughter, feels miserable in her own home and believes the conflict is starting to destroy her marriage and affect the entire family.

In this episode, Niall talks to callers about one of the most uncomfortable parenting questions imaginable.

Can a parent simply reach the end of their tether with a difficult teenager, or is saying you despise your own child a sign that something has gone badly wrong in the relationship? Is the husband right to intervene, or is he undermining his wife and making the problem worse?

And perhaps most importantly, what do you do when love, anger, resentment and guilt all become tangled together inside the same family?

Niall hears from callers with their own experiences, opinions and advice for a mother who says she no longer knows how to live with her own daughter.

Ireland defeated Israel 3–0 at the Nagyerdei Stadion in Debrecen, Hungary, but the result on the pitch has done little to end the controversy surrounding the fixture.

In this episode, Niall is joined by journalist Brenda Power, social commentator Karl Deeter and callers from across the country to debate whether Ireland should play Israel in the return game next Sunday, October 4th, at the TSC Arena in Bačka Topola, Serbia.

Protesters are continuing to demand an Irish boycott, arguing that taking part in the fixture helps normalise Israel at a time when innocent Palestinians are being killed in Gaza. The Social Democrats have called for the FAI Board and senior management to resign, while Sinn Féin has said the FAI leadership should seriously reflect on whether they should remain in their positions.

Others argue that the players should never have been placed in the middle of an international political dispute, that football is football, and that sport should not become another battleground for political pressure.

Niall, Brenda and Karl examine where the line should be drawn, whether sporting boycotts actually achieve anything, and whether Ireland should refuse to play Israel next Sunday.

Should Ireland boycott the game, or should politics be kept out of football?

Hear the arguments, the disagreements and the views of callers on both sides of one of the most controversial sporting debates in Ireland right now.

A playground in Darndale Park in north Dublin has been destroyed by fire, sparking anger over yet another attack on a community facility.

Local TD Barry Heneghan described it as more than an attack on a playground, saying it was an attack on the entire community.

And this is far from an isolated incident.

Crumlin GAA grounds were targeted twice in two days in July. A children’s park in Artane was set on fire in May. Oscar Traynor Park in Coolock was badly damaged by arson last November, while repairs following a fire at Diamond Park were estimated at around €300,000.

In this episode, Niall speaks to callers about the growing problem of vandalism and anti social behaviour in communities around Dublin.

We are constantly told that young people get into trouble because there is “nothing for them to do.” But councils spend millions providing playgrounds, sports facilities and public spaces, only for some of them to be vandalised, wrecked or burned down.

And why does this appear to happen more often in some areas than others?

There are playgrounds and community facilities in places like Malahide and Dalkey too, but we rarely hear about them being destroyed in the same way.

So where does responsibility lie?

Should councils be doing more to protect these facilities? Are Gardaí failing to monitor problem areas? Or does the responsibility ultimately come back to parents who should know where their children are and what they are doing?

Niall hears from callers with very different views on who should take responsibility when the very facilities provided for a community are destroyed by people living within it.

Would A United Ireland Referendum Create More Problems Than It Solves?

Niall talks to election candidate Eddie Punch about the growing debate over whether the time has come for a referendum on a united Ireland.

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham has insisted he is “very aware of every word in the Good Friday Agreement” and says he will abide by it “100%”. His comments follow criticism over remarks made during a visit to Belfast, when he suggested that a referendum on Irish unity was currently “off the table”.

But is he right to believe that now is simply not the time?

Niall and Eddie examine the enormous political, economic and practical questions that would come with reunification. Who would fund Northern Ireland’s public services and healthcare system? What happens to the financial support currently provided by Westminster? What would become of thousands of people employed directly or indirectly by the British state? Would Ireland adopt one currency across the island immediately, and what happens to politically sensitive issues such as the national flag and anthem?

There is also the question of consent. Whatever the result of a referendum, a significant section of the population could feel alienated or betrayed, with concerns that an increasingly heated constitutional debate could inflame community tensions.

So, should the people of Northern Ireland be given the opportunity to vote on their constitutional future, or could holding a border poll now create far more problems than it solves?

Niall discusses it with election candidate Eddie Punch.

Would You Let Your Seven Year Old Daughter Take Up Boxing?

Niall talks to Karl Deeter about a family disagreement sparked by the influence of Katie Taylor.

Around 80,000 fans are expected at Croke Park this Saturday night to watch Taylor take on undefeated French fighter Flora Pili, but one listener says Katie’s success has caused a row at home.

His seven year old daughter is a huge Katie Taylor fan and now wants to join her local boxing club. Her dad thinks it would be fantastic for her confidence, discipline, fitness and ability to defend herself. His wife completely disagrees.

She worries that what starts as a childhood hobby could turn into a serious passion, with their daughter continuing to box into her teenage years and potentially exposing herself to serious injury. In her view, boxing is simply too dangerous and “barbaric” to encourage in a young child.

So is she right to put her foot down, or is she preventing her daughter from discovering a sport she might genuinely love?

We celebrate Katie Taylor as one of Ireland’s greatest sporting heroes, but would you actually be comfortable watching your own son or daughter step into a boxing ring?

Niall discusses the dilemma with Karl Deeter.

Niall talks to Cork Councillor Albert Deasy about Ireland’s new Health Referral Scheme, which came into effect on 1 September.

Under the new system, Gardaí can refer eligible adults caught for a first drug possession offence to the HSE instead of prosecuting them or issuing an adult caution. Supporters say it could prevent people from being dragged into the criminal justice system over personal drug use and instead direct them towards health services.

But the rollout has already raised serious questions. Some frontline Gardaí say they only learned about the scheme through media reports, with official guidelines arriving on the day it was introduced and little or no training provided beforehand.

Niall asks how such a significant change in drug policy could be introduced without properly preparing the Gardaí expected to implement it.

Possession of illegal drugs remains a criminal offence, so technically this is not decriminalisation. But is Ireland now moving towards decriminalisation in practice?

Is treating personal drug possession primarily as a health issue a sensible and compassionate approach, or does avoiding prosecution remove an important deterrent and send the message that illegal drug use carries few consequences?

Niall discusses the controversy with Cork Councillor Albert Deasy and asks: should someone caught with illegal drugs for personal use still face prosecution?

Should Drivers Be Forced Off the Road at 80?

Niall talks to podcaster and restaurateur Paul Treyvaud about a listener’s difficult dilemma involving his 85 year old father, who still insists on driving despite growing concerns about whether he is mentally sharp enough to be safe behind the wheel.

The listener says he has repeatedly tried to persuade his father to give up driving, but he refuses to hand over the keys. He now believes there should be a firm legal cut off, once you turn 80, your driving days should be over.

But would that be fair?

For many older people, driving represents independence, freedom and the ability to live life on their own terms. Should someone lose that simply because they reach a particular birthday, even if they remain perfectly capable behind the wheel?

Or should older drivers face regular medical and practical assessments to prove they are still fit to drive?

Niall and Paul discuss where the balance should lie between personal freedom and public safety, and ask what families can realistically do when an elderly parent refuses to accept that it may be time to stop driving.

Have you ever had to persuade an elderly parent or relative to give up the car, and what happens when they simply refuse?

Should Overtime Be Tax Free?

Niall talks to Independent Ireland TD Michael Collins about whether workers should be allowed to keep more of the money they earn from putting in extra hours.

Independent Kerry TD Michael Healy-Rae has proposed taxing qualifying overtime earnings at a flat rate of 20% as part of Budget 2027, arguing that people who work longer hours should not see so much of the additional income swallowed up by tax. Although INdependent ireland was the fist party to propose the idea

Niall asks whether the Government should go even further and abolish income tax altogether on overtime worked beyond 40 hours a week, as well as removing tax on tips.

Critics argue that such a move could reduce the money available to fund public services and create complications within the tax system. Supporters say it would reward hard work, encourage people to take on extra hours and put more disposable income into workers’ pockets, much of which would ultimately flow back into the economy through spending and VAT.

