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

In this final live show of 2024, Niall invites listeners to reflect on the year’s news stories that had the greatest impact—those that sparked anger, brought laughter, or even moved them to tears. From major global events to local dramas, callers share their personal highs and lows, revealing which headlines stuck with them most and why. As we close out another year, join us in looking back at the moments that defined 2024, celebrating the good, acknowledging the bad, and learning from it all.

In this episode, Niall examines a contentious development in Athlone, where local representatives mounted a successful High Court challenge against a Ministerial Order aimed at rapidly expanding refugee accommodations. The State conceded, declaring the project an “unauthorised development.” This case raises a fundamental question: If local communities say "not in our area," who decides where refugees live? Niall speaks to Cllr. Paul Hogan to get an update on the situation and to understand what the court’s decision means for the community and the refugees involved. With these new legal developments in mind, we ask whether the voices of local residents should dictate who settles in their area. Some callers argue that the concerns of local residents should be taken seriously. They stress that communities understand their own limitations—whether it’s housing availability, schools, healthcare services, or general infrastructure. For them, it’s not about opposing refugees; it’s about ensuring adequate support and resources for everyone. Others believe that turning refugees away, especially after they have fled conflict or hardship, is not acceptable. They insist that every community should do its part and that compassion should guide policy. If each area refuses to host newcomers, where can vulnerable individuals go? The government and local authorities need to find a balance that respects local concerns without abandoning people in need. Niall closes by reflecting on the complexities of balancing local input, resource allocation, and moral obligations, leaving listeners to decide where fairness and responsibility truly lie.

In this episode, Niall examines the debate surrounding Ireland’s first medically supervised injection center for drug users. Set to open shortly in Dublin and operated by Merchants Quay Ireland as a pilot project, this facility represents a significant shift in the country’s approach to drug use. Based on models seen in countries like Switzerland and Canada, these centers aim to provide a safe, sterile environment with trained medical staff on hand to prevent overdoses, reduce the spread of disease, and potentially guide users toward treatment. Some callers support the idea, arguing that medically supervised injection centers save lives. They believe providing a controlled environment prevents users from injecting in unsafe conditions, reduces the risk of fatal overdoses, and offers a bridge to addiction treatment programs. In their view, this approach is about harm reduction, not encouraging drug use. Others strongly oppose the concept, insisting it enables illegal drug use rather than discouraging it. They worry these centers send the wrong message by giving addicts a state-sanctioned place to break the law. Instead of focusing on safer injection facilities, these callers believe resources should be directed toward prevention, education, and rehabilitation initiatives that help users get clean rather than continue their habit. Niall wraps up the episode by acknowledging the complex ethical and practical concerns, leaving listeners to consider whether these facilities represent compassionate harm reduction or a step too far in normalizing drug use.

In this episode, Niall tackles a divisive topic: Does the number of past sexual partners—often called “body count”—really matter when it comes to choosing a long-term partner? The conversation stems from a listener’s email detailing tension with his girlfriend after learning about her sexual history. He admits feeling shocked and “appalled,” and wonders if he’s too old-fashioned or justified in his reaction. Some callers argue that a high body count signals potential issues with commitment or stability, suggesting that everyone has the right to set their own standards in a relationship. For them, knowing a partner’s sexual past is relevant to their comfort and sense of security going forward. Others reject the idea that body count should matter at all, insisting that past experiences shouldn’t define a person’s worth. They emphasize that what matters most is honesty, respect, and who a person is today, not how many partners they had in the past. Judging someone based solely on their sexual history, they say, is outdated and unfair. Niall concludes by examining the complexity of personal preference, societal expectations, and the double standards that often influence how we judge others’ pasts.

In this episode, Niall tackles a sensitive family matter: Is a husband being selfish for refusing to let his ailing mother-in-law move into their home? A listener wrote in, explaining that her 76-year-old mother lives alone and is beginning to struggle with her health. The daughter suggested having her mother move in so they can provide care, but her husband is adamant that his mother-in-law should go to a nursing home instead. Some callers believe the husband is being selfish. They argue that when parents become vulnerable, family members should step in. For them, bringing the mother-in-law into the family home is a compassionate choice that ensures she receives the support and care she needs. It’s about honoring a parent’s role and repaying the love and care given throughout a lifetime. Other callers feel the husband’s stance might be more practical than selfish. They point out that caring for an elderly parent can place significant emotional, financial, and physical strain on a household. Some families simply don’t have the capacity to provide the care an elderly person requires, and a nursing home—while difficult to consider—may offer the professional support and resources needed. Niall wraps up by reflecting on the complexity of family obligations, the burdens of caregiving, and what it truly means to look after loved ones as they age.

