On today’s show, Niall opens the lines to listeners after a heated debate broke out yesterday. One caller argued that any driver involved in a fatal road traffic accident caused by careless driving should automatically face manslaughter charges and go to jail.

The comment split the audience. Some listeners agreed, saying Ireland’s penalties for dangerous or careless driving causing death are far too lenient. Others insisted that accidents—while tragic—aren’t always crimes, and that long prison sentences won’t bring loved ones back.

Niall asks the tough question:

Should a driver responsible for the death of another person in a road traffic accident spend more than 10 years in prison?

Is this justice—or is it too extreme?

Join the discussion, share your views, and tell us where you stand.

WhatsApp: 085 100 22 55

On today’s episode, host Niall sits down with Laura Perrin of Gript Media to unpack a tweet that has ignited a storm online.

An American influencer sparked outrage among feminists by claiming:

“There is a limited window of time for easy, healthy pregnancies. You can start a new career at 50.”

Her message—suggesting that having children should take priority over a woman’s career—has reopened a passionate debate about fertility, choice, and modern life.

Niall and Laura explore why so many women are waiting longer than ever to start a family. In Ireland, the average age for a first-time mother is now almost 32, up from just 25 in the 1980s—a jump of seven years in four decades. They look at what’s driving this shift: careers, education, economics, lifestyle changes, and societal expectations. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the age is lower at 27.5, raising questions about cultural differences and whether Ireland is heading toward even later motherhood.

As the average age rises, birth rates fall—so what does this mean for women, families, and the future of society?

Is pursuing a career first empowering, or does it come with hidden costs?

And is it fair—or accurate—to say motherhood can be postponed but careers can’t?

Join the conversation and share your thoughts.

WhatsApp: 085 100 22 55

Live at 12pm—don’t miss it.

Coming up live after 12pm today, Niall sits down with Councillor Gavin Pepper to unpack one of the week’s most heated local issues: Dublin City Council’s decision to increase rent for social housing and HAP tenants, along with a planned rise in property tax in 2026.

In this episode, Niall explores why the Council voted for the increase, what it means for tenants, and whether the move is truly about fairness—or simply another financial burden on already stretched households. Councillor Pepper offers insight into the vote, the reasoning behind it, and what councillors considered when weighing the decision.

Niall also breaks down the background to the story:

The Council’s Position: Rising costs of maintaining social housing, ageing public infrastructure, and the need for additional revenue to keep the housing system functional and equitable.

The Pros: More funding for essential repairs, upgrades, and long-term housing sustainability; a system that the Council argues will be “fairer” in the long run.

The Cons: Tenants facing higher rents during a cost-of-living crisis; concerns that low-income families will feel the strain; and criticism from councillors and community groups who say the increase hits the wrong people at the wrong time.

Is the rent rise a necessary step toward stabilising public housing—or a misjudged move that leaves vulnerable residents footing the bill?

Have your say during the show.

WhatsApp your comments to: 085 100 22 55

Today on the show, Niall speaks with journalist and barrister Sarah Ryan about one of the most controversial issues in criminal justice today: mitigating circumstances — and whether it is fair on victims when perpetrators cite drug use, alcohol, mental illness or trauma to reduce a sentence.

Together they explore why such defences exist, what legal and moral arguments support them — and whether they can ever be justified when serious crimes are at stake. They’ll examine both sides of the debate:

🔹 Why mitigating circumstances are sometimes accepted — arguments around mental illness, diminished responsibility, trauma, addiction or external factors that may impair judgment.

🔹 Why many feel these defences undermine justice for victims — concerns that reduced sentences or verdicts of “not guilty by reason of insanity” can trivialise suffering, deny closure, or fail to reflect the harm done.

They’ll reference high-profile cases from the last decade where courts accepted such defences or reduced charges — as well as cases where such pleas were rejected, to ask: Do these defences protect the vulnerable — or let dangerous people off too lightly?

