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

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.

In this episode, Niall addresses a sensitive and complex topic that raises questions about the boundaries of love, care, and vulnerability. A mother reached out, expressing concerns about her teenage daughter’s situation.The mother describes her daughter, nearly 18, who lives with moderate to severe autism. Her daughter’s condition includes unique challenges, such as intermittent meltdowns and unpredictable behavior. While she experiences periods of stability, her cognitive and social maturity are noticeably younger than her chronological age, with a social understanding closer to that of a 13- or 14-year-old.Listeners are invited to share their thoughts on the question: Would you allow your 17-year-old daughter with autism to date someone who is not on the spectrum?Responses vary. Some callers support a more open-minded approach, believing that individuals with autism, like any teenager, should have the chance to explore romantic relationships. They note that the boyfriend appears caring and genuine in his affection, and argue that her happiness and emotional development deserve nurturing.Others, however, find the situation troubling, particularly given the age difference — a 25-year-old dating a 17-year-old — and the daughter’s autism. They emphasize the potential risks of manipulation and exploitation, underscoring the need for protection, given her vulnerability. In their view, this isn’t just about love; it’s about ensuring her emotional and psychological safety.This discussion explores the complex balance between fostering independence, protecting vulnerable individuals, and ensuring their well-being. It delves into issues of consent, guidance, and the role of parents in supporting safe and fulfilling relationships.Join this thoughtful conversation on dating and relationships in the context of disabilities. It’s a careful look at love, care, and boundaries, offering insights for parents and individuals navigating similar challenges. Don’t miss this episode as Niall and his callers share perspectives on a topic that may shift your understanding of supporting someone with unique needs.

In this episode, Niall examines a divisive issue: whether society is overly lenient with prisoners. The discussion stems from a report in The Journal about Minister Simon Harris's plans to introduce training programs for individuals convicted of minor crimes, with the goal of reducing re-offending and aiding their reintegration into society upon release.As callers share their views, contrasting opinions emerge. Some strongly support Minister Harris's initiative, arguing that offering education and skills training is essential to breaking the cycle of re-offending. They highlight the role of rehabilitation and second chances in fostering a safer, more productive society.Others, however, are skeptical of the proposed programs, particularly for those with minor offenses. They question whether this approach might unintentionally reward criminal behavior and suggest that resources could be better used to support victims and law-abiding citizens.Throughout the conversation, listeners wrestle with questions of justice, rehabilitation, and how to balance punishment with compassion in the criminal justice system.In closing, Niall reflects on the diverse perspectives shared, acknowledging the complexity of the issue. He emphasizes the importance of weighing different viewpoints to address the challenges of rehabilitation and public safety.Listeners are left contemplating the delicate balance between compassion, accountability, and justice in the context of prisoner rehabilitation.

In this episode, Niall addresses a challenging and controversial question: Should people have the right to know if a sex offender lives in their neighborhood? This topic comes from a listener’s email and raises important points about the Gardaí’s role in sharing information about sex offenders in Ireland, especially when there’s a potential risk to the public.Niall explains the legal scope for the Gardaí to reveal details about registered sex offenders, including their name, photo, address, nature of the offense, and assessed risk to the community.As listeners join the discussion, diverse views come forward. Some assert the importance of public awareness for safety and transparency, while others worry about the fear, stigma, and potential vigilantism that publicizing such information might trigger.The debate also touches on finding a balance between safeguarding the public and respecting the rights of those who have served their sentences. While safety remains essential, callers point to the need for effective rehabilitation programs and community support for both offenders and victims.Join Niall for a nuanced exploration of the difficult issues surrounding public awareness and community safety regarding sex offender information.