Would tax free overtime give working people a badly needed break, or is the idea simply too expensive and unrealistic?

Niall discusses the proposal with Independent Ireland TD Michael Collins.

Should Parents Feel Guilty About Going On Holiday Without The Kids?

Niall talks to journalist Laura Perrins about a listener’s holiday dilemma that has caused quite a row at home.

The listener says she was furious when her husband suggested they escape together on a surprise two week holiday to the Maldives, leaving their three young children at home. He thought he was planning the ultimate romantic getaway for just the two of them, but luckily he had not booked or paid for anything because his wife has flatly refused to go.

She says she could never relax on a beach thousands of miles away while her children were at home, but her husband believes couples need time together and that two weeks away without the kids would be good for their marriage.

So, is she being unreasonable? Should parents be able to enjoy a proper holiday without their children, or once you have young kids are two week romantic getaways simply off the table?

Niall discusses the dilemma with journalist Laura Perrins and asks whether parents should feel guilty about leaving the children behind.

Public sector workers are warning that patience is running out over pay, and the threat of industrial action is becoming increasingly serious.

Niall Boylan talks to callers about whether Ireland could be heading towards a major wave of strikes across essential public services, and whether workers in areas such as healthcare, education, public transport and social protection should have the same right to withdraw their labour as anyone else.

The previous public service pay agreement expired on 30 June 2026 after delivering increases of up to 10.25% over two and a half years. Unions argue that rising prices have continued to erode living standards and that any new agreement must properly reflect inflation. Fórsa has been balloting more than 90,000 public sector members on industrial action, while SIPTU, the INMO and other unions are also moving towards ballots. Prison officers have already backed industrial action, and Unite has warned that Ireland could face a “winter of strikes” unless the Government makes what it considers a meaningful pay offer.

Teachers are also becoming increasingly involved. The Teachers’ Union of Ireland has announced a ballot for industrial action in a separate dispute over a 1% salary increase which it says has not been paid as agreed, potentially affecting cooperation with elements of Senior Cycle assessment reform.

But where should the line be drawn? If nurses, teachers, transport workers or other essential public servants strike, it is ordinary members of the public who can ultimately suffer. Gardaí are prohibited from striking because of the essential nature of their work, so should similar restrictions apply to other vital services?

And then there is the question of pay. Do public servants deserve another substantial increase because of the cost of living, or after receiving increases of up to 10.25% under the previous agreement, is it unreasonable to expect private sector taxpayers to fund another large rise?

Niall hears from callers on both sides of a debate that could become one of the biggest industrial relations battles facing the Government this winter.

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has gripped millions around the world, and the case is now in the hands of a Massachusetts jury.

Niall Boylan is joined by journalist and commentator Laura Perrins to discuss the latest developments in the extraordinary case involving Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who killed her three young children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, at their family home in January 2023.

Clancy has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first degree murder on the basis that she was not criminally responsible. Her defence argues that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, was severely mentally unwell and had been prescribed numerous psychiatric medications before the killings. Prosecutors accept that she had significant mental health problems, but argue that she still understood what she was doing and deliberately planned the deaths. After 22 days of testimony and closing arguments, jurors are now deciding whether she should be convicted of murder, found guilty of a lesser offence, or found not criminally responsible because of her mental state.

At the heart of the case is an extraordinarily difficult question.

There is no dispute that Lindsay Clancy killed her children, but if she was experiencing severe psychosis at the time, should she be held fully criminally responsible?

Should a mother who kills her children while suffering from a profound psychiatric illness spend the rest of her life in prison without parole, or should the emphasis instead be on psychiatric treatment and compassion?

And how much responsibility, if any, should be placed on a medical system that was treating a woman whose mental health had been deteriorating before the tragedy?

Niall talks to Laura Perrins about the evidence heard during the trial, the prosecution and defence arguments, the debate surrounding postpartum psychosis and the verdict that could determine whether Lindsay Clancy spends her life in prison or in psychiatric care.

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks to economic journalist with The Sunday Times Ireland, Cormac Lucey, about Ireland’s continuing cost of living crisis and whether Government policy is actually making inflation worse.

Prices rose by 3.4% in the year to July, with some household costs increasing far more sharply. Education costs were up 8.9%, clothing and footwear increased by 8.5%, while housing, water, electricity and gas rose by 7.7%.

Cormac Lucey argues that the Government is not simply failing to control inflation, but is actively fuelling it through its own spending and economic policies.

Niall asks whether politicians have become detached from the reality facing ordinary households, and whether part of the reason there is not greater public anger is that a significant section of society can still comfortably absorb the increases.

Is Ireland becoming divided between those who can shrug off higher prices and the so called “I’m alright, Jack” brigade, and those who are quietly being pushed closer to the financial edge every month?

Are you still coping comfortably, or is the cost of living finally becoming impossible to ignore?

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks to Independent Ireland TD Ken O’Flynn about Ireland’s continuing financial and political support for Ukraine.

O’Flynn has criticised Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s participation in the Coalition of the Willing, warning that “standing with Ukraine cannot mean a blank cheque with no questions asked.”

With the EU proposing a new €90 billion loan for Ukraine, questions are being raised about what Ireland’s eventual share could be. Ireland accounted for roughly 2.2% of the EU budget in 2025, and while the final liability cannot simply be calculated on that basis, a proportional comparison would put Ireland’s potential exposure at close to €2 billion.

That comes on top of hundreds of millions already provided directly to Ukraine, billions spent accommodating Ukrainians in Ireland, and more than €4 billion recorded in official development assistance across 2024 and 2025, although those figures also include some refugee-related expenditure within Ireland.

Niall asks Ken O’Flynn whether the Government is right to continue committing Irish taxpayers’ money to Ukraine, whether there should be greater scrutiny of future funding, and whether Ireland’s generosity abroad is coming at the expense of problems at home.

Are we mugs handing out blank cheques, or are we simply a generous and good-natured nation doing our duty?

Should Ireland follow Portugal and ban full face coverings in public?

Niall Boylan is joined by journalist John McGuirk to debate whether Ireland should introduce a nationwide ban on clothing that conceals a person’s face in public, including the burqa and niqab.

Portugal has now introduced one of Europe’s newest face covering laws. Under Law No. 58/2026, published on 24 August, clothing designed to conceal the face or prevent identification will be prohibited in public streets, public services, businesses, sporting events and demonstrations. The law comes into force on 23 September 2026. Anyone who breaches it can face a fine of €150 to €750 for a negligent offence, or €400 to €3,000 where the breach is deliberate. There are exemptions for health, work, artistic and entertainment purposes, security, weather conditions, places of worship, diplomatic premises and aircraft. The legislation also makes it a criminal offence to force somebody to cover their face because of their sex, with a possible prison sentence of up to two years, increased where the victim is a minor.

Portugal is far from alone. France, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Bulgaria and Switzerland have introduced broad restrictions on concealing the face in public. The Netherlands has a more limited ban covering places such as schools, hospitals and public transport, while Germany and Norway have restrictions in particular settings. Italy already has long standing legislation restricting the concealment of a person’s identity in public, while the issue has also been debated in countries including Spain. Across Europe the argument remains deeply divided between religious freedom and individual choice on one side, and security, identification, integration and women’s rights on the other.

Supporters of a ban argue that nobody should be permitted to completely conceal their identity while walking through public spaces, entering shops, using public services or dealing with authorities. They also argue that some women may be pressured by husbands, fathers or communities into covering their faces. Opponents say governments should not dictate how people dress and that banning the burqa or niqab disproportionately targets Muslim women and interferes with freedom of religion and cultural expression.

Niall asks John McGuirk where the balance should lie. Should Ireland follow Portugal and other European countries and ban full face coverings in public, or would such a law represent an unacceptable intrusion into religious freedom and personal choice?

Why are men’s mental health struggles so often dismissed until they reach crisis point?