In this episode, Niall speaks with Cllr. Paul Hogan about the heated controversy surrounding the new temporary accommodation center at Lissywollen, Athlone. The government plans to house up to 1,000 single adult males in tents and modular units on an 11-acre site, but the decision has drawn significant criticism from local residents and elected officials, who feel blindsided by the lack of consultation and concerned about the strain on already stretched resources.

In this episode, Niall asks a pressing question: When the war in Ukraine ends, should the refugees who’ve made Ireland their home be allowed to stay, or should they return to their homeland? As predictions suggest the conflict may soon end, the conversation turns to what happens next for those who sought refuge here. Some callers argue that Ukrainian refugees have already begun building new lives in Ireland, integrating into local communities, finding employment, and contributing to society. For them, sending people back right after the war ends could be both traumatic and counterproductive, especially if stability in Ukraine takes time to return. Allowing those who’ve settled here to remain would demonstrate compassion and recognize the value they bring. Others, however, believe that refugee status should remain temporary. Once the danger is over, they say, Ukrainians should return home to rebuild their country. These callers emphasize that Ireland’s resources are limited and that permanent residency should not be granted automatically. Instead, the focus should be on helping them safely return and encouraging the restoration of their own nation. Niall concludes by acknowledging the complexities surrounding humanitarian principles, resource allocation, and the meaning of temporary refuge, leaving listeners to consider how best to balance compassion, fairness, and long-term planning.

In this episode, Niall asks if parents are going overboard with Christmas spending on their children. A listener contacted the show, saying her sister plans to spend over €1,300 on an iPhone for her 13-year-old daughter—a move she finds wasteful and spoiling. Is this an example of excessive gifting, or is it just a sign of changing times? Some callers argue that parents today spend far too much, worrying that expensive gadgets create unrealistic expectations and overshadow the true spirit of the holidays. For them, Christmas should be about family time, not flashy presents. Others see nothing wrong with splurging if parents can afford it. They believe that it’s each family’s personal choice how to celebrate and that expensive gifts might simply reflect the world kids are growing up in. Niall wraps up by acknowledging the tension between tradition and modernity, as listeners grapple with how much is too much when it comes to decking the halls with pricey gifts.

In this episode, Niall confronts a harrowing personal encounter with a drunk driver who wreaked havoc on the motorway, nearly causing multiple fatalities. The incident raises a critical question: should drink driving lead to an automatic lifetime ban, or even jail time? As the conversation unfolds, some callers argue that drunk driving is too dangerous to treat lightly and believe a lifetime ban, coupled with possible jail sentences, is the only real deterrent. After all, no one should have to fear for their life because someone chose to drink and drive. Others, however, feel that while the behavior is reprehensible, a lifetime ban is too extreme. They advocate for a more balanced approach, suggesting mandatory rehabilitation, tougher temporary bans, and financial penalties. These callers worry that making punishments absolute might discourage individuals from seeking help. Niall concludes the episode by acknowledging the intense emotions surrounding this issue and the complexity of crafting effective, just policies.

In this episode, Niall asks, Should employers be legally obliged to pay a Christmas bonus? With the festive season and cost of living pressures in full swing, the debate centers on whether bonuses should be a mandatory show of appreciation or remain at the discretion of employers. Some callers argue that Christmas bonuses should be a legal requirement, as they represent more than just money—they are a gesture of gratitude for employees’ hard work. For these callers, bonuses help cover the additional expenses of the season and boost morale, particularly during tough economic times. Other callers believe that forcing businesses to pay bonuses is unreasonable, especially for smaller companies that may already be struggling. They contend that bonuses should depend on company performance and financial capacity, not be enforced by law. For them, while bonuses are a nice gesture, making them mandatory could harm businesses in the long run. Niall wraps up by reflecting on the balance between employee appreciation and business realities, noting the complexities of legislating workplace practices.

In this episode, Niall addresses a listener’s heartbreaking dilemma: What would you do if your spouse stole money to fund your children’s Christmas gifts? With the cost of living crisis weighing heavily on families, one husband resorted to theft, leaving his wife torn between protecting her family’s integrity or risking their Christmas joy. Some callers argue that theft is theft, no matter the intention. They believe the toys should be returned, and the husband must repay the money to avoid jeopardizing the family’s future. For these callers, integrity and accountability come first, and ignoring this behavior sets a dangerous precedent. Other callers sympathize with the husband, seeing his actions as an act of desperation to provide for his children. They suggest focusing on moving forward as a family, emphasizing that returning the toys may cause more harm than good. For them, this is an opportunity to rebuild trust and address financial struggles after the holidays. Niall wraps up by reflecting on the challenges families face during tough times, highlighting the balance between accountability and compassion.

