Episodes
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Do you feel safe walking Irelandâs streets?
Official figures suggest that overall crime rates in Ireland have gone down in recent years. Yet many people say they feel less safe than ever, especially with videos of random assaults and antisocial behaviour spreading quickly on social media. Are we really more at risk â or are we just seeing more of it online?
Some callers said they no longer feel safe, blaming groups of teenagers hanging around, filming attacks for views, and knowing there are few real consequences. Others pointed to immigration and claimed certain areas feel more intimidating than they did before.
Some still believe Ireland is safe compared to other places, arguing that fear is often amplified by viral clips that do not reflect most peopleâs daily reality. They said using common sense still keeps you safe.
Others said the real problem is trust in the system. They argued that soft sentences and a lack of Garda presence make people feel abandoned and fearful, no matter what the statistics say.
As Niall points out, this is not just about numbers. It is about whether ordinary people trust that they and their families are safe in the streets where they live.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Should you contest an unfair will, even if it risks tearing the family apart?
A listener got in touch after learning she was left a much smaller share than her siblings in her fatherâs will. Now she wants to know if she should fight for what she feels is fair or stay silent to keep the peace.
Some callers said she should absolutely contest it if there is no good reason for the unequal share. They argued that standing up for yourself is not about greed but about protecting your rights and not letting resentment fester for years.
Others warned that challenging a will can ruin relationships forever. They said money is not worth losing family over and that fighting it could create bitterness that never heals.
Some callers felt that right or wrong, a will should be respected as the personâs final decision. They said family is more important than any inheritance and sometimes it is better to let it go.
As Niall points out, this is not just about money. It is about family ties, respect for a loved oneâs last wishes, and deciding when to let things lie or when to stand your ground.
-
Episodes manquant?
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Should Ireland lower the age of consent to 16?
There have already been suggestions about reducing the voting age, with arguments that young people today are mature enough to decide at 16. On the same basis, some believe the age of consent should match the EU average and be lowered from 17 to 16. Would this protect teenagers better or put them at greater risk?
Some callers supported lowering it, saying teenagers are already sexually active and that the current law just ignores reality. They argued that aligning with the rest of Europe would remove unnecessary stigma and better protect young people in normal relationships.
Others were firmly against it. They said sixteen-year-olds are still too young and vulnerable and lowering the age makes it easier for adults to take advantage of them. Some warned that instead of protecting teenagers, it would lower safeguards and open the door to exploitation.
As Niall points out, this debate is not just about numbers on paper. It is about trust, maturity, and what it really means to protect young people in todayâs world.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Does Ireland really need a president?
With new presidential hopefuls putting their names forward, some are questioning whether the office still serves any real purpose. Is the president an important neutral figure for the country, or just an expensive tradition Ireland can no longer justify?
Some callers said the role is a waste of taxpayer money. They argued the Taoiseach runs the country and the president is mostly there for ceremonies and photo opportunities. In their view, the funds could be better spent on services like housing or healthcare.
Others said the presidency is more than just symbolic. They pointed out that the president plays a vital role as guardian of the Constitution, with powers to refer laws and act as a final check on government overreach. Some callers said having a unifying figure above party politics helps keep the country together, especially in difficult times.
As Niall points out, this debate goes beyond cost. It is about identity, trust, and whether Ireland still values a head of state who stands above the political fray.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Should Irish citizens living abroad or in Northern Ireland have the right to vote in Irish elections?
Sinn FĂ©in has put forward a motion to extend voting rights in presidential elections to Irish citizens overseas and in the North. Supporters say it would honour the global Irish community and reflect modern realities. Opponents argue that voting should be reserved for those who live, work, and pay tax in Ireland.
Some callers said voting must be tied to residency. They felt people living abroad are too disconnected from daily life in Ireland to influence decisions that donât affect them directly. Others raised concerns about security, fraud, and voters basing choices on outdated views.
But others passionately supported the motion, saying Irishness doesn't end at the border. They pointed to the importance of the diaspora in shaping Irelandâs story and said presidential elections are largely symbolic. One caller argued that excluding Irish citizens in Northern Ireland is especially unjust.
As Niall points out, the debate raises deep questions about identity, participation, and what it really means to belong to a nation â even from afar.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: If your landlord gave you 30 days to get rid of your dog or face eviction, what would you do?
We received an emotional email from a woman whose landlord found out she had a dog in breach of her lease. Now sheâs been given a choice â rehome the dog or lose her home. Her husband says the dog has to go, but she refuses. The story has sparked debate about responsibility, rules, and the bond people have with their pets.
Some callers said the answer is clear. As much as they love animals, no one should risk losing their home over a pet. Others argued that when you sign a lease, you agree to the terms, and breaking those terms has consequences.