We want to hear from you. Do you believe mitigating circumstances should ever reduce a sentence for a serious crime — or should accountability always come first?

WhatsApp your thoughts to: 085 100 22 55

⚖️ Some Recent Examples

Here are a few recent and well-documented cases that highlight how courts have handled mitigating circumstances — and why they remain controversial:

In 2020, a Welsh man named Anthony Williams strangled his wife to death. The court accepted a plea of diminished responsibility, reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of his impaired mental state. He was sentenced to five years in prison — a decision that sparked substantial criticism from domestic-abuse activists who argued the sentence was far too lenient given the severity of the crime.

Wikipedia

In another illustrative case, Alexander Lewis‑Ranwell was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity after killing three men during a psychotic episode. The court determined that his mental illness meant he did not know the nature or wrongfulness of his acts. Under legal precedent for “insane automatism,” he was detained under mental-health provisions rather than given a typical prison sentence.

doughtystreet.co.uk

+1

That said — mitigation is not automatic. In the recent sentencing guidelines case The King v Noel David Quigley (2025), the court upheld a three-year sentence for attempted wounding despite arguments about the defendant’s mental-health difficulties. The court emphasised that mental illness does not always justify a reduced sentence: each case must be judged on its specific facts.

Judiciary NI

+1

🎙 What We’ll Be Debating on Air

With Sarah Ryan, Niall will raise tough questions like:

Should there be a “hard line” for serious crimes — murder, violent assault — where mitigating circumstances carry little or no weight?

Is the legal definition of “insanity” (or “diminished responsibility”) still fit for purpose in 2025 — or does it need reform?

What does justice look like for victims and survivors versus for perpetrators with genuine mental-health issues?

How do we balance society’s responsibility to treat mental illness — while also protecting public safety and honouring victims’ suffering?

Niall opens the phone lines today after receiving a striking email from a listener:

Her sister is planning to spend €5,000 on her three children this Christmas — money she’s actually borrowing to make it happen. When she challenged her sister, saying it sends the wrong message and teaches the kids they can have anything they want, the pair fell out.

The sister fired back:

“It’s my money, my children, and none of your business.”

So who’s right?

Is it irresponsible to go into debt for Christmas, or is everyone entitled to raise their kids as they see fit? And have we all lost the run of ourselves when it comes to Christmas spending?

Niall talks to callers who share their own stories, opinions, and family rows on the topic.

Text or WhatsApp your thoughts: 085 100 22 55

On today’s episode, Niall dives into one of the most shocking and heartbreaking housing stories in Ireland right now — the collapse of the Ringfort Estate development in Rathmoylon, Co Meath, and the desperate families caught in the middle of it.

Niall is joined by Áontú leader Peadar Tóibín along with John Ennis and Elma Beirne, one of the couples who paid a deposit for a home in the estate five years ago. Elma, now pregnant, is among the fifteen buyers who signed contracts and paid deposits of €27,500–€30,000 in good faith. Today, only five still hold any hope of seeing those contracts honoured.

Despite the houses reportedly being completed and fully connected to utilities, none have been handed over. In 2023, buyers were suddenly asked for an extra €60,000 after the developer, Meathamatic Ltd, blamed rising costs. And now, in a dramatic turn, the company has been put into liquidation following a Revenue audit that uncovered major issues with unregistered construction contracts and a large VAT liability.

This week, tensions boiled over when affected buyers — including Elma — were initially blocked from entering the creditors’ meeting in Dún Laoghaire. Peadar Tóibín stood with them as they pushed for answers, demanding to know why the Government refuses to intervene and finish an estate that families have already paid for.

Why are completed homes sitting empty? How can a company collapse with buyers’ money tied up inside it? And what responsibility does the Government have when ordinary people are left homeless by failures in oversight?

Niall, Peadar, John, and Elma break down the human cost, the political failures, and what needs to happen next so these families finally have somewhere to live.

