In this episode, Niall discusses the events that unfolded at the protest in Newtown Mount Kennedy, where journalist Fatima Gunning from Gript Media was pepper-sprayed, and members of the public were manhandled by the gardaí when the riot squad was called in. Minister of Justice Helen McEntee and Taoiseach Simon Harris back Garda handling of protests at the site intended for use as accommodation for IP applicants.The discussion delves into the responses from both the police and the protesters. Niall also explores the broader context of public dissatisfaction with Irish immigration policy, drawing attention to the significant social tensions surrounding the issue. The episode offers a critical look at the state of democracy in Ireland and the increasing divide between the government and the people.Niall concludes by highlighting the urgent need for dialogue and understanding between the government and the public. He emphasizes the importance of addressing public dissatisfaction with immigration policies and calls for a more transparent and accountable approach from authorities.

In this episode, Niall discusses the events that unfolded at the protest in Newtown Mount Kennedy, where journalist Fatima Gunning from Gript Media was pepper-sprayed, and members of the public were manhandled by the gardaí when the riot squad was called in. Minister of Justice Helen McEntee and Taoiseach Simon Harris back Garda handling of protests at the site intended for use as accommodation for IP applicants.The discussion delves into the responses from both the police and the protesters. Niall also explores the broader context of public dissatisfaction with Irish immigration policy, drawing attention to the significant social tensions surrounding the issue. The episode offers a critical look at the state of democracy in Ireland and the increasing divide between the government and the people.Niall concludes by highlighting the urgent need for dialogue and understanding between the government and the public. He emphasizes the importance of addressing public dissatisfaction with immigration policies and calls for a more transparent and accountable approach from authorities.

As you all know Niall Boylan is running for the EU lections in Dublin and today hes asking does voting for a change really work.In democracies globally, a growing number of voters are losing faith in electoral processes. Numerous individuals express frustration, feeling their voices go unheard. Some are gravitating towards political factions with radical populist agendas. This discontent among voters could stem from worsening living standards in Western nations, particularly the steady decline of manufacturing jobs and escalating inequality.These trends contribute to a diminishing trust in democratic institutions. Additionally, the proliferation of mobile internet has played a role, enabling the dissemination of misinformation and bolstering populist movements. Furthermore, it's plausible that elections fall short in delivering the economic improvements voters seek, leading many to question the true impact of electoral participation on their well-being.

In this episode, Niall delves into the question: Would You Allow A Homeless Stranger To Live In Your Home? The topic arises as homelessness continues to increase in Ireland, with many families currently experiencing homelessness. The Irish government has asked citizens to take in Ukrainian migrants into their homes but has not made the same request to help its own citizens who are homeless.Some callers believe that while they sympathize with the plight of homeless individuals, letting a homeless stranger live in their home is not the solution. While it's crucial to address homelessness through systemic changes and increased support services, inviting a stranger into their home poses potential risks to their safety and security. Other ways to support homeless individuals include donating to shelters, volunteering, or advocating for policy changes.Others express that they would indeed let a homeless stranger live in their home. As believers in compassion and helping those in need, they couldn't turn a blind eye to someone who is homeless and in need of shelter. Everyone deserves a safe place to call home, and if they have the means to provide that, they would do so without hesitation. By opening up their home to a homeless stranger, they can make a meaningful difference in someone's life and contribute to addressing the homelessness crisis in their community.The debate about whether to let a homeless stranger live in one's home reflects the complexity of the homelessness crisis. While some are hesitant due to safety concerns, others believe in the importance of compassion and helping those in need. As we continue to grapple with this issue, it's essential to explore various ways to address homelessness and support those who are most vulnerable in our society.

In this episode, Niall discusses the controversial topic of whether children should be allowed in pubs. The discussion was sparked by a UK pub landlord's decision to make his pub a child-free zone.The Lower Red Lion pub in St Albans gained attention after a sign advertising it as "dog-friendly, child-free" went viral. While the pub received messages of support from both the local community and internationally, the policy also sparked debate online.The pub's landlord, David Worcester, defended the policy, stating that he aims to create an environment where his customers can relax without disruption. However, the decision has divided opinions, with some arguing that pubs should be adult-oriented spaces, while others believe that children should be allowed to accompany their families.As Niall opens up the lines to callers, listeners share their views on whether children should be allowed in pubs and how pub owners can strike a balance between catering to adults and families.Some callers think children should not be allowed in pubs. Pubs are adult-oriented establishments where people go to relax, socialize, and enjoy alcoholic beverages. Allowing children in pubs can disrupt the atmosphere and make other patrons uncomfortable. Furthermore, pubs are not suitable environments for children, as they are often crowded, noisy, and may contain hazards such as hot drinks and alcohol. By maintaining a child-free policy, pub owners can ensure that their establishment remains a welcoming space for adults to enjoy without disruption.Others argue that children should be allowed in pubs. Pubs are community spaces where people of all ages should be able to gather and socialize. Banning children from pubs can be exclusionary and unfair to families who may want to enjoy a meal or drink together. Furthermore, children can learn valuable social skills by interacting with adults in a variety of settings, including pubs. Instead of excluding children, pub owners should strive to create a family-friendly atmosphere where everyone feels welcome.The discussion about whether children should be allowed in pubs is ongoing and reflects the diverse opinions within our communities. While some believe that pubs should remain adult-oriented spaces, others argue that families should be able to enjoy these establishments together. As pub owners navigate this issue, it's essential to consider the preferences of their customers and find a balance that works for everyone.

