In this fiery episode, Niall opens the phone lines to callers across the country to weigh in on the government’s decision not to raise the Jobseeker’s Allowance in Budget 2026. While pensioners look set for an increase, the unemployed have been left out – and people have a lot to say about it.

With contributions from concerned citizens, former jobseekers, employers, and advocacy groups, we explore the controversial question: Is the government right to hold back increases for the unemployed – or are they punishing those already struggling?

We also dig into a key recommendation from the Department of Finance's expert group: that welfare thresholds should reflect the national minimum wage. Are current disincentives to part-time work keeping people trapped on the dole? Or is the state simply trying to incentivize a return to employment?

Join Niall and his callers as they debate fairness, compassion, economics, and the future of Ireland’s welfare state.

📣 Opinions For Raising the Jobseeker's Allowance (as expressed by callers):

"It’s not fair to punish people who genuinely can’t work." Many callers say the system fails to consider those with mental health struggles, disabilities, or low qualifications.

"The cost of living affects everyone – not just pensioners." Several listeners argue that inflation has hit the unemployed just as hard, if not harder.

"It’s not about handouts, it’s about survival." Callers point to rising rent, food, and energy costs making current supports inadequate.

"Raising the allowance could support dignity and mental health." Some argue that an increased payment would reduce stigma and stress for those in long-term unemployment.

📣 Opinions Against Raising the Jobseeker's Allowance:

"The system already makes it more profitable for some to stay on the dole." A few callers reference cases where welfare plus housing and child supports add up to the equivalent of a €40,000 salary.

"We should be encouraging work – not dependency." Some listeners believe benefits should incentivize employment and be carefully targeted.

"Pensioners worked their whole lives – they deserve the increase more." A frequent argument was that older people are on fixed incomes and have earned a bigger slice of the budget.

"If people can work, they should." Several callers say the focus should be on upskilling and job placement, not boosting payments.

In this emotionally charged episode, Niall dives into one of the most talked-about travel debates: Should plus-size passengers be required to book an extra seat on flights? Inspired by viral content from plus-size travel influencer Kirsty Leanne, who unapologetically refuses to pay for more space—even when it upsets fellow passengers—Niall opens the lines and gives listeners the mic.

With passionate views on both sides, callers share raw and honest opinions on whether airlines should be more size-inclusive, or if shared space means shared responsibility. From personal experiences to broader ethical concerns, this episode asks the uncomfortable questions we can’t afford to ignore in today’s world of packed planes and evolving norms.

Caller Opinions:

“Kirsty’s right — booking two seats every time is financially and emotionally draining. The onus should be on airlines to design better, more inclusive seating.”

“Nobody asks tall people to pay extra for legroom — why single out plus-size passengers? It's about dignity and fair treatment.”

“If you’re taking up more than one seat, it’s only fair to pay for it. Everyone’s paying for their space — it’s not about shame, it’s about practicality.”

“I once had a flight where I was half-squashed because the person next to me overflowed into my seat. It was uncomfortable and unfair.”

Tune in for a compelling, respectful conversation about body size, fairness, and the future of air travel — only on Talk It Out with Niall

In this heated and thought-provoking episode, Niall opens the phone lines to tackle one of the most controversial questions facing parents, educators, and lawmakers today: Should young children between the ages of 8 and 16 receive sex and relationship education in school?

As society changes and kids are exposed to more information — and misinformation — at younger ages, the debate intensifies: Should the state take responsibility for teaching children about sex and relationships, or should this remain firmly in the hands of parents?

Listeners call in with passionate views from both sides:

📣 Some callers argue in favour of school-based sex education, saying:

"Kids are already hearing things in the playground and online. Better they learn the facts from trained professionals in school."

"Not all parents feel comfortable or know how to talk about these topics. Schools can ensure children get accurate, age-appropriate information."

"Early education can help prevent abuse, unwanted pregnancy, and promote respect in relationships."

🔊 Others believe the responsibility lies with parents, stating:

"Teaching kids about sex is a private, moral issue — and schools shouldn't interfere with family values."

"Every child is different. Parents know best when their child is ready for these conversations."

"The state has no right to expose kids to topics some families might not agree with or feel are inappropriate at certain ages."

With emotions running high and strong arguments on both sides, Niall asks:

"Should the state be trusted to teach our kids about sex and relationships, or should this be a job for parents only?"

Tune in and join the conversation. Where do you stand?