But many callers took the womanâs side. They said pets are more than animals â they are family. Some argued that landlords should show compassion, especially when renters have limited options. Others called for legal changes to protect tenants with pets.
As Niall points out, this is about more than just a lease or a dog. Itâs about housing, dignity, and the limits of what people are expected to give up just to keep a roof over their head.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Do you oppose all immigration, or just illegal entry?
The media often labels protestors as anti-immigrant, but many say they are only against illegal immigration. So where do you draw the line? Is it fair to oppose immigration entirely, or is the real issue how it is managed?
Some callers said they have no problem with legal immigration. They support people who come to Ireland through the proper channels, contribute to society, and follow the rules. What they oppose is abuse of the system, such as fake claims, destroyed documents, or overstayed visas.
Others said even legal immigration has gone too far. They pointed to overcrowded hospitals, a housing crisis, and overwhelmed schools. For them, the issue is not about how people arrive but how many are arriving. They believe Ireland simply cannot absorb more people, regardless of their status.
As Niall points out, this conversation is no longer just about border control. It is about public trust, national capacity, and the fear that raising these concerns comes with a label.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Should Ireland bring in welfare payment cards?
We received an email from a listener who suggested that welfare payments should be issued on a card that can only be used for essentials like food and clothing. The card would block spending on alcohol, cigarettes, or gambling. Supporters say it ensures taxpayer money is spent responsibly. Critics say it is insulting and strips people of basic dignity.
Some callers agreed with the idea. They said State support should be used for essentials and argued that a card system would help protect families, especially where addiction is involved. They felt the measure was about accountability, not punishment.
Others disagreed, saying the proposal treats welfare recipients like children and unfairly assumes the worst of them. Some warned that it could lead to even tighter restrictions and punish people who already use their payments responsibly.
As Niall points out, this debate is not just about how people spend money. It is about how much control the State should have over private lives and whether help should come with conditions.
-
In this hard-hitting episode, Niall sits down with Dr. Gerry Quinn and Dr. Ronan Connolly to unpack one of the most controversial scientific papers published since the pandemic began. Titled What Lessons Can Be Learned from the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic, their work challenges the mainstream response to Covid-19 from multiple anglesâlockdowns, vaccines, data manipulation, and the silencing of dissent.
Niall reflects on his own experience during the pandemic, revealing he was nearly fired not for voicing an opinion, but for letting guests question the official narrative. "I was threatened, not by my employers, but by outside forces who didnât want these conversations aired," he says. The episode sets out to revisit the core claims made during the pandemic and interrogate which of them have stood up to scrutiny.
Dr. Gerry Quinn admits he initially believed the official warnings. But when early policy proposals made no immunological sense, alarm bells rang. "They were proposing things that just didnât add up," he recalls. "Infection control standards I had used in HIV labs were being completely ignored in public health measures."
Dr. Ronan Connolly breaks down how pandemic modelling became detached from reality. He explains that many of the early models were based on outdated mathematical frameworks with almost no grounding in biology or human behavior. âThe same models could be run with any new virus and theyâd spit out the same terrifying results,â he says. He also points out that excess mortality was lower than predicted in many regions, suggesting the scale of the threat had been overstated.
The episode pulls no punches on vaccine policy either. Both doctors raise serious concerns about how traditional treatments like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were shut down, while experimental mRNA technology was fast-tracked without the usual safety thresholds. âI personally donât think it should have been released,â says Dr. Quinn. âToo many unknowns. Any other drug with that level of uncertainty would never have been approved.â
They also expose the uniformity of lockdown measures across countries as evidence of top-down coordination. âThese policies were almost identical worldwide. That doesnât happen by accident,â says Dr. Quinn. He suggests international bodies may have shaped national strategies more than people realize.
The paper at the heart of the conversation is backed by 37 scientists and academics, including Dr. Robert Malone, one of the inventors of mRNA technology. The group argues that fear was prioritized over facts, debate was suppressed, and honest scientists were punished for speaking out.
âScience only works when people disagree,â says Dr. Connolly. âThe biggest failure wasnât the lockdowns or the masks or the modeling. It was the refusal to let anyone question the answers we were being given.â
This episode is a must-listen for anyone who wants to understand what went wrong, why so many were silenced, and how to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated.
The full scientific paper is linked in the episode notes.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Should GardaĂ be allowed to tell potential partners if someone has a history of domestic violence?
There have been calls for a new law that would let GardaĂ share information about individuals whoâve been accused â or convicted â of domestic abuse. Supporters say it could save lives. Critics argue itâs an invasion of privacy and undermines the principle of âinnocent until proven guilty.â
Some callers said itâs a no-brainer: If someone has a pattern of abuse, especially if convicted, new partners deserve to know. Others were more cautious, warning that unfounded accusations could ruin reputations and be misused during bitter breakups. One caller insisted even allegations should be taken seriously, pointing to the difficulty of securing convictions in such cases.