In this episode, Niall opens a controversial topic of welfare reform sparked by recent announcements from the Prime Minister. Rishi Sunak outlined plans to reform the welfare system, emphasizing that unemployment support should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.The proposed reforms include removing benefits for those who refuse job offers after 12 months, tightening the work capability assessment, and reviewing eligibility criteria for benefits such as Personal Independence Payment (PIP).The Prime Minister's announcement has ignited debate, with some arguing that living on welfare should not be a lifestyle choice. They believe that the proposed reforms will incentivize work and reduce long-term dependency on welfare, ultimately benefiting individuals and the economy.However, others argue that welfare benefits are essential for those facing circumstances beyond their control, such as illness, disability, or unemployment. They warn that the proposed reforms risk pushing vulnerable individuals further into poverty and hardship.As Niall opens up the lines to callers, listeners weigh in on whether living on welfare is a lifestyle choice and whether the proposed reforms are the right approach to tackling welfare dependency.

In this thought-provoking episode, Niall delves into the contentious issue of the EU Migration Pact and its implications for national sovereignty.As the European Union grapples with the complexities of migration, questions arise about the balance between collective responsibility and individual sovereignty. The EU Migration Pact, designed to streamline migration policies and address the challenges of asylum seekers, has sparked debate about the extent to which member states are willing to cede control over their borders and immigration procedures.Some callers express concerns that the pact represents a significant erosion of national sovereignty. They argue that by centralizing migration policies and imposing quotas on member states, the EU undermines their ability to make independent decisions about immigration. For these callers, preserving sovereignty is paramount, even in the face of shared migration challenges.Conversely, other callers highlight the benefits of collective action on migration within the EU. They argue that cooperation and solidarity among member states are essential for effectively managing migration flows and addressing humanitarian crises. While acknowledging the importance of sovereignty, these callers emphasize the need for a coordinated approach to migration that balances national interests with broader European values.In wrapping up the discussion, Niall reflects on the diverse perspectives shared by callers and the complex nature of sovereignty in the context of migration policy. As the EU continues to navigate these challenges, the balance between sovereignty and cooperation remains a central issue for member states to consider.

In this episode, Niall tackles the contentious issue of abortion legislation, specifically focusing on the debate surrounding the removal of the three-day wait period. The discussion was ignited by recent parliamentary discussions wherein the Taoiseach addressed concerns regarding abortion care in Ireland.Currently, individuals seeking abortion services in Ireland must adhere to a mandatory three-day wait period following their initial consultation. Proponents of removing this wait period argue that it creates unnecessary barriers for individuals seeking timely healthcare. They emphasize the importance of respecting autonomy and allowing informed decisions about reproductive health to be made without undue delay.Conversely, opponents of removing the wait period assert that it plays a crucial role in ensuring individuals have adequate time to consider their options and make well-informed choices. They argue that abortion is a significant medical procedure with ethical and moral dimensions, and rushing the decision-making process could have serious consequences.As Niall opens the lines to callers, a lively exchange of perspectives ensues. Some callers advocate strongly for the removal of the wait period, highlighting the importance of accessible and timely abortion care. Others express reservations, emphasizing the need for thoughtful consideration and informed decision-making.In concluding the discussion, Niall reflects on the diversity of opinions presented by callers, acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the necessity for careful deliberation in shaping abortion legislation.Join Niall as he navigates this challenging topic, exploring issues of reproductive rights, healthcare access, and ethical considerations surrounding abortion legislation.