In this thought-provoking episode, Niall asks a powerful and controversial question: Should we still listen to the music of artists accused or convicted of serious crimes — especially against children?

From R. Kelly to Gary Glitter, Michael Jackson to others, their work has left an undeniable mark on pop culture — but should their songs still be played on the radio? And what about movie stars accused of similar crimes — should they be blacklisted from future roles and wiped from the screen?

Can we — or should we — separate the art from the artist?

Or does continuing to enjoy their work make us complicit in ignoring their actions?

Listeners call in to weigh both sides:

📞 "I grew up with Michael Jackson — his music shaped my childhood. I can’t just erase that because of allegations."

📞 "If we support the music, we support the artist — and that sends the wrong message."

📞 "Where do we draw the line? Should we ban every artist with a dark past?"

Tune in for a heated, honest, and emotional conversation that tackles morality, memory, and the complex legacy of fame.

In this emotionally charged episode of Late Lines with Niall, we hear from a heartbroken single mother who discovered drugs in her teenage son’s bedroom. After confronting him, he admitted to selling them at school — not to use them — but to make money and ease the financial pressure on their struggling household. The twist? The drugs didn’t belong to him… and now, the dealer wants them back — or €2,000 in cash.

Faced with the terrifying threat of violence, the mother is torn: should she take out a credit union loan to bail her son out, or report everything to the Gardaí and risk things getting worse?

Listeners call in with their takes:

📞 "She absolutely cannot pay that debt. Once you pay them off, they’ll know you’re willing to cough up. That’s how blackmail starts." – Declan from Limerick, a former addict who turned his life around.

📞 "He’s 17. Still a child. He made a stupid decision, but he owned up and he’s scared. She needs to protect him, and that might mean paying this once — and making sure it never happens again." – Paula from Cork, a mother of three boys.

📞 "This is how gangs get their claws into good kids. The Gardaí need to be involved. If he's already out, he’s lucky. Don’t protect him from consequences — protect him from worse down the line." – John, a retired Garda from Sligo.

📞 "I think she should pay — but make him earn every cent back. Cleaning houses, working weekends. Let him learn the value of trust and money." – Siobhán, a single parent from Kilkenny.

📞 "She flushed the drugs — she did the right thing. But now she’s in a corner. That €2,000 might be the cost of peace. But what’s the cost of setting a precedent?" – Mick from Tallaght, whose cousin was pulled into gangland trouble.

💬 Tune in as Niall listens to real voices from around the country on a story that hits at the heart of parenting, poverty, loyalty, and fear. What would you do?

On todays episode with Niall, we’re diving into one of Ireland’s most contentious and emotionally charged questions: Has the Catholic Church, despite its well-documented failures, actually done more good than bad?

Niall is joined in studio by journalist Jason Osborne to unpack a provocative column written by Laura Perrins, published in Gript. In her piece, Perrins argues that it has become too easy — and often historically inaccurate — to lay every societal ill at the feet of the Catholic Church. She points to the ongoing Tuam Mother and Baby Home story and claims the media often misrepresents or oversimplifies the Church's role, while ignoring the responsibilities of state bodies like Galway County Council.

Quoting Perrins:

"The thing about defaming Catholic nuns is that they are a soft target as they are too dead to defend themselves."

She adds that the narrative of “evil nuns and priests” is convenient, but not always rooted in fact.

With this backdrop, Niall opens the phone lines to you — the listeners — to weigh in:

📞 "I was educated by nuns and they were the kindest, strongest women I’ve ever met. Without the Church, I wouldn’t have had a future." – Mary from Cavan

📞 "Tell that to the survivors of the industrial schools. The cruelty, the abuse — they can’t be brushed aside. The harm was real and systemic." – Eoin in Waterford

📞 "We wouldn’t have had hospitals, schools, or care for the elderly in the 20th century without them. The State wasn’t doing it — the Church was." – Patricia from Ennis

📞 "The Church ruled through fear and shame. They did some good, yes, but it came with a massive human cost." – Darragh in Dublin

📞 "Why is it taboo to question the media’s portrayal of the Church? Not every priest or nun was a monster. Some gave their whole lives to service." – Brian from Meath

With powerful stories, emotional testimony, and historical context, this episode is a raw, honest exploration of an institution that has shaped Irish life for generations — for better and for worse.