As Niall points out, itâs a complex issue that pits personal safety against personal rights â and asks how far the state should go to protect people from potential harm.
-
In this episode, Niall asks a provocative question: Is shouting at your children a form of child abuse?
The debate was sparked by a top psychologist who claimed that shouting at children â or even arguing loudly in front of them â can be just as damaging as physically slapping them. The expert warned that such behaviour can have long-lasting emotional and psychological effects, and even suggested it should be legally recognised as harmful.
Is this an overreaction? Or are we only beginning to understand the impact of verbal and emotional discipline?
Some callers strongly agreed, arguing that constant shouting creates fear, anxiety, and insecurity in children. They believe emotional abuse is often overlooked simply because it doesnât leave bruises, and that parenting should focus on calm, respectful communication.
Others said the idea goes too far. Parenting is chaotic, stressful, and imperfect â and sometimes raising your voice is the only way to get a message across. One caller asked: âIf we ban shouting, are we also banning being human?â
Others took a middle ground, saying occasional shouting doesnât equal abuse, but that consistent yelling, insults, or aggressive behaviour can cross the line into real harm.
As Niall points out, this is about more than parenting styles â itâs about defining where discipline ends and damage begins.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Should children repay their parents for college fees?
A mother wrote to the show after a heated disagreement with her husband. Their 26-year-old daughter, now working in a well-paid legal job, had her college fees fully covered by her parents. The mother believes itâs only fair that she repays them now, but the father insists that supporting your child through education is part of parenting â not a loan with strings attached.
The conversation opened the lines to passionate callers. Some argued that repayment shows respect and gratitude, especially if parents made financial sacrifices. Others said itâs wrong to treat family support like a business transaction, and that the cost of education is something parents take on willingly.
Some took a middle-ground view â suggesting repayment depends on family circumstances. If the parents are struggling, a payback plan might be reasonable. But if the family is financially stable, perhaps the support should be seen as a gift.
As Niall points out, this debate isnât just about money â it touches on values, responsibility, and the evolving expectations between parents and adult children.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Are Portugalâs new dress rules for tourists over the top?
As Portugal and other tourist hotspots crack down on visitors walking around in bikinis or bare-chested away from the beach, hefty fines are being introduced to curb what locals see as disrespectful behaviour.
Some callers argued the rules are too strict, saying tourists just want to relax and enjoy their holidays. If itâs near the beach and not offensive, they said locals should be more understanding, especially in areas that rely on tourism.
Others supported the new measures, saying tourists often forget they are guests in someone else's community. They believe beachwear belongs on the beach, and showing respect while abroad is basic decency.
As Niall points out, this isnât just a debate about clothing. Itâs about whether tourism should adapt to local cultures or expect them to adapt in return.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Deporting Children â Do You Feel Sorry for Them?
Last week, 35 people were deported from Ireland, including five children. The opposition is now calling for an amnesty on child deportations, urging the government to show empathy. But does sympathy for children override the rules of immigration?
Some callers argued that children should never be punished for the decisions of adults. Many of these kids have grown up in Ireland, attend local schools, and know no other home. Deporting them, they say, is cruel and unnecessary â and the government should show compassion.
Others felt the law must be applied equally, regardless of age. They pointed out that deportations are carried out when legal avenues are exhausted, and making exceptions undermines the system. If parents knowingly stay illegally, the responsibility lies with them â not the State.
As Niall points out, the question isnât just about legality â itâs about what kind of country we want to be when it comes to vulnerable children caught in adult decisions.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Should doctors have the right to conscientiously object to any procedure approved by the medical council â including abortion, assisted dying, or vaccines? The question raises serious debate about the balance between medical ethics, personal morality, and patient rights.
Some callers argued in favour of conscientious objection. They said doctors are not machines, and if a procedure clashes with their deeply held moral or ethical beliefs, they should not be forced to perform it. For them, protecting a doctor's conscience is essential to preserving integrity in healthcare.
Others disagreed, saying personal beliefs have no place in patient care. They argued that doctors are trained and licensed to provide services deemed safe and legal. If they canât do that, they should reconsider their role in the profession. Patients, they said, should never face delays or judgement because of someone else's views.
Niall reflected that while the right to conscience is important, so too is the trust patients place in the system. Striking a balance between personal belief and professional responsibility remains one of the most difficult questions in modern medicine.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Has Ireland just made you state property after death? From June 17th, all Irish citizens will automatically be considered organ donors unless they formally opt out. The move is being hailed by some as a lifesaving, compassionate reform that will help those in desperate need of transplants. But others say it crosses a line â claiming it turns the human body into government property unless otherwise stated.