In this gripping episode, Niall tackles the controversial question: Should animal cruelty lead to prison sentences? Prompted by a recent court case, he explores the shocking story of a family found guilty of severe animal neglect under Ireland’s Animal Health and Welfare Act (AHWA) 2013.Three members of the Reilly family — Michael (27), Martin Snr (43), and Katherine (71) — received combined sentences totaling 13 months after pleading guilty to eight charges related to 17 dogs and 10 puppies. Rescued from horrific conditions on their property in County Tipperary, these animals were found chained, confined in a metal cage, a cattle trailer, and an unsanitary shed. They suffered from malnutrition, dehydration, and untreated health issues, painting a disturbing picture of cruelty.The episode also highlights a shocking case involving an 89-year-old woman sentenced to 20 months in prison for repeatedly abusing animals, despite a lifetime ban on pet ownership. Her continued defiance led to heartbreaking conditions for animals in her care.Listeners call in to debate whether jail time is an effective punishment for animal abusers or if society needs a broader view on animal welfare. Some argue that cruelty to animals should have serious legal consequences, while others, like Steve, challenge the perceived hypocrisy, questioning why society condemns animal cruelty yet supports industries involving animal suffering.Tune in as Niall navigates these complex perspectives, shedding light on the moral, legal, and social questions surrounding animal cruelty.

Niall is joined by Erika Lust, a trailblazer in the world of ethical adult cinema, who is on a mission to revolutionize how we perceive sex on screen. Known for creating films that respect agency and realism, Erika isn’t just focused on breaking stereotypes—she's out to prove that adult cinema can be both artistic and commercially successful. "Sex sells," she explains, "but it doesn’t have to sell people short. We can create adult cinema where characters are relatable, their stories are rich, and sexuality is treated as an authentic, human experience."Throughout their conversation, Erika shares her journey from a political science graduate to a filmmaker committed to ethical storytelling in adult cinema. She reflects on the mainstream industry’s issues, from exploitative labor conditions to the lack of diversity and representation. “Too often, adult content relies on outdated gender roles, objectifying women, and catering to unrealistic fantasies,” she explains. For Erika, ethical cinema is not just about what’s on screen but the way it’s created, emphasizing safe environments, respect, and meaningful narratives: “We put performers at the heart of the story, giving them a voice and choice.”The discussion also addresses society’s discomfort with open sexual expression and how this impacts both viewers and the industry. Erika highlights how sex education—and re-education for adults—is needed to challenge the shame and stigma that persist. "Young people look to adult media for answers," she says, "and what they find often reinforces harmful stereotypes. We need content that shows real, diverse relationships, not just one-sided fantasies."Erika also describes the excitement and community at her live screenings, revealing the surprising demand for adult cinema in a theater setting. "We had 400 people in London last week, all gathered to celebrate sex-positive, artistic cinema. There's an audience craving a deeper, more thoughtful portrayal of sexuality," she shares. For Erika, the goal is to normalize this content as something people can appreciate openly and thoughtfully, not something hidden in shame. She envisions a future where adult films are not only available but respected as a genre, appealing to those who seek more than the typical "tube site" experience.Tune in as Niall and Erika discuss the intersections of ethics, artistry, and intimacy in modern adult cinema, with Erika passionately advocating for a space where people can explore their desires in a way that’s both empowering and genuine. This episode is a thought-provoking journey into the future of adult entertainment, questioning not just what we watch but how we watch it, and how these stories could reshape the landscape of cinema itself.

In this episode, Niall speaks to Robert Colquhoun, Director of International Campaigns for 40 Days for Life. Together, they explore the controversial issue of buffer zones around abortion clinics and the implications for free speech and peaceful assembly. Robert shares the challenges pro-life activists face in the UK and Ireland with the advent of these zones, which he describes as “censorship zones” that inhibit the right to “peacefully, prayerfully, and legally” assemble.Robert discusses how these zones restrict the ability to offer support and information to those considering abortion, noting that “it bans help where it’s needed the most.” He points out that 40 Days for Life’s vigils are peaceful and empathetic, aiming to provide “a simple offer of help” without judgment. He adds, “Silent prayer is actually one of the most effective ways of reaching those who are considering abortion.”The episode also touches on the broader social implications of abortion laws, with Robert warning of a “demographic crisis” in Europe and describing abortion as “not healthcare” but “the ending of a unique and unrepeatable human life.” Reflecting on the power of public witness and the pushback they receive, Robert remarks, “The bias in the media is genuinely extraordinary... the truth could not be further from what’s often portrayed.”Tune in to hear an impassioned discussion on the intersection of free speech, activism, and the complexities surrounding abortion legislation.