In this episode, Niall explores the challenges of living with a gambling addict, asking, Can a gambler be trusted again? The conversation is inspired by an emotional email from a listener whose husband relapsed into gambling and lost their Christmas savings. With three young children and a history of broken promises, she wonders whether to give him another chance or end the marriage for the sake of her family. Some callers argue that gambling destroys families and that this listener has already gone above and beyond by giving her husband multiple chances. They believe the trust is irreparably broken and that she should focus on protecting her children and her own well-being rather than trying to save someone who isn’t willing to change. Other callers emphasize that addiction is a disease and that her husband needs professional help, not abandonment. They suggest that if he’s genuinely willing to seek counseling or attend Gamblers Anonymous, she should consider working with him to rebuild trust for the sake of their family. Niall wraps up by reflecting on the complexities of addiction, trust, and forgiveness, acknowledging the difficult choices faced by families in such situations.

In this episode, Niall examines the controversial topic of euthanasia, asking, Is it a slippery slope, or do people have the right to die? Following the UK Parliament's recent vote to legalize euthanasia through the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the discussion turns to whether Ireland should consider similar legislation. Some callers support legalizing euthanasia, arguing that it allows people to die with dignity and make choices about their own lives, especially when facing unbearable pain from terminal illnesses. For these callers, it’s a matter of compassion and respecting individual autonomy. Others, however, view euthanasia as a dangerous slippery slope. They worry about the potential for abuse and vulnerable individuals being pressured into ending their lives. For these callers, life is sacred, and the state should focus on improving palliative care rather than legalizing assisted death. Niall wraps up by weighing the ethical, medical, and societal implications, highlighting the deeply personal and divisive nature of the debate.

In this episode, Niall examines the complexities of forgiveness and blame in relationships, asking, If your partner cheated, would you forgive them, or is betrayal always unforgivable? Inspired by Dee Devlin’s public support of Conor McGregor after his High Court verdict, the discussion also questions whether it’s fair to blame "the other woman" in such situations. Some callers commend Dee for her loyalty and strength, saying that relationships are about working through tough times. They argue that forgiveness is key in any partnership, and if Dee believes staying with Conor is best for her family, her decision should be respected. For these callers, working through betrayal can ultimately make a relationship stronger. Other callers, however, feel cheating is the ultimate betrayal and shows a complete lack of respect. They argue that Dee’s forgiveness sends the wrong message, allowing further disrespect and diminishing her self-worth. For them, betrayal like this is unforgivable and staying in such a relationship only leads to more pain. Niall wraps up by exploring the delicate balance between love, loyalty, and personal boundaries in the face of infidelity.

In this episode, Meet The Candidates, with the general election just two days away, we invited a diverse group of candidates to share their visions and make their case for your vote. From Independents to party leaders, hear from those seeking to represent constituencies across Ireland. 1. Linda De Courcy Independent Ireland 2. Peadar Tóibín Td Leader Of Aontú 3. Peter Dooley Independent Dublin Bay South 4. Mattie Mcgrath Td Independent Tipperary 5. Cllr Malachy Steenson Independent Dublin Central 6. Cllr Gavin Pepper Independent Dublin North West 7. Hermann Kelly Leader Irish Freedom Party 8. Aisling Considine Aontú Dublin South Central 9. Dr. Gerry Waters Irish Freedom Party Kildare North 10. Ryan Mckeown Independent Ireland Louth Join us as we discuss their platforms, priorities, and why they believe they deserve your support.

In this episode, Niall dives into the public reaction to Conor McGregor’s latest legal troubles. A High Court jury recently awarded €248,603 in damages to a woman who claimed she was assaulted by McGregor in a Dublin hotel in 2018. McGregor denied the allegations, asserting that their encounter was consensual, but the case has sparked intense debate about his behavior and reputation. Some callers defend McGregor, arguing that he’s been under constant public scrutiny, with people waiting for him to slip up. They feel the level of criticism he faces is disproportionate and that he doesn’t deserve this extent of public shaming, especially since the courts didn’t find him guilty of everything alleged. Other callers strongly criticize McGregor, saying his behavior has been out of control for years and that this case is a reflection of how far he has fallen. They believe he’s no longer the role model Ireland once admired and see this verdict as a wake-up call for him to face accountability for his actions. Niall wraps up by reflecting on McGregor’s polarizing legacy, highlighting the tension between his fame and fortune and the growing concerns about his public conduct.

