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

In this episode, Niall is asking, has the State crossed the line offering free contraception to under-17s? The debate stems from the news that Health Minister Stephen Donnelly is pushing to expand free contraception to 16-year-olds as part of Budget 2025. Currently, free contraception is available for women aged 17-35, but extending it to under-16s has sparked concerns about mixed messages from the government, especially given that the age of consent in Ireland is 17. Some argue it will encourage underage sexual activity, while others see it as necessary harm reduction.

Some callers think this is absolutely crossing a line. Providing free contraception to girls under 16 sends the wrong message. They argue these kids aren’t emotionally ready for sexual relationships, and by giving them contraception, the government is implicitly endorsing the behavior. These callers feel the focus should be on education and understanding the risks and consequences of sexual activity, not making it easier for teens to engage in it. To them, this initiative sends a dangerously confusing message about consent and responsibility.

While other callers feel teens are already having sex, and it’s time to face that reality. Providing contraception to under-16s is about harm reduction, not permission. These callers argue that it’s better to ensure young people are safe and protected rather than dealing with more teenage pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases. They agree that education should be a crucial part of this initiative but feel denying contraception won’t stop teens from being sexually active—it will just make them more vulnerable.

As Niall concludes, he reflects on the complex nature of the debate. While it's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides, the challenge remains in finding a balance between protecting young people and addressing the realities they face. Ultimately, it’s about whether the government’s role should be focused on harm reduction or enforcing moral guidelines. What’s clear is that the issue of free contraception for under-17s taps into deeper concerns about education, responsibility, and the evolving nature of parenting and state intervention in Ireland.

In this episode, Niall asks, "Is it selfish to leave your partner for the chance of parenthood?" The discussion is sparked by an emotional email from a listener who faces a heartbreaking decision. After ten years with his wife and a tragic miscarriage, the listener is grappling with the fact that they cannot have biological children together. His wife has come to terms with this reality, even suggesting adoption, but he can't shake the longing for a biological family. Now, he wonders if leaving his wife to pursue this dream is the right thing to do, even though he still loves her deeply. Is it unreasonable to prioritize the dream of parenthood over a long-standing relationship?

Some callers think he should stay with his wife. They highlight the deep love and bond he shares with her, suggesting that there are other ways to build a family, such as fostering or adoption, and that leaving could lead to regret. They emphasize the importance of the relationship he has and encourage him to focus on what they’ve built together, exploring alternative paths to parenthood instead of walking away.

While other callers feel that if having biological children is truly his dream, it might be best to leave. They argue that both partners deserve happiness, and staying in a relationship where one person harbors resentment could cause long-term harm. For them, it’s not selfish to want children, but they advise handling the situation with empathy and care for both himself and his wife.

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks with Chris Elston, also known as "Billboard Chris," about his mission to challenge the growing use of puberty blockers and gender transition procedures in children. Chris, who left his career as a financial advisor to pursue full-time activism, describes his work as a personal crusade to protect children from irreversible medical decisions. "I’m a dad of two girls, and I’m not going to send my girls into a world that doesn’t know what a woman is," he states, explaining the core of his campaign.

Chris recounts his journey from being a regular citizen to an activist on the streets, often carrying signs and billboards that proclaim messages like "Children cannot consent to puberty blockers." Despite his peaceful approach, Chris has been met with hostility, including being assaulted. He recalls a recent encounter in Montreal where he was attacked by six individuals, leading to a broken arm. Yet, he remains unshaken: "If taking a punch to the face helps start a million more conversations, I’ll take it any day."

Niall and Chris discuss the political and legal hurdles Chris has faced, including a significant incident in Australia where one of his social media posts was removed by the government. The post criticized a public official involved in drafting trans healthcare policies for children, and while the Australian government ordered the post to be taken down, Elon Musk intervened to keep it visible outside Australia. "They tried to silence me, but they just ended up amplifying my message," Chris notes, seeing the controversy as further proof of the importance of free speech in this debate.

Chris also sheds light on his advocacy work at international forums, such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, where he recently spoke out against gender ideology. He explains that his activism focuses on educating the public, especially parents, about the risks associated with puberty blockers and surgeries for minors. "What are we doing, telling kids they’re born in the wrong body?" Chris asks, stressing the long-term consequences of these treatments.

The episode further explores Chris’s interactions with political leaders, including his behind-the-scenes influence on gender policy in various countries. He expresses optimism about the growing pushback against gender ideology, especially from parents and political figures who are starting to question the ethics of these medical procedures. "The more people learn, the more they realize how wrong this is," he says, confident that public sentiment is shifting in his favor.