In this episode, Niall Boylan talks to callers about a difficult listener dilemma involving marriage, depression, money and the limits of emotional responsibility.

A woman has written to the show about her husband, who is in his 40s and says he is depressed. He is self employed, but has stopped looking for work, spends most of his time at home and appears to have lost interest in almost everything, including himself. His wife says she has supported him for months, attended the doctor with him and encouraged him to seek further help, but she feels he is making little effort to change his situation.

Their relationship has now deteriorated badly. They have not slept in the same bed or had any intimacy for a year, they are struggling financially and the household is surviving entirely on her income. She says constantly dealing with his depression is now affecting her own mental health and she is beginning to wonder whether she needs to leave the marriage while she still has a chance to rebuild her life.

But where does compassion end and personal responsibility begin?

Is she being selfish for considering leaving a husband who is clearly struggling, or is it unreasonable to expect one person to carry the emotional and financial burden of a relationship indefinitely?

Niall hears from callers on both sides and asks a difficult question: When somebody you love is depressed but appears unwilling to help themselves, how long are you expected to sacrifice your own happiness to save them?

In this episode of The Niall Boylan Show, Niall opens the phone lines to listeners to debate a controversial question: should married couples with children receive greater priority for social housing in Ireland?

The debate follows comments from Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice, who has argued that marriage provides children with greater stability and suggested that married couples with children should be given greater priority when social housing is allocated.

Supporters argue that governments already use taxation and other policies to encourage certain behaviours, so why should marriage be any different? If stable two parent families are considered beneficial for children, should the State actively encourage marriage when deciding how scarce public housing is distributed?

Critics say such a policy would create two classes of family. An unmarried couple with children, a single mother, a single father or somebody whose marriage has broken down could potentially find themselves behind a married couple, even when their housing needs are exactly the same.

Niall asks callers whether social housing should be allocated purely according to need, or whether governments are entitled to consider the type of family being housed.

If two families have identical incomes, the same number of children and exactly the same level of housing need, should the married couple get the house first?

And should the State be encouraging marriage at all, or is it none of the Government’s business how people choose to organise their family lives?

Niall takes calls from both sides of a debate that goes straight to the heart of how we define family, fairness and who should get priority when there simply are not enough homes to go around.

In this episode, Niall Boylan is joined by journalist Laura Perrins to debate whether the law is tough enough on young drivers who deliberately put innocent lives at risk.

The discussion comes after a horrifying series of wrong way crashes in Ireland and Britain. Two weeks ago, eight teenagers travelling in a stolen car drove the wrong way onto the M50 before crashing head on into another vehicle, leaving an innocent motorist seriously injured.

Days later, tragedy struck again on the M9 when five teenagers were killed after their car was driven the wrong way down the motorway and collided head on with a family travelling to Dublin Airport. Three women and a seven year old boy were seriously injured.

Then, on Saturday in Britain, five young men travelling the wrong way on the A66 crashed into a police vehicle. All five occupants of the car were killed, along with two police officers.

Niall argues that deliberately driving the wrong way on a motorway is not simply reckless driving. When someone knowingly sends a vehicle towards oncoming traffic at motorway speeds, innocent motorists have nowhere to go and no way of knowing what is coming towards them.

He has called for emergency legislation that could see anyone who deliberately drives in this manner, putting innocent lives at extreme risk, facing a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, regardless of their age.

Critics say 20 years would be completely disproportionate, particularly when young offenders are involved, and argue that sentencing must still take account of age, maturity, intent and the circumstances of each individual case.

But Niall asks where society should draw the line. If somebody deliberately turns a car into what is effectively a lethal weapon and plays Russian roulette with the lives of innocent families, should being 15, 16 or 17 substantially protect them from the consequences?

Laura Perrins joins Niall to discuss punishment, personal responsibility, youth justice and whether the threat of much tougher sentences would actually deter this kind of behaviour.

How many more innocent people have to be killed or seriously injured before the law gets tougher? Is 20 years an appropriate punishment for deliberately putting motorists' lives at risk, or would it be an excessive response to an appalling problem?

The Irish Government is considering tougher citizenship rules that could increase the standard residency requirement from five to eight years. Applicants may also have to demonstrate English proficiency, financial independence, good character and an ability to support themselves and their families. These are currently proposals being considered, rather than rules already in force. The Sunday Times

Niall speaks to Nick Delehanty, who believes the proposed changes still do not go far enough. They compare Ireland with Denmark, where applicants must pass a 45-question examination covering Danish society, history, culture, current affairs and national values. Candidates need at least 36 correct answers, including four of the five questions on Danish values.

Is Irish citizenship being handed out too easily? Should applicants have to prove that they understand Irish history, culture and values, or would tougher requirements unfairly punish people who genuinely want to become part of the country?

Fewer Than 100 Points to College Lecturer: Are We Lying to Teenagers About the Leaving Cert?

Niall talks to Cleo Knight, Ms Offaly 2026, who left school with fewer than 100 Leaving Certificate points believing she was not academic and that higher education was not for her. The only course she thought was available to her was jam-making, but Cleo had very different ambitions.

Today, she is a Business and Media lecturer, a model and the coordinator of an Honours Degree in Business and Psychology. Through Further Education, Cleo found an alternative route into college and proved that one set of exam results does not determine a person’s intelligence or future.

Cleo discusses her new “Further Than You Think” campaign and explains why students from very different backgrounds are being judged by the same points system.

Do Leaving Certificate points genuinely measure intelligence, hard work and ability, or simply how well someone performs in one set of examinations at 18? Is Ireland placing too much pressure on teenagers and making many of them feel like failures before their adult lives have even begun?

This week on Not Suitable For Broadcast, Niall Boylan is joined by Eddie Punch for a lively, opinionated and completely uncensored round-up of the stories that got Ireland talking.

They begin with the horrific M9 tragedy, where five teenagers died after a stolen BMW was allegedly driven the wrong way along the motorway before colliding head-on with an innocent family. Niall and Eddie ask whether Gardaí need stronger powers, better pursuit training and greater legal protection to deal with drivers who deliberately put lives at risk.

They also look at the threatened fuel revolt, as petrol and diesel prices rise again and further tax increases loom. Should protesters be prepared to block roads, fuel depots and city centres to force the Government to listen, or does that simply punish ordinary motorists and businesses?

Ireland’s worsening prison overcrowding crisis is also under the spotlight. With more than 5,600 people in custody and some prisoners sleeping on mattresses on the floor, should prison be reserved primarily for violent and dangerous offenders? Could community service, electronic monitoring and compulsory work replace short sentences for some non-violent criminals?

Niall and Eddie debate whether the long-term unemployed should be required to work for their welfare, following Reform UK’s proposal for 20 hours of community work each week for some people who have been unemployed for more than a year.

They also examine the continuing decline of Catholic Ireland. With baptisms falling and more children being raised with no religion, is Ireland simply becoming a more modern secular society, or are we losing something important in terms of morality, community and belonging?

The M9 tragedy returns in two very different debates. First, can parents still mourn and love a child who has caused devastating harm to others, and where does parental responsibility end? Then Niall and Eddie ask whether politicians are too quick to blame Gardaí, parents and TikTok while avoiding harder questions about youth crime, repeat offenders, sentencing and Government policy.

Finally, they tackle the story of a reported OnlyFans creator planning to run for Stormont. Should someone’s career in adult content matter when they seek public office, or should voters judge politicians purely on their policies, competence and character?

News, views, no filter. Serious and uncensored. This is Not Suitable For Broadcast with Niall Boylan and Eddie Punch.

In this episode, Niall talks to financial commentator Karl Deeter about whether TikTok and social media are fuelling a new and deadly wave of joyriding, or whether politicians are looking for a convenient scapegoat following the horrific M9 tragedy.