Niall spoke to Gary Kavanagh from Gript media about documents provided to Gript under FOI show that senior officials in the Department of Justice believed that amending Article 41 of the Constitution to include non-marital families, as proposed by the Government in a recent referendum, would undermine, or even outright destroy, the ability of the State to operate an effective immigration system.One email seen by Gript shows senior officials in the Department being told that “The State has been able to maintain an immigration system so far precisely because Article 41 is applied to a small, tightly-defined group of people. The State will not be able to regulate immigration if this protection is applied any more widely.”In the last referendum the Government attempted to expand the definition of family in Article 41 to include non-marital families which were based on “durable relationships.” Read the full story here: https://gript.ie/revealed-the-documents-the-state-didnt-want-you-to-see-before-the-referendums/

In this episode, Niall explores the contentious topic of whether religious instruction, including communion and confirmation, should be completely removed from schools. Delving into the complexities of secularism versus religious influence in education, Niall navigates through contrasting perspectives on the matter.In the United States, the separation of church and state is upheld, prohibiting the teaching of religion in public schools to comply with the First Amendment. Meanwhile, in Ireland, Catholicism has traditionally played a significant role in education, sparking debates about the appropriateness of religious teachings in modern society.Some argue for the complete removal of religion from schools, advocating for a secular learning environment that promotes inclusivity and critical thinking. On the other hand, proponents of religious education highlight its cultural significance and moral teachings, emphasizing the value it brings to students' understanding of the world.As callers voice their opinions, passionate arguments emerge on both sides of the debate. Some believe that religious teachings have no place in a modern educational system, while others defend the importance of preserving religious traditions within schools.In wrapping up the discussion, Niall reflects on the diverse viewpoints shared by callers, underscoring the need for nuanced dialogue and consideration of the role of religion in shaping educational practices.Join Niall in this thought-provoking exploration of faith, tradition, and the evolving landscape of education.

In this episode, Niall explores the question of whether juvenile records should be automatically wiped clean at the age of 18. Drawing from the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 in Ireland, Niall delves into the complexities surrounding this issue.Niall opens the lines to callers, inviting listeners to share their perspectives. Some callers advocate for wiping juvenile records clean at 18, emphasizing the importance of giving young offenders a fresh start as they enter adulthood. They argue that retaining juvenile records could unfairly stigmatize individuals and hinder their opportunities for rehabilitation.On the other hand, some callers express reservations about automatically clearing juvenile records at 18. They raise concerns about accountability and the potential consequences of erasing records for serious offenses committed during adolescence. While acknowledging the need for rehabilitation, they suggest that certain offenses may warrant continued disclosure of juvenile records.Throughout the episode, Niall navigates the diverse viewpoints presented by callers. In wrapping up the discussion, he reflects on the insights shared and underscores the importance of finding a balanced approach to addressing juvenile records.

In this episode, Niall explores the contentious issue of whether smoking should be banned to save lives. With smoking being a leading cause of preventable death worldwide, the debate over implementing a smoking ban has garnered significant attention.Niall opens the lines to callers, inviting listeners to share their perspectives on the topic. Some callers advocate strongly for a smoking ban, citing the devastating health effects of tobacco use and the need to protect public health. They argue that banning smoking would not only save lives but also reduce healthcare costs and create a healthier environment for everyone.Conversely, other callers express reservations about implementing a smoking ban, suggesting that prohibition may not be the most effective solution. They raise concerns about the potential for unintended consequences, such as the rise of black market activity, and emphasize the importance of respecting individual freedoms and personal responsibility.Throughout the episode, Niall navigates the diverse viewpoints with empathy and encourages listeners to consider the complexities of the issue. In wrapping up the discussion, he reflects on the insights shared by callers and underscores the importance of ongoing dialogue and consideration when addressing public health challenges.

In this episode, Niall explores the controversial EU Migration Pact and its potential ramifications for immigration laws. The pact, officially titled The New Pact on Migration and Asylum, has sparked intense debate among EU member states, policymakers, and advocacy groups.The show script provides context on the background and key provisions of the pact, highlighting its objectives to address migration challenges while balancing the interests of member states. However, concerns have been raised about the pact's impact on sovereignty, national security, and human rights.Niall opens up the lines to callers, inviting listeners to share their perspectives on the EU Migration Pact. Some callers express deep concerns about the pact, arguing that it could undermine national sovereignty and lead to human rights abuses, particularly in relation to border management and asylum procedures. They emphasize the importance of safeguarding national interests and maintaining control over immigration policies.Throughout the episode, Niall navigates the diverse viewpoints with sensitivity and encourages listeners to critically analyze the implications of the EU Migration Pact on immigration laws and human rights.In wrapping up the discussion, Niall reflects on the insights shared by callers and underscores the importance of ongoing dialogue and scrutiny on complex issues such as immigration policy within the EU.