2025 has been a whirlwind year in Irish politics—depending on where you stand, it’s either been a welcome shake-up or a slow-motion disaster. A new government found its feet only to stumble through a botched presidential election. Immigration and housing remain unsolved crises, the National Children’s Hospital is still unfinished, prisons are overcrowded, and more people than ever say they no longer feel safe.

Today, Niall sits down with John McGuirk of Gript Media to dig into the state of the nation:

Is there any real hope for change in 2026, or are we staring down another year of political stalemate and frustration?

Join the conversation live at 12pm and share your thoughts.

On today’s episode, Niall dives into one of the most emotionally charged dilemmas we’ve ever received. A 42-year-old mother of three has written in with a heartbreaking confession: she loves her 58-year-old husband as a partner and father, but she’s no longer in love with him. As he has aged and become less fit, she’s found herself feeling less and less attracted to him — something she admits with guilt and confusion.

She’s torn between two worlds:

#566 Still Love Hi But Not In Love: What Now?

Her own happiness, with friends telling her she’s still young enough to start over and find passion again.

Her children, all under 15, whose stability and wellbeing she wants to protect.

Is fading attraction enough to justify leaving a long-term marriage? Is “still loving him” but not being “in love” a reason to stay? And how much should children’s needs weigh against a parent’s emotional life?

Niall opens the lines to callers who bring a wide range of perspectives:

🔹 The romantics, who argue that chemistry and attraction matter — and life is too short to deny yourself love.

🔹 The traditionalists, who say marriage is about commitment, phases, and riding out the storms — not chasing youthful excitement.

🔹 The realists, who believe attraction naturally changes and that relationships can be rebuilt with effort and honesty.

🔹 The parents, who say the kids’ stability must come first — and breaking up the family could do long-term harm.

🔹 Those who’ve been there, sharing stories of staying… and others of leaving.

🔹 And the brutally honest, who say that attraction is a non-negotiable foundation of a relationship.

It’s raw, emotional, and thought-provoking — a conversation about aging, desire, family, and the hard choices people face behind closed doors.

Join Niall as he unpacks this dilemma with listeners from every walk of life, offering compassion, debate, and a few surprises along the way.

On today’s show, Niall is joined by social commentator and restaurateur Paul Trayvaud for a lively and thought-provoking discussion on a topic that returns every December: temporary and early release for prisoners over Christmas.

Last year, 138 prisoners in Ireland were granted temporary release during the holiday season, and projections suggest this year’s number may be even higher. With Irish prisons facing chronic overcrowding, there’s growing pressure to release lower-risk offenders early or on short-term licence. But is this the right approach?

Niall and Paul explore the complex balance between compassion, public safety, rehabilitation, and the integrity of the justice system.

What they dive into:

Pros of Temporary or Early Release

Family Reconnection: Allowing mothers and fathers to spend time with their children can strengthen family bonds—an important factor in reducing reoffending.

Rehabilitation: Rewarding good behaviour with temporary release can incentivise positive conduct and support reintegration.

Prison Overcrowding Relief: Ireland’s prisons are among the most overcrowded in Europe—early release can ease pressure on staff, resources, and facilities.

Humanitarian Grounds: For low-risk offenders, especially those nearing the end of their sentence, time at home can be seen as a compassionate and proportionate gesture during the holidays.

Cons of Temporary or Early Release

Public Safety Concerns: Even low-risk prisoners may reoffend, and any incident undermines trust in the system.

Perception of Soft Justice: Some argue it sends the wrong message to victims and the wider public, especially if sentences seem reduced in practice.

Inconsistent Monitoring: Temporary release relies on compliance—breaches can occur, and tracking all individuals effectively is challenging.

Potential for Inequality: Questions arise over which prisoners qualify and whether the process is applied fairly.

Should parenthood be considered a valid reason for release at Christmas? Does freeing up cell space justify releasing people early? And what message does this send about justice, rehabilitation, and community safety?

We want your thoughts.

📱 Comment on WhatsApp: 085 100 22 55

Tune in at 12pm for a robust and engaging conversation.

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.