Five teenage males were killed in the early hours of Sunday, 16 August, after the car they were travelling in was driven the wrong way along the M9 near Moone in Co Kildare and collided head on with another vehicle. Three women and a child travelling in the second car were seriously injured. Garda Commissioner Justin Kelly subsequently warned of a disturbing trend in which dangerous driving is being carried out for social media attention and “likes”.

Attention has now turned to TikTok, which has been invited to appear before the Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Media, Communications, Culture and Sport. Committee chair Alan Kelly said serious questions have arisen about social media content that appears to glorify dangerous and illegal behaviour on Irish roads. Ireland's media regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, has also contacted TikTok seeking information about how it deals with dangerous driving content.

But is social media really the cause? Ireland experienced serious waves of joyriding throughout the 1980s and 1990s, decades before TikTok, Snapchat or Instagram existed. Recent reporting also suggests Gardaí are dealing with repeat teenage offenders, car thefts and dangerous driving incidents on an almost nightly basis, raising questions about policing, Garda resources, youth diversion programmes and whether offenders face sufficient consequences.

Niall asks Karl Deeter whether TikTok is genuinely encouraging young people to take greater risks for online notoriety, whether social media companies should be held responsible for amplifying criminal behaviour, or whether calling TikTok before an Oireachtas committee allows the Government to avoid much harder questions about policing, the justice system and how repeat young offenders are dealt with.

Is TikTok part of the problem, or is it simply the latest convenient scapegoat?

In this episode, Niall talks to callers about a listener dilemma that has caused serious tension in one marriage, all over a beauty hamper.

A husband contacted the show after winning a large beauty hamper at a work night out. During the celebrations, and after a few drinks, one of his female colleagues said how much she loved it, so he gave it to her.

He thought nothing more of it until he told his wife the following morning.

She was furious.

His wife believes he crossed a line by giving an expensive prize to another woman instead of bringing it home to her. She has now demanded that he ask his colleague for the hamper back and has even threatened to contact the woman herself if he refuses.

The husband admits that, looking back, he probably should have brought it home, but he insists there was no flirting and no hidden meaning behind the gesture. He is now mortified at the thought of having to approach his colleague at work and ask for the hamper back, especially after she was so delighted to receive it.

So who is being unreasonable?

New figures suggest Ireland’s relationship with the Catholic Church is continuing to change dramatically, with the annual number of Catholic baptisms across the island falling by around 30% over the past decade.

In this episode, Niall speaks to Dr Tom Finegan, Chairman of The Iona Institute, whose organisation compiled the new figures, and Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland, to debate what is driving the decline and what it could mean for Irish society.

The Iona Institute says the fall is not simply about people abandoning religion. Births across the island have fallen by almost 19% over the same period, with the organisation estimating that declining birth rates account for roughly 60% of the reduction in baptisms, while increasing secularisation accounts for the remainder.

But the Census figures also show a significant generational shift. In 2016, 78.3% of children aged 0 to 4 were recorded as Catholic, compared with 65.4% in 2022. Over the same period, the proportion recorded as having no religion rose from 9.2% to 15.6%.

There are also striking regional differences. Baptisms have fallen by almost 40% in Dublin, more than 40% in the Diocese of Meath, and almost 38% in Down & Connor, while some more rural dioceses have experienced much smaller declines.

Tom Finegan argues that despite declining Mass attendance and increasing secularisation, “cultural Catholicism” remains a significant force in Ireland, with large numbers of parents still identifying as Catholic and choosing baptism for their children.

Michael Nugent offers a very different perspective, examining whether the decline represents Ireland becoming a genuinely more secular society, whether religion should continue to have such an influence over schools and public institutions, and whether traditional religious identity is gradually being replaced by a society where people increasingly define their morality and values without reference to a Church.

Niall asks whether Ireland is simply witnessing the natural decline of an institution that once held enormous power, or whether something important could be lost with it.

Does society need religion to provide community, morality and a sense of belonging? Can those things exist just as strongly without God? And when cultural Catholicism eventually fades, if it does, what takes its place?

A lively debate about faith, atheism, falling birth rates and the changing face of modern Ireland.

The horrific crash on the M9 has shocked the country and left two very different sets of families facing unimaginable consequences.

Five teenage boys died after the BMW they were travelling in was driven the wrong way along the M9 near Moone in Co Kildare and collided head on with a Hyundai carrying three women and a seven year old boy. Gardaí are continuing to investigate all of the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The innocent occupants of the Hyundai were sisters Alma Kinsella and Niamh Kinsella, both in their 30s, their younger sister Ella Hendricken, who is in her 20s, and Alma’s seven year old son. The family, from the Carlow area, had been travelling to Dublin Airport to attend a family wedding in England. Alma and Niamh were reported to be in critical condition, while Ella and the young boy were being treated for serious injuries.

In this episode, Niall opens the phone lines to listeners to discuss a difficult question that has emerged in the aftermath of the tragedy.

While there has understandably been enormous sympathy for the innocent family whose lives have been changed, there has also been anger at the reckless behaviour that led to the crash. Some people have gone further, arguing that the parents of young people involved in serious criminal behaviour should accept some responsibility, or even feel ashamed of what their children have done.

But is that fair?

The discussion takes an emotional turn after a listener contacts the programme with her own story.

Twenty years ago, her teenage son died after crashing a stolen car into another vehicle carrying a husband and wife. She says she has lived ever since with enormous sympathy and guilt over what happened to the innocent couple, but strongly rejects the suggestion that she was a bad parent.

She describes her son as a loving child who developed a passion for cars and mechanics, but says everything began to change in his early teenage years when he lost interest in school and started mixing with the wrong crowd. Gardaí began arriving at the family home, he got into trouble with the law and, despite repeated attempts by his mother and older siblings to steer him away from that lifestyle, his behaviour continued.

Her other two children never got into trouble, went on to build successful lives and careers, and she asks a question many parents will understand: if three children are raised in the same home by the same parents, but only one chooses a destructive path, can the parents really be blamed?

Niall asks callers where parental responsibility begins and where it ends.

Can loving and responsible parents raise a child who eventually becomes involved in theft, violence, joyriding or other serious criminal behaviour?

Should parents be held morally responsible when their teenage children repeatedly break the law?

Or does there come a point where a young person has to take responsibility for their own choices, regardless of how they were raised?

And perhaps the most difficult question of all: if your child caused terrible suffering to innocent people, could you still grieve for them, defend the way you raised them and love them despite what they had done?

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks to journalist Laura Perrins about whether Ireland needs to fundamentally rethink who we send to prison and what prison is actually supposed to achieve.

Ireland’s prisons are under enormous pressure. On 13 August 2026, 5,619 people were in custody across the State, with 339 prisoners sleeping on mattresses on the floor. Limerick Women’s Prison was operating at approximately 161% of capacity. The overcrowding crisis has renewed calls from penal reform advocates for greater use of community service, probation and other alternatives to short custodial sentences, particularly for offenders who do not pose a serious threat to the public.

The controversy intensified following the extraordinarily early release of Alison Chawke, who served just 28 days after being sentenced to two years and two months, with the final 14 months suspended, for her role in an assault on two men at a Limerick hotel. Chawke was released under the Community Return Scheme, which allows eligible prisoners to leave custody under supervision and complete unpaid community work. Her case has become part of the wider debate about overcrowding and whether prisoners are now being released far earlier than the public might reasonably expect.

But it also raises a much bigger question. Should prison always be the answer?

Some penal reform experts argue that prison should increasingly be reserved for people who pose a genuine danger to society, rather than automatically imprisoning people convicted of non violent or relatively minor offences. In 2024, 67% of Ireland’s prison population were serving sentences of less than one year, and reform advocates argue that many of those sentences could potentially be replaced by community service or other sanctions.

Niall and Laura ask whether someone convicted of fraud, failing to pay a fine or another financial offence necessarily needs to occupy a prison cell. Could offenders instead face substantial community service, financial penalties, restrictions on their liberty or compulsory work programmes?