Join us for a thought-provoking journey into the heart of some of today's most contentious issues as host Niall Boylan engages in a candid conversation with Neil Munro, editor and reporter at Breitbart News. In this episode, they delve deep into the complexities surrounding immigration, transgenderism, and their profound economic implications.From discussing the societal impact of government policies on transgenderism to unraveling the economic motivations behind immigration, Boylan and Munro fearlessly navigate through the nuances of these divisive topics. Munro sheds light on the intricate interplay between government agendas, corporate interests, and societal well-being, offering unique insights into the hidden dynamics shaping our world.Whether examining the economic ramifications of mass immigration or questioning the ethical dimensions of transgender ideology, this episode challenges conventional wisdom and encourages listeners to question the status quo. Tune in to gain a deeper understanding of the forces driving contemporary debates and the underlying truths that often remain obscured.

In this episode, Niall explores the pressing question: Have You Lost Faith in the Government? Recent events and public sentiment indicate a growing dissatisfaction with the current administration, prompting a critical examination of trust and confidence in governmental leadership.Drawing from past discussions and prevailing public opinions, it's evident that many Irish citizens harbor deep reservations about the government's performance and decisions. From controversies surrounding healthcare policies to concerns about transparency and accountability, there's a palpable sense of disillusionment among the populace.Moreover, the impending election of Simon Harris as Taoiseach seems to exacerbate existing discontent. Despite his political stature, Harris faces widespread criticism and skepticism from the public, further eroding trust in the government's ability to address pressing issues effectively.As Niall opens up the lines to callers, listeners are invited to share their perspectives on the state of governance in Ireland. Some may express their loss of faith in the government, citing a lack of responsiveness to citizen needs and failure to deliver on promises. Others may voice concerns about the leadership transition and its implications for the country's future trajectory.Throughout the discussion, Niall navigates the complexities of public opinion with empathy and insight, probing the underlying factors contributing to the erosion of trust in governmental institutions.In the face of mounting dissatisfaction and uncertainty, it's crucial to confront these challenges head-on and seek avenues for rebuilding trust and fostering greater accountability in governance.As the episode draws to a close, Niall reflects on the diverse perspectives shared by callers and emphasizes the importance of ongoing dialogue and engagement in shaping the future of governance in Ireland. Despite the current climate of skepticism, there remains hope for positive change and renewed faith in the government's ability to serve the interests of the people.

In this episode, Niall explores the contentious issue of whether Dublin should prioritize public transport over cars in the city center. The discussion stems from a recent proposal by Dublin City Council and the National Transport Authority to significantly reduce car traffic in the city center, reallocating road space to prioritize public transport, cycling, and walking.According to a report from Dublin City Council, there is overwhelming support for the plan among the public, including a majority of motorists. However, concerns have been raised about the potential impact on accessibility, particularly for older individuals and those living outside the city center.Niall opens the lines to callers, prompting a spirited debate on the topic. Some callers endorse the proposal, citing benefits such as reduced congestion, improved air quality, and a more pedestrian-friendly urban environment. They argue that prioritizing public transport aligns with sustainability goals and promotes healthier modes of transportation.On the other hand, dissenting callers express reservations about the plan, emphasizing the importance of maintaining accessibility for motorists, especially those dependent on cars for work or essential services. They caution against overlooking the needs of all road users and advocate for a balanced approach to urban mobility.Throughout the episode, Niall facilitates a nuanced discussion, encouraging listeners to consider the implications of prioritizing public transport over cars in Dublin's city center. By exploring diverse perspectives, the episode aims to shed light on this complex and timely issue facing urban planners and policymakers.In wrapping up the discussion, Niall reflects on the insights shared by callers and emphasizes the importance of thoughtful consideration and robust debate on such complex urban planning issues.

In this episode, Niall explores the contentious issue of whether a compulsory national DNA database should be instituted. Drawing from recent reports and expert opinions, Niall presents arguments both for and against the implementation of such a database.Referencing a report from the oversight body for the DNA database, chaired by Judge Catherine A Murphy, Niall underscores the database's crucial role in supporting the criminal justice system. Concerns are raised regarding the strain on resources at Forensic Science Ireland (FSI) due to increasing demand and a backlog of DNA samples, particularly from prisoners.Niall invites callers to share their perspectives, sparking a dynamic discussion on the topic. Some callers advocate strongly for a compulsory national DNA database, citing its potential to bolster law enforcement efforts, expedite crime-solving processes, and enhance public safety. They argue that DNA evidence is a formidable tool for identifying suspects and preventing wrongful convictions, ultimately advancing the cause of justice.On the other hand, opposing callers voice staunch reservations about the proposal. They express concerns about privacy infringement, governmental overreach, and ethical considerations. Mandating DNA submissions, they argue, encroaches upon individual liberties and raises significant questions about data privacy and potential misuse by authorities. These callers stress the importance of safeguarding civil liberties and exploring alternative approaches to enhancing law enforcement capabilities.Throughout the episode, Niall facilitates a balanced exchange of viewpoints, encouraging listeners to critically assess the implications of a compulsory national DNA database on societal values, privacy rights, and the pursuit of justice.In concluding the discussion, Niall reflects on the diverse perspectives shared by callers and underscores the need for thoughtful deliberation and robust debate on complex societal issues.

