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 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 angles—lockdowns, 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 didn’t 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 didn’t 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 He explains that many of the early models were based on outdated mathematical frameworks with almost no grounding in biology or human behavior. “The same models could be run with any new virus and they’d spit out the same terrifying results,” 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. “I personally don’t think it should have been released,” says Dr. Quinn. “Too many unknowns. Any other drug with that level of uncertainty would never have been approved.”

They also expose the uniformity of lockdown measures across countries as evidence of top-down coordination. “These policies were almost identical worldwide. That doesn’t happen by accident,” 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.

“Science only works when people disagree,” says Dr. Connolly. “The biggest failure wasn’t the lockdowns or the masks or the modeling. It was the refusal to let anyone question the answers we were being given.”

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 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 episode, Niall asks: Should Gardaí 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 Gardaí share information about individuals who’ve been accused — or convicted — of domestic abuse. Supporters say it could save lives. Critics argue it’s an invasion of privacy and undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Some callers said it’s 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, it’s a complex issue that pits personal safety against personal rights — 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 — or even arguing loudly in front of them — 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 doesn’t leave bruises, and that parenting should focus on calm, respectful communication.

Others said the idea goes too far. Parenting is chaotic, stressful, and imperfect — and sometimes raising your voice is the only way to get a message across. One caller asked: “If we ban shouting, are we also banning being human?”

Others took a middle ground, saying occasional shouting doesn’t 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 — it’s 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 it’s only fair that she repays them now, but the father insists that supporting your child through education is part of parenting — 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 it’s 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 — 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 isn’t just about money — it touches on values, responsibility, and the evolving expectations between parents and adult children.

In this episode, Niall asks: Are Portugal’s 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 it’s 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 isn’t just a debate about clothing. It’s about whether tourism should adapt to local cultures or expect them to adapt in return.

In this episode, Niall asks: Deporting Children — 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 — 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 — not the State.

As Niall points out, the question isn’t just about legality — it’s 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 — 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 can’t 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 — 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, they’re 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 isn’t about organs — it’s 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 — even after we’re gone.