And where should we draw the line? If prison is increasingly regarded as a last resort, does that create a fairer and more effective justice system, or does it risk removing the punishment and deterrence that victims and the wider public expect when somebody commits a crime?

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks to Daily Mail journalist Ken Murray about a controversial proposal from Reform UK that would force some long term welfare claimants to carry out 20 hours of community work every week in order to continue receiving their benefits.

Under Reform UK’s proposed Welfare to Work scheme, people who have been unemployed for more than a year and are considered fit to work could be required to carry out unpaid community work or face sanctions on their benefits. Suggested jobs include cleaning high streets, maintaining parks, working in libraries, carrying out council house repairs and helping charities, with claimants receiving £30 a week towards expenses. Reform argues that more than 330,000 Universal Credit claimants who are capable of working have been unemployed for over a year.

Could something similar work in Ireland?

The latest CSO unemployment figures estimate that 149,900 people were unemployed in July 2026, giving Ireland an unemployment rate of 5.1%. Youth unemployment was considerably higher at 12.3%.

Separate Live Register figures give an indication of the number of people claiming Jobseeker related payments. In June 2026, the seasonally adjusted Live Register stood at 172,600, while 54,477 people had been continuously registered for a year or longer. The number of Jobseeker’s Allowance claims was also up 3.4% compared with the previous year.

So should people who have been unemployed for a prolonged period and are capable of working be expected to give something back to the community in return for their welfare payment?

Supporters might argue that if taxpayers are supporting somebody financially, asking that person to spend part of their week cleaning streets, maintaining parks, helping community organisations or carrying out other useful work is hardly unreasonable. It could provide routine, experience and a pathway back into employment.

Critics will see it very differently. Ireland has been here before with schemes such as JobBridge, which became heavily criticised over concerns about the quality of some placements and whether employers were benefiting from subsidised labour rather than creating properly paid jobs. Youth organisations reviewing JobBridge called for significant reform and questioned whether it always provided genuine progression into secure employment.

And that raises the central question: is asking someone to work 20 hours for their welfare payment a reasonable contribution to society, or is it effectively creating a pool of cheap or unpaid labour?

Would councils stop employing cleaners, maintenance workers and other properly paid staff if welfare recipients could carry out the work instead? Would it create a race to the bottom in wages? Or have we reached the point where someone who is capable of working but remains on welfare for years should be expected to contribute something in return?

Niall and Ken debate whether Ireland should consider its own version of Reform UK’s proposal and ask listeners the simple but highly divisive question: Should unemployed people be forced to work for their dole?

Niall Boylan is joined by John Dallon, one of the leaders of the Dublin fuel protests earlier this year, and election candidate Eddie Punch, as motorists face another painful rise in petrol and diesel prices.

From September 1, the first stage of the Government’s planned restoration of fuel taxes is due to add around 9c a litre to petrol and 10c to diesel, with the NORA levy also returning. At the same time, pump prices are already rising because of renewed volatility in global oil markets linked to the continuing conflict with Iran. Average diesel prices have climbed to about €1.92 a litre, with petrol around €1.84, meaning the September tax increase could push diesel through the €2 mark. Further tax increases had been planned for October, November and December, although the Government is now under growing pressure to postpone them.

John Dallon says protesters are prepared to take action again if motorists and hauliers are pushed beyond breaking point. But after the disruption caused by previous demonstrations, critics argue that blocking roads, fuel depots and city centres damages businesses and punishes ordinary people trying to get to work.

Niall asks: Are fuel protesters justified in bringing the country to a standstill to force the Government to act, or do disruptive protests ultimately hurt the very people they claim to represent?

Niall Boylan is joined by columnist and journalist Brenda Power to discuss the horrific M9 crash that has left five teenagers dead and four innocent members of one family seriously injured, including a seven year old boy.

The latest information suggests the five teenagers were travelling in a stolen BMW and had allegedly been involved in attempted burglaries and car break ins in the Athy area earlier that night. Gardaí had tried to stop the car at around 2am, but it sped away. Investigators believe the BMW then travelled the wrong way along the M9 on two separate occasions before eventually crashing head on into a Hyundai carrying three sisters and the young son of one of the women. Two of the women remain in a critical condition, while the third woman and child are seriously injured. Gardaí were not pursuing the BMW at the moment of impact.

The tragedy comes just eight days after another stolen car carrying nine teenagers travelled the wrong way on the M50 and crashed into an innocent motorist. Garda Commissioner Justin Kelly has warned that some drivers are deliberately engaging in this behaviour for social media attention, describing it as reckless and devastating.

The Garda Representative Association is now calling for proper pursuit training, saying Gardaí are effectively “damned if they do and damned if they don’t”. The GRA says no Garda currently receives specific pursuit training and that deliberately driving against motorway traffic to evade Gardaí amounts to playing Russian roulette with people’s lives.

Niall asks Brenda whether the law now needs to change. Should specially trained Gardaí be given greater legal protection and additional powers to forcibly stop a vehicle being deliberately driven the wrong way down a motorway?

Or would allowing Gardaí to ram or force such vehicles off the road create an even greater risk to innocent motorists?

And after two terrifying incidents in little more than a week, have we reached the point where doing nothing is potentially more dangerous than allowing Gardaí to intervene?

This week on Not Suitable For Broadcast, Niall Boylan is joined once again by his former producer AJ Walsh for a fast, funny and unapologetically opinionated look back at some of the biggest talking points of the week.

They ask whether the Government is genuinely expanding choice for women and families, or increasingly looking down on traditional marriage, motherhood and stay at home parenting. They also get into Ireland’s cash economy and ask the awkward question: if you knew your neighbour was taking cash in hand and not declaring it, would you report them?

Family loyalty comes under the microscope too. If a brother committed a violent assault or your child was caught dealing drugs, how far would you go to protect them before loyalty becomes enabling?

Niall and AJ also look at the cost of holidaying in Ireland and ask whether hotels, restaurants, attractions and car hire have simply become too expensive for tourists. Then things get even more heated as they debate whether householders should have stronger legal protection when confronting burglars inside their own homes, and whether offensive speech should ever become a criminal matter under hate speech laws.

There is some light relief when the clampers themselves get clamped in Dublin, before the lads turn their attention to an extraordinary 24 hours in the skies, with the eclipse grabbing all the headlines while six planets and the Perseid meteor shower were putting on their own show.

Politics, family, crime, free speech, tourism, hypocrisy and a bit of astronomy thrown in for good measure. It is another week of stories that are definitely Not Suitable For Broadcast.

On today’s show, Niall Boylan talks to podcaster Elaine Mullally about a family dilemma sent in by a listener who fears she and her husband are being taken advantage of by their own son.

Their 25-year-old son, his girlfriend and their two-year-old child moved into the family home so they could save for a place of their own. They pay no rent, and the grandparents regularly babysit while the young couple go out. But despite saying they are saving, the couple still enjoy regular takeaways, weekends away and nights out with friends, and they are now planning a week in Portugal this September.

When the listener’s husband suggested they needed to make more sacrifices if they were serious about buying a home, the couple became annoyed and told him it was none of his business how they spent their money.

Now he wants to give them three months’ notice to leave. His wife, however, is terrified that doing so could destroy their relationship with their son and, even worse, mean losing contact with the grandson she adores.

Niall and Elaine ask: Are these parents helping their son get on his feet, or are they simply funding his lifestyle? If you live rent-free with your parents to save for a home, do they have the right to question how you spend your money? And should the grandparents finally tell them to leave, even if it risks tearing the family apart?

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks to Aontú leader Peadar Tóibín about the rising cost of fuel and the Government’s plans to unwind reductions in excise duty from September.

Tóibín says the Government is on course to collect around €1.7 billion in VAT on fuel this year, approximately €238 million more than last year, while motorists are still struggling with the cost of living. He also warns that drivers could face a series of fuel price increases across September, October and November as tax measures change. Niall asks whether motorists are once again being treated as an easy source of revenue, whether the Government should postpone the increases, and how much more families and commuters can realistically absorb.