In this thought-provoking episode, Chris’s candid reflections on activism, free speech, and children’s rights challenge listeners to engage with one of the most contentious debates of our time. Whether you agree with him or not, Chris’s steadfast commitment to his cause ensures that this conversation is both engaging and impactful.

In this episode, Niall discusses the emotional dilemma of whether the truth about a secret child should always be revealed, no matter the consequences. The conversation stems from an email sent in by a listener in her mid-30s, who recently discovered the identity of her biological father through a DNA website. Her father, now in his 80s and a well-known businessman, has no idea she exists. The listener is torn about whether to reach out before it's too late, as his wife has passed, but his children have previously blocked her attempts at contact.

Callers weigh in on both sides. Some believe it’s best to leave the past alone, especially given the father’s age and the potential for emotional upheaval. They argue that opening this door could cause unnecessary pain and disruption, especially since the daughter has already been blocked once. It might not go as hoped, and it could bring more harm than closure.

On the other hand, others feel the father has a right to know about his daughter, and she deserves the chance to meet him. They suggest that while the situation may be difficult, it’s better to take the opportunity now rather than live with regret. Even if the father is shocked, the chance for connection and closure might outweigh the risks.

Niall reflects on the importance of balancing personal desires with potential consequences. The decision is deeply personal, but listeners are reminded that time is of the essence in situations like this. Only the listener can decide what feels right for her future.

In this episode, Niall asks the big question: With Roderic O’Gorman and the rest of the government showing no regrets about the recent surge in migration, who’s got your vote? Many feel that Sinn Féin wouldn’t have done much differently, while the independents seem to lack enough influence. As the next election looms, Niall explores who the public is turning to and why.

Callers express growing frustration with the mainstream political parties. Some are fed up with Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, claiming they no longer listen to the concerns of the people, and Sinn Féin is not seen as a real alternative. Many callers are throwing their support behind independents, arguing they are the only politicians still representing regular citizens and not bound by the agenda of the bigger parties. There’s a sense that the political system needs a fresh perspective, and that the independents could bring about meaningful change.

On the other hand, some remain skeptical of the independents, questioning whether they have enough power to make a real difference. They express frustration with the political deadlock, but others are unsure who could truly steer the country in a better direction.

Niall wraps up by reflecting on the deep sense of dissatisfaction many voters are feeling. With the big parties struggling to inspire confidence, the upcoming election could see more support for independents, but will they have the influence needed to enact real change? Only time will tell.

In this episode, Niall asks a controversial question: Should Ireland serve lunch to asylum seekers arriving without passports, or should it send them back immediately? The debate stems from a recent case at Shannon Airport where two Chinese nationals were found without proper documentation after disembarking a Ryanair flight from Spain. The two men were found hiding in the toilets and later claimed asylum, but with no identification and conflicting stories, the question of how to handle such cases has divided opinion. Is Ireland too lenient, or are we upholding our compassionate reputation?

Some callers believe this is a clear-cut issue of security and law. They argue that anyone arriving without proper documentation, especially while trying to evade detection by hiding, should be sent back to their country of departure without delay. They see this as a matter of national security and fairness to those who follow the legal process. For them, accommodating these individuals sends the wrong message and encourages people to bypass the system.

Other callers feel that Ireland must lead with compassion. They argue that we don’t know the full story behind these men’s actions and that claiming asylum should give them the right to be heard, regardless of their documentation. These callers believe that we should provide basic needs, such as accommodation and food, while their cases are properly investigated, maintaining Ireland's long-standing tradition of empathy toward those in need.

Niall closes the episode by acknowledging the tension between national security and human compassion. While the rules are in place for a reason, it’s also important to remember that each asylum case is unique, and striking a balance between upholding the law and treating people with humanity is key.

In this episode, Niall discusses a deeply emotional and complex question: Should you stand by a partner during a mental health crisis, or is there a point where it's okay to walk away? The conversation stems from an email sent by a listener named Katie, whose husband, Liam, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder two years ago. Katie describes how his mental health struggles have drastically changed their relationship. While she loves him deeply, the emotional toll of supporting him through his highs and lows is starting to overwhelm her. She wonders if it’s selfish to consider walking away or if it’s possible to find a balance between supporting him and maintaining her own well-being.

Some callers believe that marriage vows include standing by your partner through sickness and health, and mental illness should be no exception. They argue that true love means finding ways to support your partner, even during the most difficult times. With the right boundaries, self-care, and professional help, they believe Katie can manage both her husband’s needs and her own mental health, and that leaving would be abandoning him during his most vulnerable time.