On today’s show, Niall spoke with several candidates running in the upcoming election. According to The Irish Times, support for Fine Gael has plummeted just days before the general election. The latest Irish Times/Ipsos B&A opinion poll reveals that Fine Gael’s share of the vote has dropped by six points in less than two weeks, following a campaign marked by missteps. The party now trails both Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin. As the final days of the campaign unfold, and with tomorrow night’s three-way televised leaders' debate, the three largest parties are neck-and-neck, separated by just two percentage points. Based on the latest figures—excluding undecided voters—Fianna Fáil stands at 21% (up two points), Sinn Féin at 20% (up one), and Fine Gael at 19% (down six). Among smaller parties, the Green Party has reached 4% (up one), Labour is at 4% (down one), the Social Democrats at 6% (up two), People Before Profit at 3% (up one), and Aontú remains steady at 3%. Independents, including Independent Ireland, are at 17% (down three points). Notably, undecided voters have risen to 19% (up three points). The top issues influencing voters include the cost of living (31%), housing prices (18%), and health (16%). Other key concerns include the economy (7%), immigration (7%), renting costs (6%), climate (5%), law and order (5%), and taxation (3%). We also want to give voice to independent and smaller party candidates, who often don’t receive adequate coverage in mainstream media. If you’re running for election or supporting a candidate, let us know! We’ll do our best to feature you today or Wednesday. This invitation extends to candidates from all parties, including the main ones. With the election set for Friday, here’s the big question: Do you believe there’s potential for real change, or are we looking at another five years of the status quo?

In this episode, Niall tackles a divisive question: was a woman right to involve the Garda after noticing an elderly man sitting in a park and watching children? The debate stems from a listener’s email, sharing his conflicted feelings about his wife's decision and the assumptions behind it. The email describes how the woman, feeling uneasy about the man’s presence, reported him to the authorities out of concern for the children’s safety. Her husband, however, wonders if the man was simply a lonely individual seeking company rather than a cause for alarm. As the conversation unfolds, callers offer contrasting views on the situation. Some defend the woman’s actions, arguing that safeguarding children should always take precedence. Others question whether the response was fair, cautioning against rushing to judgment and the harm it can cause to innocent people. Through a series of heartfelt opinions, the episode examines the fine line between vigilance and unwarranted suspicion, leaving listeners with much to consider about responsibility, perception, and fairness in public spaces.

In this powerful episode, Niall addresses a difficult question: Would You Report Your Own Child for Selling Drugs? The discussion arises from a recent story of a mother’s agonizing decision to alert the Gardaí about her son's significant cannabis stash. Senior counsel Tom Creed calls for leniency, highlighting the young man’s efforts to reform, while Judge Dara Hayes commends the mother’s crucial intervention in potentially saving her son from a dangerous future. The story recounts a dramatic moment when Garda Chris Campbell responds to a distress call from Margaret Kennelly, fearing for her teenage son’s life as he spirals into drug abuse. The discovery of €25,500 worth of cannabis becomes central to a legal case that stirs profound questions about privacy, tough love, and the complicated nature of family bonds. Callers weigh in with diverse perspectives. Some sympathize with the mother, recognizing the seriousness of drug issues but questioning whether involving authorities is an invasion of privacy. They advocate for addressing societal factors driving drug abuse. Others argue that hard choices, like reporting a child, are sometimes necessary to prevent greater harm, emphasizing the importance of personal accountability. Tune in as this episode explores the delicate balance of parental responsibility, privacy, and the harsh realities families face in dealing with drug-related issues.

In this episode, Niall addresses the divisive question of whether a compulsory national DNA database should be established. Drawing on recent reports and expert opinions, he presents both sides of the argument surrounding this potential database. Referring to a report from the oversight body for the DNA database, led by Judge Catherine A Murphy, Niall emphasizes the database’s importance to the criminal justice system. However, he also highlights concerns over the strain on resources at Forensic Science Ireland (FSI), which faces a backlog of DNA samples, particularly from prisoners, due to rising demand. The episode features a range of perspectives from callers. Some are in favor of a mandatory DNA database, pointing out that it could strengthen law enforcement, speed up crime-solving, and enhance public safety. Supporters argue that DNA evidence is a powerful tool for identifying suspects and preventing wrongful convictions, thereby advancing justice. Conversely, other callers express serious concerns about the idea. They argue that mandatory DNA submissions infringe on individual privacy, increase government surveillance, and pose ethical challenges. For these callers, the prospect raises troubling questions about data privacy, potential misuse by authorities, and the protection of civil liberties. Niall skillfully navigates this complex topic, fostering a balanced exchange that invites listeners to weigh the broader implications of a national DNA database on privacy, rights, and justice. As the episode concludes, Niall reflects on the array of viewpoints, emphasizing the need for thoughtful discussion and careful consideration of these profound societal issues.