Later, Niall opens the phone lines on a very different and difficult question.

Ukrainians living in accommodation centres across Limerick and Clare have reportedly been given notice to leave, with some expected to find and pay for their own accommodation or fund their journey home. Those with exceptional circumstances may still qualify for additional support.

The discussion turns to younger Ukrainian men who may fear returning home because of the war and the possibility of being expected to fight. Niall asks listeners to put themselves in their shoes. If staying meant risking your life on the front line, would you remain and defend your country, or would you take your partner and children somewhere safe?

And if Ireland found itself at war tomorrow, and you had the choice between staying to fight or boarding a plane with your family and escaping to safety, what would you do?

Where should Ireland draw the line between free speech and hate speech?

In this episode, Niall talks to callers and Tomas O’Reilly, a Brussels based policy adviser and journalist whose work has previously appeared in Euronews and The European Conservative. Tomas currently works as a policy adviser in the European Parliament.

The discussion comes as a new official report highlighting racism and discrimination in Ireland reignites calls for tougher hate speech laws. The Irish Government previously dropped controversial proposed hate speech provisions following significant public and political opposition, but the debate is far from over.

Should freedom of speech protect opinions that many people consider deeply offensive, racist or discriminatory? Can words themselves cause enough harm to justify criminal prosecution? Is simply saying something offensive ever something that should make you a criminal? And, perhaps most importantly, who gets to decide what crosses the line?

Niall hears from callers with very different views on whether Ireland needs stronger protections against hate speech or whether expanding these laws could have a chilling effect on political debate, controversial opinions and freedom of expression.

Tomas also discusses his latest article for Gript, which examines a renewed push within the European Union to establish broader EU level rules covering online hate speech and hate crime.

Summary of Tomas O’Reilly’s Gript Article

Tomas reports that the European Commission is considering a new attempt to introduce EU wide minimum criminal rules covering online hate speech, after an earlier 2021 proposal stalled because it required unanimous agreement from member states. According to the article, Brussels is examining whether certain online hate offences could instead be dealt with under existing EU powers relating to crimes such as computer crime, potentially allowing measures to proceed through qualified majority voting rather than unanimity. The article also says Irish Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan has expressed opposition to expanding the EU definition of hate crimes, while Ireland is separately facing infringement proceedings from the European Commission over whether its existing hate speech legislation sufficiently complies with EU requirements. The dispute could ultimately end up before the European Court of Justice.

Full piece available on gript media:

If you woke in the middle of the night and discovered a burglar inside your home, with your family asleep upstairs, how far should you be legally allowed to go to protect them?

In this episode, Niall talks to Councillor Gavin Pepper about the rights of homeowners to defend themselves, their families and their property when an intruder enters their home.

Last year, Ireland recorded 8,469 burglary and related offences, but behind every statistic is the frightening possibility of somebody finding a stranger inside their home in the middle of the night.

Irish law allows householders to use reasonable force to protect themselves, other people and their property, and there is no legal requirement to retreat from your own home. In some circumstances, the use of force can even result in the death of an intruder without automatically making the homeowner criminally liable.

But what exactly does reasonable force mean when you have only seconds to react and no idea whether the person who has broken into your home is armed or intends to hurt your family?

Niall and Gavin debate whether Irish homeowners already have sufficient protection under the law or whether Ireland should introduce stronger protections similar to the Castle Doctrine found in parts of the United States.

If somebody deliberately breaks into an occupied home in the middle of the night, should the homeowner be legally entitled to use whatever force they genuinely believe is necessary to protect themselves and their family? Or would giving householders greater protection risk allowing excessive or unnecessary violence?

Where would you draw the line between legitimate self defence and excessive force?

Blood Is Thicker Than Water: But Should Family Loyalty Have Limits?

We all know the saying, “Blood is thicker than water”, the idea that family comes first and that, no matter what happens, you stand by your own. But should that loyalty ever have limits?

In this episode, Niall is joined by Karl Deeter to debate just how far family loyalty should go, especially when someone you love has done something seriously wrong.

If your brother committed a violent assault, would you still stand beside him, defend him and support him through the consequences? Or would you tell him that what he did was unacceptable and that he now has to face the consequences alone?

What if your son or daughter was caught dealing drugs? Would your instinct as a parent be to bail them out, pay for a solicitor and do everything possible to protect them, or could constantly rescuing them actually make the situation worse?

There is also a difference between supporting somebody and defending their behaviour. Can you love a family member while still condemning what they have done? Can refusing to protect them sometimes be the most responsible thing a parent, sibling or relative can do?

The conversation also looks at families where the problem is not one dramatic incident, but years of lying, stealing, manipulation, addiction, broken promises or treating other people badly. How many chances should somebody receive simply because they are related to you? And at what point does loyalty stop being compassion and become enabling?

For some people, family represents unconditional love, security and the people who will still be there when everyone else has disappeared. For others, the deepest betrayals, longest grudges and most damaging relationships they have ever experienced have come from within their own family.

Niall and Karl ask whether relatives sometimes receive a free pass for behaviour we would never tolerate from a friend, colleague or partner, and whether walking away from a toxic family relationship can ever be justified.

So, is blood really thicker than water? Should family always come first, regardless of what somebody has done, or are there some actions that even family loyalty cannot excuse?

Niall Boylan discusses it with Karl Deeter.

Is Irish Tourism in Trouble? Paul Treyvaud on Prices, Hotels and the Real Visitor Numbers

Ireland’s tourism industry has still not clearly returned to the levels we were seeing before the pandemic, and despite signs of a recovery during 2026, questions remain about how healthy the sector really is.

In this episode, Niall is joined by restaurateur and podcaster Paul Treyvaud to ask a simple question: why are tourist numbers still not where many people expected them to be, and do the official statistics actually tell the full story?

In 2025, overseas visitor numbers fell by around 3%, while tourist spending dropped by approximately 9%. More recent figures suggest a significant improvement during 2026, but Paul is asked whether that recovery is being felt on the ground by restaurants, hotels, pubs and other businesses that depend heavily on tourism.

Niall also questions whether some of the traditional indicators we use to measure tourism can give a misleading picture.

Hotel occupancy may appear strong, but a number of hotels and accommodation centres are being used for IPAS and emergency accommodation. That means fewer bedrooms are available to ordinary tourists, potentially increasing occupancy rates in the remaining hotels while also contributing to higher prices.

Dublin Airport is also busier than ever, but packed terminals do not necessarily mean Ireland is experiencing a tourism boom. Many passengers are Irish people travelling abroad, business travellers or passengers connecting through the airport rather than spending their holidays in Ireland.

So what is actually happening?

Has Ireland simply become too expensive for tourists? Are hotel rooms, restaurant prices, car hire, attractions and the overall cost of a holiday making Ireland increasingly difficult to justify compared with destinations such as Spain, Portugal, Italy or Greece?

Is the shortage of available hotel accommodation damaging the industry? Have high prices reached the point where even tourists who can afford to visit Ireland no longer believe they are receiving value for money?

And what about the experience on the ground? Are restaurants, pubs and tourism businesses seeing fewer overseas visitors than the official numbers would suggest, or could the industry actually be performing better than the headlines imply?

Paul Treyvaud gives Niall his perspective as somebody working directly in hospitality and tourism, and explains whether he believes the statistics match what businesses are seeing every day.

Ultimately, Niall asks whether Ireland still offers tourists good value for money, and if we don’t, how long can we expect visitors to keep paying premium prices when there are cheaper alternatives just a short flight away?

IS THE GOVERNMENT AT WAR WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY?

Niall talks to journalists David Quinn and Brenda Power about the Government’s National Strategy for Women and Girls and what it says about gender roles, marriage, motherhood, careers and the traditional family.