Other callers, however, feel that while supporting a partner with mental illness is important, there’s a limit to how much one person can take. They argue that Katie's own mental health matters just as much, and if she’s feeling overwhelmed or unsafe, it’s okay to step away. Sometimes, the best thing for both partners is to create space, and leaving doesn’t mean she doesn't care—it simply means prioritizing her own well-being. They emphasize that it’s okay to acknowledge when a relationship is no longer healthy, even if mental illness is involved.

Niall wraps up the episode by acknowledging the emotional weight of this topic, emphasizing that there are no easy answers. While supporting a partner through mental health challenges is important, it’s also crucial for individuals to take care of their own well-being. He encourages listeners to find a balance between empathy for their partner’s struggles and maintaining their own mental health, suggesting that there’s no shame in seeking outside help or taking time for oneself.

In this episode, Niall explores whether parents should be held legally responsible for crimes committed by their under-18 children. With teenage crime on the rise, some believe parents should face legal consequences for failing to guide or discipline their children, while others argue that even the best parents can’t always control the actions of their kids. Is it fair to hold parents accountable, or is juvenile crime a more complex issue that can’t be pinned on parenting alone?

Some callers argue that holding parents accountable is essential, as children’s behavior often reflects the environment they’re raised in. These callers feel that if parents are more aware of the potential consequences for their child's actions, they may be more diligent in preventing bad behavior. They suggest that parental responsibility could deter crime by encouraging stronger involvement and discipline in the home.

Other callers believe it’s unfair to blame parents entirely. They emphasize that many factors influence a child's behavior, and even in loving, attentive households, teenagers can make poor choices. These callers stress that sometimes kids are simply influenced by peers or external pressures that parents cannot control, and punishing the parents in such cases wouldn’t address the root causes of juvenile crime.

Niall wraps up by acknowledging that while parental involvement is crucial, the issue of juvenile crime is multifaceted. He points out that many factors contribute to teenage behavior, and holding parents accountable may not always be the right solution. He invites listeners to reflect on whether legal responsibility should lie with the parents or if the focus should be on addressing broader societal influences.

In this episode, Niall dives into the controversy surrounding the playing of the UK's national anthem, "God Save The King," at the Aviva Stadium. Many Irish fans responded by booing, raising the question of whether it is time for Ireland to move past historical grievances or if this reaction reflects the continued significance of the nation's past with British rule. Should playing the anthem be seen as an attempt at modern diplomacy, or is it a symbol of oppression that still triggers deep emotions?

Some callers feel that booing the anthem is unnecessary and reflects outdated grudges. They argue that Ireland should move forward and build stronger relationships with the UK. For them, sports are an arena where respect for all nations should prevail, and continuing to hold onto historical bitterness only fuels division. These callers suggest that the gesture of respect, even for an anthem tied to a difficult past, is a step toward maturity and reconciliation.

Other callers believe that the reaction is understandable and reflects unresolved trauma. They argue that "God Save The King" serves as a painful reminder of British oppression and that the anthem symbolizes centuries of suffering for many Irish people. In their view, it's not about disrespecting modern relations but about acknowledging the lingering impact of colonization, which makes it difficult to simply "move on." For these callers, the boos represent a collective refusal to let history be dismissed or forgotten.

Niall wraps up the discussion by acknowledging the complexity of the issue. While some believe respect and moving forward are essential for diplomacy and unity, others feel that the emotional weight of history cannot be ignored. He reflects on the challenge of balancing historical memory with progress and asks whether it’s possible to honor both the past and the future in how we handle national symbols like anthems.

In this episode, Niall explores the concern of having a dog, specifically a staffy, around a newborn baby. A listener, who is due to give birth in two months, has written in about her frustration with her husband’s refusal to rehome their dog. She believes it’s too risky to have the dog around their baby. Is she being unreasonable, or is her concern valid?

Some callers agree with the mother-to-be, stating that a dog, especially a breed like a staffy, poses a potential risk around a newborn. They argue that no matter how well-trained the dog is, you can never fully trust an animal in such a delicate situation. Rehoming the dog may be a difficult decision, but prioritising the baby's safety should come first.

Other callers feel that with the right preparation, there’s no need to rehome the dog. They believe it’s all about proper training, supervision, and setting clear boundaries for the dog. Staffies are known to be loving and loyal, and there’s no reason they can’t coexist peacefully with a baby if handled responsibly. They argue that the dog is part of the family, and rehoming the pet out of fear would be unnecessary and traumatic for both the dog and the owners.