In this gripping episode, Niall reads out a real email from a listener caught between loyalty and legality. The listener's brother—already sitting on 9 penalty points—was caught speeding again and is now begging him to take the fall by accepting the penalty points on his own licence.

“He says he was only doing 135 km/h on the M1 and can’t afford to lose his licence with work being so far away,” the listener writes. “My wife says I’d be mad to take the points—he’s always speeding and has no respect for the limits.”

Niall opens the lines to callers, and the country weighs in.

Some say family comes first:

“It’s only three points, and he said he’d cover the insurance cost—of course I’d help my brother,” says Kevin from Louth.

Others warn against crossing the line:

“It’s illegal, plain and simple,” argues Lisa in Cork. “You could both get into serious trouble, and for what? So he can keep speeding?”

Callers debate the pros and cons:

✅ Pros:

Helping a loved one avoid losing their job

Maintaining family harmony

Brother promises to cover financial impact

❌ Cons:

It’s illegal and could result in criminal charges

Higher insurance premiums and personal risk

Enabling reckless behaviour

Niall guides the conversation with humour, insight, and fairness as the nation reflects on just how far they’d go for family—and where the line should be drawn.

Would you take the points?

Let me know if you'd like this shortened for Spotify or made more dramatic for promotional use!

In this episode, Niall dives into one of the most heated discussions in Ireland today: Should the Constitution be changed to guarantee every citizen the right to housing?

Broadcasting live, Niall opens the lines to callers from across the country—and the opinions couldn't be more divided.

Some callers strongly support the idea:

“Housing should be a basic right, not a privilege,” says Mary from Galway. “People are living in tents while buildings lie empty. It’s time the government was held accountable.”

Others warn of unintended consequences:

“If you write this into the Constitution, you’re opening the floodgates,” argues Declan in Dublin. “It’ll lead to endless legal battles and strain public finances even more.”

And some are torn:

“I believe everyone deserves a home, but I’m not sure a constitutional change is the best way to fix a broken system,” admits Aoife from Cork.

Through respectful debate, passionate views, and tough questions, Niall guides listeners through the legal, moral, and practical sides of a constitutional right to housing.

Whether you’re firmly for it, completely against it, or just trying to make sense of it all—this episode is a must-listen.

In this episode, Niall dives into the heated debate over children's access to social media following the rollout of a new age verification system under Ireland’s Online Safety Code.

He’s joined by Eric Nelligan, school teacher and spokesperson for the political party Aontú, to explore what this new code means in practice, how effective age checks might really be, and whether social media platforms can ever truly be safe for children.

Later, Niall opens the phone lines and hears from the public, sparking a lively and divided conversation.

Some callers argue that social media is toxic for kids, exposing them to harmful content like cyberbullying, eating disorders, and dangerous challenges. One caller says, “There’s no real benefit for kids being on these apps — it’s just a breeding ground for anxiety and peer pressure.”

Others see it differently, highlighting that social media can help teens stay connected, learn new skills, and express themselves creatively. As one parent puts it, “My daughter learned photography and video editing through TikTok — she’s more confident because of it.”

Tune in as Niall unpacks both sides of this complex issue — and asks: Do the risks outweigh the rewards when it comes to kids and social media?

In this powerful and emotional episode, Niall shares an email from a listener named Tina, a mother of two young children whose husband has recently been sent to prison for several years. With the details of the case kept private, Tina asks for public input on a deeply personal question:

Should she bring the children to visit their father in jail?

Tina describes the difficult reality she's facing — a partner behind bars, children who miss their dad, and the guilt of having told them he’s working abroad to shield them from the truth. She worries that exposing them to the prison environment — with its grim surroundings, tense atmosphere, and strict security procedures — could do more harm than good.

Niall opens the phone lines, and callers weigh in with heartfelt, conflicting views.

Some argue in favour of prison visits:

“Kids deserve to know the truth and have a relationship with both parents, even if one made a mistake.”

“Shielding them now might cause more confusion and pain down the line when they find out the truth.”

Others strongly disagree:

“A prison is no place for a child — the trauma could be lasting.”

“She’s doing the right thing by protecting them from a harsh and confusing environment.”

As Niall moderates this emotionally charged discussion, listeners explore themes of honesty, loyalty, parenting under pressure, and the long-term impact on children when a parent is incarcerated.

A must-listen episode for anyone navigating complicated family dynamics — or anyone who believes in the power of community to help guide difficult decisions