The strategy challenges what it describes as patriarchal norms, including the traditional expectation of men as breadwinners and women as carers, and argues that gender stereotypes can restrict the opportunities available to both women and men. It has also sparked controversy over attitudes towards the so called “Tradwife”, women who consciously choose to place marriage, children and the home at the centre of their lives.

David Quinn argues that the strategy goes much further than simply giving women greater choice. He believes it is based on an ideology that treats differences between men and women largely as products of social conditioning and places too much emphasis on paid employment and career progression while undervaluing motherhood, caring and life in the home.

In his article for Gript Media, David argues that Government policy is attempting to replace one set of traditional expectations with another. He points to countries such as Sweden, where decades of policies aimed at reducing traditional gender differences have not eliminated differences in career choices, working patterns or earnings between men and women. His argument is that Government should value professional and domestic life equally and allow women and men to choose the balance that suits them without attempting to engineer a particular outcome.

But is criticism of traditional gender roles justified? Can expectations surrounding husbands, wives and family life sometimes restrict women’s choices? And when campaigners link traditional gender stereotypes with wider issues such as inequality and domestic violence, are they addressing a genuine problem or unfairly portraying traditional relationships as harmful?

Niall, David Quinn and Brenda Power debate whether modern Government policy is genuinely expanding women’s choices, or whether the traditional wife, stay at home mother and conventional family are increasingly being treated as something society needs to move away from.

Do you see anything wrong with the traditional concept of the family? And if a woman freely chooses to become a “Tradwife”, should Government have any opinion on that choice at all?

Niall talks to Eddie Punch, former European election candidate for Independent Ireland, about Revenue’s growing crackdown on Ireland’s black economy and asks whether ordinary people should be reporting neighbours, tradespeople and local businesses they suspect of working cash in hand.

Revenue has pursued more than €10.5 million from suspected black market activity over the past 18 months, targeting sectors including construction, takeaways, beauty businesses, landlords and other cash based operators. Last year Revenue examined almost 13,000 suspected cases, intervening in around 8,000 and collecting €8.3 million.

But perhaps one of the biggest changes is coming from the public themselves. Tip offs about suspected black market activity jumped from 930 in 2024 to 1,743 in 2025, while Revenue is also examining social media for evidence of people operating cash in hand businesses and potentially avoiding tax.

Supporters of the crackdown argue that legitimate businesses simply cannot compete with someone who avoids VAT, PRSI, income tax, insurance and other costs while offering the same service for cash. Businesses in the beauty and construction industries say the shadow economy creates an unfair playing field for those who follow the rules.

But is there another side to it?

For generations, people have paid a builder, painter, cleaner, hairdresser or handyman a few euro in cash. Some argue that the black economy keeps money circulating locally, gives people struggling with the cost of living a chance to earn extra income and allows customers to get work done at prices they can actually afford.

So where do you draw the line between someone making a few extra quid and deliberate tax evasion?

And most importantly, would you actually report somebody to Revenue for working cash in hand, or would you say it’s none of your business?

Niall and Eddie Punch debate whether Ireland needs an even tougher crackdown on the black economy, or whether the cash economy is far more important to ordinary people than Government would like to admit.

On this week’s Not Suitable for Broadcast, Niall is joined by his former producer AJ Walsh for a fast moving mix of politics, money, family life, housing and a remarkable story of determination.

They begin with Donald Trump’s expected visit to Ireland and the political backlash already surrounding it. With protests being planned and some politicians saying the US President is not welcome, Niall and AJ ask whether personal hostility towards Trump risks getting in the way of Ireland’s economic interests, particularly given the importance of American investment and jobs. They also debate whether Ireland should roll out the red carpet for an elected US President, regardless of what individual politicians think of him.

Then it is on to children, chores and pocket money. Should kids be paid for tidying bedrooms, washing dishes and taking out the bins, or should helping around the house simply be part of family life? Niall and AJ look at whether paying for chores teaches the value of work and money, or risks creating a generation that expects payment for every contribution.

Energy bills are also under the spotlight after ESB chief executive Paddy Hayes received a €92,000 pay increase, bringing his salary to €410,000, while hundreds of thousands of households are struggling with electricity arrears. Is such a pay rise justified, and should the Government be doing more to reduce energy costs for ordinary households?

The pair also tackle the idea of compulsory voting. Would forcing eligible citizens to take part in elections strengthen democracy and improve turnout, or should the right to vote always include the right to stay at home? They discuss the Australian model, spoiled ballots, fines and whether politicians should be earning people’s votes rather than compelling them to participate.

Housing comes next, with the controversial Dunsink development plan proposing 18,500 homes for more than 46,000 people. But with the wider project dependent on major water and sewage infrastructure costing a combined €7.3 billion, Niall and AJ ask whether the homes are realistically deliverable, whether local services could cope and whether residents are raising legitimate concerns or standing in the way of badly needed housing.

They also debate whether school uniforms should finally be abolished, as parents face growing back to school costs. Are uniforms an outdated and expensive restriction on individuality, or do they still help create equality between children from different financial backgrounds?

And finally, the show ends on an extraordinary story. At the age of 97, Betty Bromage has broken her own record as the world’s oldest female wing walker, completing another daring flight after suffering a stroke last year, all while raising money for the stroke unit at Cheltenham General Hospital.

Politics, arguments, laughs and absolutely no filter. This is Not Suitable for Broadcast with Niall Boylan and AJ Walsh.

Niall talks to Eric Nelligan School Teacher about the fact more than two thirds of parents say they are worried about the cost of school uniforms this year, according to Barnardos’ Back to School Survey 2026.

The online survey gave 704 parents the opportunity to share their concerns about the financial pressures they face as children return to school this autumn.

Some people believe school uniforms should be abolished. They argue that uniforms are outdated, unnecessarily expensive and restrict students from expressing their individuality.

Others say uniforms are essential because they remove visible differences between children from different financial backgrounds and help create a sense of equality and belonging.

Should school uniforms be abolished, or do they still serve an important purpose?

For many families, the cost is not simply a jumper, a shirt and a pair of trousers. Schools can insist on branded crests, specific suppliers, particular jackets, sportswear, shoes and PE kits. Once several children are involved, the bill can quickly run into hundreds of euro.

Parents may also find themselves replacing uniforms during the year because children grow out of them, damage them or lose items. At a time when families are already dealing with rising food, energy, transport and housing costs, is it reasonable for schools to insist on expensive branded clothing?

But what is the alternative?

Would allowing children to wear their own clothes genuinely save parents money, or would it create a new kind of pressure to buy fashionable brands, designer runners and the latest trends?

Uniforms may hide some financial differences, but children are not blind. They can still see who has the expensive phone, the newest shoes or the best schoolbag.

Do uniforms really create equality, discipline and school pride, or are they simply an outdated tradition that places another unnecessary expense on parents?

We want to hear from parents, teachers and students today.

Should schools be required to offer cheaper, generic uniform options? Should crests be removable so clothes can be bought in ordinary shops? Should schools operate second hand uniform schemes?

Or should we go further and abolish school uniforms entirely?

Give us a call and tell us what you think.

Niall speaks to Councillor Gavin Pepper and a local resident from Scribblestown about controversial plans to build a new town at Dunsink in north Dublin.

Fingal County Council’s draft Dunsink Urban Area Plan proposes the construction of 18,500 homes for a population of more than 46,000 people on over 1,000 acres of land beside Finglas, Ashtown, Castleknock and Blanchardstown. Most of the homes would be apartments, with some buildings reaching up to 15 storeys.

However, Uisce Éireann has warned that the full development cannot proceed unless two enormous infrastructure projects are completed: the €6 billion Shannon to Dublin water supply project and the €1.3 billion Greater Dublin Drainage Project.

While the first phase of approximately 2,500 homes could be supported through local upgrades, the remaining 16,000 homes would depend on new water and wastewater infrastructure that may not be operational for several years.

Hundreds of local residents have submitted objections, raising concerns about traffic congestion, pressure on schools and public services, excessive building heights, the loss of recreational facilities and possible health and environmental risks associated with developing land beside the former Dunsink landfill.