In this episode, Niall takes a closer look at the Irish government’s handling of Covid-19, asking Did they get it right, or was it a series of missteps? As the country reflects on the response to the pandemic, some feel the government’s approach warrants more scrutiny.Some callers argue that the government’s response was poorly managed from start to finish. They feel the constant rule changes created more confusion than clarity, and the extended lockdowns left many businesses in ruin. For these callers, the lack of accountability is especially frustrating, and they believe the government is sidestepping the real issues, particularly the impact of restrictions on mental health.Other callers agree that the government acted too slowly at the start and then enforced overly strict lockdowns as a form of overcompensation. They criticize the vaccine rollout as poorly executed and feel that nursing home residents were neglected during the crisis. These callers are skeptical of the inquiry process, believing it will likely avoid addressing the real mistakes made.Niall wraps up by acknowledging the wide range of experiences and frustrations, recognizing the complexity of evaluating the government’s pandemic response.

In this episode, Niall explores a sensitive question: When is the right time to start a new relationship after the death of a partner? A listener reached out, sharing that she’s fallen in love with a friend of her late husband only three months after his passing. Fearing judgment, she’s hesitant to tell anyone about her new relationship and wonders if it’s too soon to move on.Some callers feel that three months is indeed too soon, suggesting that grief can cloud judgment, especially in forming new romantic connections. They believe that the woman might be drawn to someone close to her late husband as a source of comfort, rather than true love. For them, waiting longer could allow her to process her grief fully before entering a new relationship, especially with someone so close to her past.Other callers argue that there’s no fixed timeline for grief or love. If she’s found someone who brings her happiness and understands her pain, then she should follow her heart without worrying about outside opinions. For them, moving forward with her life is a personal choice, and if she’s ready for a new relationship, that decision deserves respect.Niall wraps up by reflecting on the deeply personal nature of grief, acknowledging that moving forward after loss is different for everyone and that only she can determine what feels right.

In this episode, Niall asks, Are the Gardai getting the job done? With the Minister promising increased funding for Garda resources, Niall explores public perspectives on the Gardai’s performance and where these resources should be allocated.Some callers believe the Gardai do a great job with the resources they have, sharing positive experiences in which officers were professional and responsive despite being stretched thin. For these callers, the Gardai genuinely strive to protect communities, and with more support, they could perform even better.Other callers, however, are less impressed, sharing experiences where they felt the Gardai were unresponsive or slow to address issues like antisocial behavior. They argue that the Gardai sometimes prioritize minor issues over more impactful community concerns and suggest that a major overhaul in priorities is needed rather than just increased funding.Niall wraps up by acknowledging the mixed opinions, reflecting on the importance of balanced resource allocation to meet public needs effectively.

In this episode, Niall asks, Should you get paid leave from work for the death of a pet? Inspired by a new law in New York allowing workers paid time off for pet bereavement, the conversation explores whether pets should be recognized as family members deserving of bereavement leave or if this trend is going too far.Some callers think paid leave for pet loss is a great idea, arguing that pets are deeply cherished members of the family. They point out that grieving a pet can be as emotionally taxing as losing a human loved one, and a few days off to cope seems reasonable. These callers feel that if mental health is prioritized in the workplace, pet bereavement should be acknowledged as part of that commitment.Other callers, however, believe paid leave for pet loss is excessive. They feel that while losing a pet is undoubtedly painful, it’s a personal matter that should be managed with existing leave options like personal or holiday days. For them, offering paid leave for pet loss could set an unsustainable precedent, making it hard for businesses to maintain fair policies.Niall wraps up by considering both perspectives, questioning where the line should be drawn when it comes to bereavement in the workplace.