In this compelling interview, Niall engages in a thought-provoking discussion with Niamh Uí Bhriain, Editor at Gript Media, about a recent article she authored regarding a concerning abortion scandal in Ireland.The article sheds light on a shocking case uncovered by Gript, where a woman's life was endangered due to the failure to provide ultrasounds before prescribing abortion pills. Medical experts have warned that this practice, which neglects to screen for ectopic pregnancies, could lead to maternal deaths. Despite the gravity of the situation, there has been a conspicuous absence of media coverage and accountability from government officials.Niamh elaborates on the critical importance of ultrasounds in assessing pregnancy and ruling out ectopic pregnancies, emphasizing that this essential medical procedure should not be overlooked in abortion care. She highlights the government's refusal to include an ultrasound provision in abortion legislation, citing political motivations that prioritize ideology over women's health and safety.Throughout the interview, Niall and Niamh delve into the broader implications of this alarming case, discussing media bias, political resistance to change, and the urgent need for transparency and accountability in abortion provision. They also explore the role of alternative media outlets like Gript in uncovering stories that mainstream media often overlooks.As the conversation unfolds, Niall guides the discussion with insightful questions, allowing listeners to gain deeper insights into the complexities surrounding abortion policy and healthcare practices in Ireland.In concluding the interview, Niall reflects on the significance of investigative journalism in exposing critical issues and advocating for change. He encourages listeners to remain vigilant and engaged in advocating for women's health and safety in abortion care.

Join us for a thought-provoking discussion with Kevin Lister, a former teacher whose career took an unexpected turn due to his stance on gender identity issues in the classroom. In this podcast episode, Kevin shares his experiences and insights into the challenges of navigating the educational landscape amidst the growing influence of gender ideology.Kevin provides a candid account of his teaching approach, emphasizing his commitment to maintaining professionalism and respecting student confidentiality. He discusses his reluctance to adhere to compelled speech regarding gender pronouns, citing concerns about freedom of expression and ideological imposition.The conversation delves into the legal ramifications of Kevin's dismissal and his ongoing efforts to challenge the decisions made by regulatory bodies. Through his involvement with the Bad Law Project, Kevin highlights the potential violations of educational standards and the broader implications for academic freedom.Drawing parallels with historical religious indoctrination, Kevin explores the societal shifts in belief systems and the complexities of identity formation, particularly among young people. He reflects on the emotional toll of losing his teaching career and expresses empathy for students navigating issues of gender identity.Despite facing criticism and harassment, Kevin remains steadfast in his beliefs and advocates for open dialogue and critical thinking in educational settings. This podcast offers a nuanced perspective on the intersection of education, ideology, and individual rights in contemporary society.Tune in to gain valuable insights into the evolving discourse surrounding gender identity in education and the challenges faced by those who dare to question the status quo.

In this episode, Niall tackles the contentious issue of whether transgender competitors should be permitted to enter women's competitions. The discussion stems from a recent incident at the World Irish Dancing Championships where a biologically male dancer won a medal that would have otherwise gone to a female competitor.The situation has sparked significant debate, with many expressing concerns about fairness and the integrity of women's sports. Critics argue that allowing transgender competitors to participate could provide them with physiological advantages, potentially disadvantaging biological female athletes and disrupting the level playing field.On the other hand, proponents of inclusion emphasize the importance of respecting gender identity and creating inclusive spaces in sports. They argue that denying transgender individuals the opportunity to compete based on their gender identity is discriminatory and unfair.Throughout the episode, Niall opens up the lines to callers who share their diverse perspectives on the issue. Some callers strongly oppose allowing transgender competitors in women's competitions, citing concerns about fairness and biological differences. Others advocate for inclusivity, arguing that transgender athletes should be allowed to compete as long as they meet the same eligibility criteria as other competitors.As the discussion unfolds, Niall navigates the complexities of the topic with sensitivity and impartiality, acknowledging the validity of different viewpoints. In wrapping up, he encourages listeners to continue engaging in constructive dialogue and emphasizes the importance of promoting diversity and inclusivity in sports.