Supporters argue that Dublin urgently needs housing and that Dunsink is one of the largest undeveloped areas remaining inside the M50. Opponents question whether it makes sense to approve a town of this scale before the roads, water supply, sewage capacity and essential public services are firmly in place.

Is Dunsink an essential solution to Dublin’s housing crisis, or is the State attempting to build an entire town before the necessary infrastructure exists? And are the concerns of existing communities being properly heard, or are local objections preventing much needed homes from being built?

Niall speaks to financial commentator Karl Deeter about whether Ireland should introduce compulsory voting and require every eligible citizen to participate in elections.

The debate has recently emerged in Britain after Jacob Rees-Mogg said compulsory voting appeared to be becoming a new political battleground, with the idea reportedly supported by think tanks close to Prime Minister Andy Burnham. Rees-Mogg does not fully endorse the proposal, but argues that it is not automatically unreasonable for the State to impose certain civic duties. He compares voting with jury service, where citizens can be legally required to participate for the broader good of society.

Compulsory voting already exists in various forms around the world. Australia has required eligible citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections since 1924, with people who fail to vote without a valid reason potentially receiving a modest fine. Turnout at Australian federal elections has generally remained above 90 per cent. Belgium, Brazil, Argentina, Luxembourg and several other countries also have laws requiring electoral participation, although enforcement and penalties vary considerably. In some countries the requirement is strictly enforced, while in others it exists largely on paper.

Supporters argue that compulsory voting produces governments with a stronger democratic mandate because election results reflect the views of almost the entire electorate, rather than only those who are motivated enough to turn up. They say it could reduce political inequality, as people on lower incomes and younger citizens are often less likely to vote voluntarily. It might also encourage political parties to communicate with the entire population instead of concentrating their efforts on reliable supporters and narrow groups of swing voters.

There is also an argument that voting should be viewed as a civic responsibility, similar to paying taxes or attending jury service. Under this model, nobody would be forced to support a particular candidate. Voters could still spoil their ballot, submit a blank ballot or select a formal “none of the above” option, preserving the right to reject every candidate while still participating in the democratic process.

Critics, however, argue that the right to vote must also include the right not to vote. They say forcing people to attend a polling station turns a democratic freedom into a legal obligation and could result in citizens voting randomly, carelessly or without understanding the issues. Opponents also question whether people should be fined for political disengagement, particularly if they feel that no party or candidate represents them.

There are practical questions too. Would people with illnesses, caring responsibilities or difficulties reaching polling stations be exempt? Would the penalty be a warning, a small fine or something more serious? Would compulsory voting unfairly affect poorer citizens, and would the cost of enforcing it outweigh the democratic benefit?

Ireland already uses proportional representation and allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, but participation remains voluntary. The Electoral Commission is currently examining the factors that influence turnout and political participation, although compulsory voting would represent a major change in how Ireland understands the relationship between citizens and the State.

Niall asks Karl whether compulsory voting would strengthen democracy by ensuring that every section of society is heard, or whether forcing people to participate would undermine the freedom elections are supposed to protect.

Should voting be considered a basic civic duty? Should people be permitted to spoil their ballot rather than choose a candidate? Would compulsory voting force politicians to represent people who currently feel ignored, or would it simply produce millions of reluctant and uninformed votes?

And should the Government concentrate instead on restoring trust in politics and giving people a reason to vote, rather than threatening them with a fine for staying at home?

Niall speaks to Independent Ireland TD Ken O’Flynn about the Government approved decision to award ESB chief executive Paddy Hayes a pay increase of almost €92,000, bringing his annual salary to €410,000.

The increase of 29 per cent was approved by Public Expenditure Minister Jack Chambers following a recommendation from Energy Minister Darragh O’Brien. ESB says the salary reflects the scale and complexity of the organisation and points out that it is the first increase in the chief executive’s salary since 2011. The company reported revenues of €6.73 billion and a pre tax profit of almost €750 million for 2025. Its most recently published detailed liquidity figures also showed approximately €3.1 billion available, including around €1.5 billion in cash and short term deposits, although much of ESB’s funding is required for major investment in electricity networks, renewable energy and infrastructure.

The pay rise comes as a record 322,298 households are in arrears on their electricity bills, representing around 14 per cent, or one in seven, of all domestic electricity customers. More than 186,000 households have been behind on their bills for over 90 days, while the average amount owed has risen to €515.77. A further 185,940 households are in arrears on their gas bills. The latest figures are the highest recorded by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities since its current records began in late 2022.

Niall asks Ken O’Flynn whether it is justifiable to award such a substantial increase to the head of a State owned company while hundreds of thousands of families are struggling to pay for a basic necessity. Is the Government doing enough to reduce electricity prices, should energy credits be restored, and should assistance be targeted directly at households already falling into debt?

With electricity prices still substantially higher than they were before the energy crisis and the colder months approaching, what practical action can the Government take to prevent even more families from being pushed into arrears, threatened with disconnection or forced to choose between heating their homes and paying for other essentials?

Should children be paid for helping around the house, or should chores simply be part of family life?

In this episode, Niall speaks to callers about whether pocket money should be linked to jobs such as tidying bedrooms, washing dishes, taking out the bins, hoovering or helping with the laundry. Some parents believe paying children for chores teaches responsibility, encourages a strong work ethic and helps them understand the value of money. It can also introduce young people to saving, budgeting and the idea that rewards usually come through effort.

Others argue that children are members of the household and should contribute without expecting to be paid every time they lift a finger. They believe ordinary chores teach independence, consideration and the importance of helping the family without constantly asking, “What do I get for it?”

Perhaps there is a middle ground. Everyday jobs such as making the bed or clearing the table could be expected, while larger tasks like washing the car, cutting the grass, cleaning windows or doing extra work could earn a few euro.

Do you pay your children for chores? Does it teach them the value of hard work, or does it create a generation that expects payment for every small contribution? Niall hears from parents, grandparents and callers with very different views on pocket money, household responsibilities and what children should be expected to do.

US President Donald Trump now appears almost certain to visit Ireland for at least two days in September, with preparations already under way for a major security operation. Trump is expected to arrive around 12 September and attend the Irish Open at his golf resort in Doonbeg, County Clare, where he hopes to watch Rory McIlroy compete. The visit is also expected to include engagements in Dublin and a possible meeting with Taoiseach Micheál Martin, although the trip is not currently being treated as a formal State visit.

The political battle has already begun. Labour MEP Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has declared that Trump is “not welcome” in Dublin and says the red carpet should not be rolled out, while protests are expected from several political and activist groups. However, others argue that personal dislike of Trump should not be allowed to damage Ireland’s relationship with its largest trading and investment partner. American companies support hundreds of thousands of Irish jobs, while Ireland’s economic prosperity remains heavily dependent on foreign investment.

In this episode, Niall speaks to journalist John McGuirk from The Statement about the growing controversy. Should Ireland offer Donald Trump an official State welcome, regardless of political differences? Are Irish politicians entitled to declare that the democratically elected American President is not welcome? Could public hostility towards Trump risk damaging jobs, investment and Ireland’s vital relationship with the United States?

Do you welcome President Trump to Ireland, or should the Government tell him to stay away?

BOYLAN & HOOK: NOT SUITABLE FOR BROADCAST

Niall Boylan and legendary broadcaster George Hook join forces once again for a lively, outspoken and unapologetic look at the biggest stories of the week. In this episode, they ask:

Is Climate Policy Just Another Excuse to Tax Us? Is Working for the State Like Winning the Lottery?

You Can Shove Your Tax Cuts Up Your Arse! Should Barney’s One Bite Cost Him His Life?

Are Criminal Solicitors Being Forced to Work for Free? and Will Electric Cars Really Stand the Test of Time? Expect strong opinions, sharp disagreements, humour and the kind of conversation that may not be suitable for broadcast.