In this episode Niall is asking Should over 70s have to resit the driving test? A toddler was killed by a 91 year old driver unfit to drive. There has been a suggestion over 70s should In this episode, Niall explores the controversial question: Should people over 70 have to resit the driving test? The discussion follows a tragic incident where a toddler was killed by a 91-year-old driver deemed unfit to drive. The incident has sparked a debate about whether older drivers should be required to retake the driving test or even be banned from driving altogether.Some callers believe that over-70s should be required to resit their driving test. They argue that as people age, their reflexes and reaction times slow down, which can impact their ability to drive safely. For these callers, it’s not about ageism, but about public safety. Regular testing would ensure that only those who are still capable of driving remain on the roads, potentially preventing future tragedies.Other callers feel it’s unfair to single out older drivers based on age alone. They argue that many younger drivers are reckless, yet there’s no call for them to retake their driving test. These callers suggest that the focus should be on individual ability and regular health check-ups, rather than blanket testing for all over-70s. For them, driving is a crucial part of maintaining independence for many older people, especially in rural areas where public transport is limited, and a forced retest could lead to isolation.Niall wraps up by weighing the need for safety with the importance of independence for older drivers, highlighting the challenges of finding a fair solution.

In this episode, Niall asks, Should shouting at children be outlawed in Ireland, just like smacking? Psychologists have claimed that shouting is a form of emotional abuse that can be damaging to a child’s mental health and should be banned. The discussion focuses on whether shouting should be made illegal as a disciplinary tactic.Some callers strongly believe that shouting at children should be banned. They argue that, like smacking, shouting can cause long-term emotional harm, instilling fear and anxiety in children. These callers emphasize that calm and respectful communication is far more effective in parenting, and shouting is ultimately damaging. They note that we wouldn’t tolerate such behavior in adult interactions, so it shouldn’t be acceptable when dealing with children.Other callers, however, feel that banning shouting goes too far. They argue that there’s a clear difference between raising your voice out of frustration and actual abuse. Parenting is stressful, and emotions can sometimes get the best of parents. Criminalizing shouting, they argue, would only add unnecessary pressure on families already trying their best. Instead of banning shouting, these callers suggest focusing on offering support and education to parents to help them manage their emotions more effectively.Niall wraps up by acknowledging the complexities of parenting and the debate over discipline, balancing the need for respectful communication with the realities of emotional stress.

In this episode, Niall asks, Would you vote for a convicted criminal in an election? The question arises following convicted criminal Gerry Hutch’s indication that he may run as a candidate in the upcoming General Election. The debate focuses on whether people with criminal records should be allowed to run for public office and if voters would consider supporting them.Some callers express that they would vote for a convicted criminal if the person has shown genuine rehabilitation and is working to make positive changes. They argue that everyone makes mistakes, and if someone has paid their debt to society and can now represent the people well, they shouldn’t be ruled out based on past actions. For these callers, it’s more important to consider a candidate’s current policies and commitment to change rather than their criminal history. They see voting for such individuals as a way to support rehabilitation and redemption.Other callers feel strongly that they could never vote for someone with a criminal record. They argue that politics requires a high level of trust, and someone who has already broken the law may prioritize their own interests over the public’s. These callers believe that allowing convicted criminals to run for office undermines the integrity of politics and sends the wrong message. They emphasize the need for leaders with strong moral character and question whether someone with a criminal past can uphold the standards expected of public officials.Niall wraps up the episode by weighing the arguments on both sides, noting the complex balance between second chances and maintaining trust in political leadership.

In this episode, Niall asks, Should John be arrested for defying the Safe Zone Law? Regular caller John is protesting against abortion outside Cork University Hospital at 12 p.m., even though the new safe zone law, enacted this week, makes such protests illegal. The debate centers on whether John should be arrested for his actions or if he has the right to peacefully protest despite the law.Some callers believe John should be arrested, arguing that the law exists to protect women who are making difficult medical decisions. Protesting outside a hospital where vulnerable individuals are seeking care, including abortions, is seen as harassment. They stress that breaking the law, whether one agrees with it or not, should have consequences, and John is knowingly defying it.On the other hand, other callers argue that John has the right to peacefully protest. They emphasize that protest is a fundamental part of democracy and that arresting John would be an overreach. These callers feel that just because a law is in place doesn’t mean it’s just, and John’s stance against abortion should be protected as a form of free expression.Niall wraps up by reflecting on the balance between enforcing laws and upholding the right to protest, noting that the debate raises important questions about legal limits and personal convictions.