Some callers supported the change, calling it a straightforward way to save lives. They argued that most people support donation anyway, and that this new system removes unnecessary delays that can cost lives. If someone strongly objects, they said, theyâre still free to opt out.
Others opposed the law on principle. They said it sets a dangerous precedent where the state assumes rights over your body after death without explicit consent. For them, the issue isnât about organs â itâs about personal autonomy and government overreach.
Niall reflected that while the intention behind the law may be noble, it also opens a deep debate about ownership, consent, and where the limits of state power should lie â even after weâre gone.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Is gender still a barrier for women entering male-dominated trades? The discussion follows the story of Katelyn Cummins, an apprentice electrician and the current Laois Rose, who hopes to inspire more young women to consider careers in trades. Despite being the only woman in her class, she says sheâs been treated fairly and sees no reason why more women shouldnât pursue similar paths.
Some callers said gender is still an issue in trades. They spoke of subtle but persistent sexism, from being second-guessed by customers to workplace banter that questions a womanâs capability. Even if it's not openly hostile, they said there is still a pressure to prove yourself in ways male colleagues donât face.
Others disagreed. They argued that the industry has moved on and that if you're competent and hardworking, respect follows regardless of gender. Some pointed to growing numbers of women in apprenticeships as proof that the old barriers are falling away.
Niall reflected that while progress has been made, the lived experience still varies. For many women, entering a trade isnât about making a statement. It is about following a passion, and whether they are welcomed or questioned often depends on who is already holding the tools.
-
In this episode, Niall asks: What does it mean to be Irish today â and are we losing that identity? The conversation was sparked by a controversial Irish Times article that described the Irish as âmongrels,â challenging long-held ideas about Irish heritage and belonging. The article, inspired by a new RTĂ TV series, argues that Ireland has always been a place of diversity and contradictions â a melting pot rather than a single, pure race.
Some callers felt the term âmongrelâ was insulting and dismissed as a way to erase what makes Irish culture unique. They argued that Irish identity is rooted in a rich history of music, community, and shared struggle, and that dismissing that as a hybrid mix waters down a legacy that should be defended.
Others felt that embracing the idea of Ireland as a nation of many backgrounds is not an insult but a truth that should be celebrated. They said Irish identity has always been evolving â from the earliest settlers to today â and that resilience and adaptability are the real heart of being Irish.
Niall reflected that while Irish identity canât be captured in one label, the debate itself shows how much pride people still have in where they come from â and that maybe the real strength of Ireland is in how it weaves so many stories together.
-
In this episode, Niall takes on a deeply personal and divisive question: Should families lose their homes if they canât keep up with payments? Dolores, a listener, wrote in with a story that resonates with many. She and her husband bought their house twelve years ago, determined to give their children a secure place to grow up. But after the pandemic cost her husband his job, they fell behind. Despite his return to work and her efforts to make ends meet, they canât catch up on the mortgage. Now, a letter from the bank threatens to take away the only home their kids have ever known.
Dolores wonders if itâs fair that a family like hers could lose everything because of a crisis they didnât cause. She sees how the bank has its own financial obligations, but she also believes there has to be a better way to help people in real need.
Some callers argue that the bankâs job is to protect its investments. They say itâs not about cruelty; itâs about economic survival. Repossessions, they argue, keep the system from collapsing and ensure that those who canât pay donât put everyone else at risk.
Others say thatâs exactly the problem: the system cares more about numbers than people. They argue that banks and governments should find ways to keep families like Doloresâ in their homesâbecause losing a home doesnât just hurt one family, it scars a whole community.
As the episode unfolds, Niall weighs these opposing views and leaves listeners with a question: What kind of society do we want to beâone that sees homes as assets to protect, or as havens for families to keep?
-
In this episode, Niall asks: Are men equally the victims of domestic violence? The conversation challenges the long-held belief that domestic abuse is solely a womenâs issue and looks at the stigma that stops men from speaking out.
Some callers said men absolutely can be victims â and too often their pain is laughed off or ignored. They argued that if a man hits a woman, itâs instantly condemned, but when itâs the other way around, thereâs a double standard. One caller shared how men are told to âman upâ instead of being allowed to ask for help.
Others felt that while men might experience some violence, itâs not the same as what women face. They argued that domestic violence against women is still a far more serious and pervasive issue, and focusing on menâs experiences could distract from the broader crisis.
Niall reflected that while domestic violence is complex and often hidden, no victimâs voice should be dismissed â and understanding the full picture is the only way to find real solutions.
- Montre plus