In this episode, Niall Boylan sits down with Paul Tweed, one of the world's most respected and feared defamation lawyers, whose client list boasts names like Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, Harrison Ford, and many Irish politicians. Tweed, with over 35 years of legal experience, takes listeners through his incredible career, discussing everything from scraping his way into Queen’s University during the Troubles in Northern Ireland to becoming an international authority on libel law. His new book, From Hollywood to Hollywood: My Life as an International Libel Lawyer for the Rich and Famous, documents his journey and the high-stakes world of representing A-list celebrities.The conversation delves deep into the challenges of defamation law, with Tweed recounting landmark cases, such as the "Last Chocolate Éclair" case in Northern Ireland and the vicious five-week Barry McGuigan lawsuit. He also highlights the significance of the Reynolds case, which set new standards for journalistic integrity: “The Reynolds case became a marker for libel actions, introducing the seven standards journalists must meet.”Tweed explores the complexities of social media defamation, where anonymity often shields people from legal repercussions. He recalls the lengths his team went to expose an anonymous online troll attacking BBC presenter Stephen Nolan: “We found him and got a six-figure settlement. He had to re-mortgage his house to pay.”AI-generated content, a new battleground for defamation cases, is another key point of discussion. Tweed warns of its dangers, saying, “In 2024, Big Tech is Big Brother. AI can now create indistinguishable human likenesses. Imagine someone using your face, voice, and mannerisms to endorse a scam. The future is frightening.”He also touches on the financial hurdles of defamation lawsuits, especially for the average person, remarking, “Libel courts are not for the faint-hearted or those without deep pockets. Defamation law has become a playground for the rich.”Despite the heavy subject matter, Tweed offers lighter moments, discussing his celebrity clients and the perks of his career, from attending Hugh Hefner’s parties to mingling with stars on Hollywood sets. However, he stresses that most of his clients are more interested in setting the record straight than in chasing massive settlements: “It’s about protecting their brand, not the money.”This episode is a must-listen for anyone intrigued by the world of high-profile legal battles, media law, and the future of online accountability.

In this episode, Niall asks a provocative question: Should every support given to refugees and asylum seekers also be available to Irish citizens? The discussion examines whether it’s wrong to say "look after the Irish first" and whether Irish people struggling with housing, medical care, and financial aid should be prioritized.Some callers firmly believe that Irish citizens should be looked after first. They argue that while it’s important to support refugees, it’s only fair that Irish families, many of whom are struggling with poverty, long medical wait times, and housing shortages, receive equal or greater support. For these callers, it’s about ensuring that the government addresses the needs of its citizens before extending help elsewhere.Other callers discuss the challenge of balancing compassion for refugees with the responsibility to care for Irish citizens. They emphasize that it’s not about rejecting support for refugees but ensuring fairness in how resources are distributed. The conversation revolves around whether it's possible to help both groups without one being neglected.Niall wraps up by reflecting on the complexity of balancing national responsibilities with humanitarian efforts, highlighting the need for a fair approach to supporting everyone in need.

In this episode, Niall examines a controversial question: Should a person receive a longer sentence if their crime is motivated by hate? As the Hate Crime Speech laws return to the Oireachtas today, Niall speaks with Ronan Mullen to explore whether hate-motivated crimes deserve harsher penalties.Callers, feel that increasing sentences based on motive crosses a line. They argue that crimes should be punished based on actions, not thoughts or beliefs. For them, hate crime legislation risks punishing people for what they think rather than what they do. They also raise concerns about the subjectivity of labeling a crime as hate-motivated and believe existing laws on assault, harassment, and violence should apply equally to everyone without introducing complex judgments about intent.Niall wraps up by weighing the balance between protecting communities from hate and ensuring fairness in how we interpret criminal intent.