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

Niall talks to Eddie Punch, former European election candidate for Independent Ireland, about Revenue’s growing crackdown on Ireland’s black economy and asks whether ordinary people should be reporting neighbours, tradespeople and local businesses they suspect of working cash in hand.
Revenue has pursued more than €10.5 million from suspected black market activity over the past 18 months, targeting sectors including construction, takeaways, beauty businesses, landlords and other cash based operators. Last year Revenue examined almost 13,000 suspected cases, intervening in around 8,000 and collecting €8.3 million.
But perhaps one of the biggest changes is coming from the public themselves. Tip offs about suspected black market activity jumped from 930 in 2024 to 1,743 in 2025, while Revenue is also examining social media for evidence of people operating cash in hand businesses and potentially avoiding tax.
Supporters of the crackdown argue that legitimate businesses simply cannot compete with someone who avoids VAT, PRSI, income tax, insurance and other costs while offering the same service for cash. Businesses in the beauty and construction industries say the shadow economy creates an unfair playing field for those who follow the rules.
But is there another side to it?
For generations, people have paid a builder, painter, cleaner, hairdresser or handyman a few euro in cash. Some argue that the black economy keeps money circulating locally, gives people struggling with the cost of living a chance to earn extra income and allows customers to get work done at prices they can actually afford.
So where do you draw the line between someone making a few extra quid and deliberate tax evasion?
And most importantly, would you actually report somebody to Revenue for working cash in hand, or would you say it’s none of your business?
Niall and Eddie Punch debate whether Ireland needs an even tougher crackdown on the black economy, or whether the cash economy is far more important to ordinary people than Government would like to admit.

IS THE GOVERNMENT AT WAR WITH THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY?
Niall talks to journalists David Quinn and Brenda Power about the Government’s National Strategy for Women and Girls and what it says about gender roles, marriage, motherhood, careers and the traditional family.
The strategy challenges what it describes as patriarchal norms, including the traditional expectation of men as breadwinners and women as carers, and argues that gender stereotypes can restrict the opportunities available to both women and men. It has also sparked controversy over attitudes towards the so called “Tradwife”, women who consciously choose to place marriage, children and the home at the centre of their lives.
David Quinn argues that the strategy goes much further than simply giving women greater choice. He believes it is based on an ideology that treats differences between men and women largely as products of social conditioning and places too much emphasis on paid employment and career progression while undervaluing motherhood, caring and life in the home.
In his article for Gript Media, David argues that Government policy is attempting to replace one set of traditional expectations with another. He points to countries such as Sweden, where decades of policies aimed at reducing traditional gender differences have not eliminated differences in career choices, working patterns or earnings between men and women. His argument is that Government should value professional and domestic life equally and allow women and men to choose the balance that suits them without attempting to engineer a particular outcome.
But is criticism of traditional gender roles justified? Can expectations surrounding husbands, wives and family life sometimes restrict women’s choices? And when campaigners link traditional gender stereotypes with wider issues such as inequality and domestic violence, are they addressing a genuine problem or unfairly portraying traditional relationships as harmful?
Niall, David Quinn and Brenda Power debate whether modern Government policy is genuinely expanding women’s choices, or whether the traditional wife, stay at home mother and conventional family are increasingly being treated as something society needs to move away from.
Do you see anything wrong with the traditional concept of the family? And if a woman freely chooses to become a “Tradwife”, should Government have any opinion on that choice at all?

On this week’s Not Suitable for Broadcast, Niall is joined by his former producer AJ Walsh for a fast moving mix of politics, money, family life, housing and a remarkable story of determination.
They begin with Donald Trump’s expected visit to Ireland and the political backlash already surrounding it. With protests being planned and some politicians saying the US President is not welcome, Niall and AJ ask whether personal hostility towards Trump risks getting in the way of Ireland’s economic interests, particularly given the importance of American investment and jobs. They also debate whether Ireland should roll out the red carpet for an elected US President, regardless of what individual politicians think of him.
Then it is on to children, chores and pocket money. Should kids be paid for tidying bedrooms, washing dishes and taking out the bins, or should helping around the house simply be part of family life? Niall and AJ look at whether paying for chores teaches the value of work and money, or risks creating a generation that expects payment for every contribution.
Energy bills are also under the spotlight after ESB chief executive Paddy Hayes received a €92,000 pay increase, bringing his salary to €410,000, while hundreds of thousands of households are struggling with electricity arrears. Is such a pay rise justified, and should the Government be doing more to reduce energy costs for ordinary households?
The pair also tackle the idea of compulsory voting. Would forcing eligible citizens to take part in elections strengthen democracy and improve turnout, or should the right to vote always include the right to stay at home? They discuss the Australian model, spoiled ballots, fines and whether politicians should be earning people’s votes rather than compelling them to participate.
Housing comes next, with the controversial Dunsink development plan proposing 18,500 homes for more than 46,000 people. But with the wider project dependent on major water and sewage infrastructure costing a combined €7.3 billion, Niall and AJ ask whether the homes are realistically deliverable, whether local services could cope and whether residents are raising legitimate concerns or standing in the way of badly needed housing.
They also debate whether school uniforms should finally be abolished, as parents face growing back to school costs. Are uniforms an outdated and expensive restriction on individuality, or do they still help create equality between children from different financial backgrounds?
And finally, the show ends on an extraordinary story. At the age of 97, Betty Bromage has broken her own record as the world’s oldest female wing walker, completing another daring flight after suffering a stroke last year, all while raising money for the stroke unit at Cheltenham General Hospital.
Politics, arguments, laughs and absolutely no filter. This is Not Suitable for Broadcast with Niall Boylan and AJ Walsh.

Niall talks to Eric Nelligan School Teacher about the fact more than two thirds of parents say they are worried about the cost of school uniforms this year, according to Barnardos’ Back to School Survey 2026.
The online survey gave 704 parents the opportunity to share their concerns about the financial pressures they face as children return to school this autumn.
Some people believe school uniforms should be abolished. They argue that uniforms are outdated, unnecessarily expensive and restrict students from expressing their individuality.
Others say uniforms are essential because they remove visible differences between children from different financial backgrounds and help create a sense of equality and belonging.
Should school uniforms be abolished, or do they still serve an important purpose?
For many families, the cost is not simply a jumper, a shirt and a pair of trousers. Schools can insist on branded crests, specific suppliers, particular jackets, sportswear, shoes and PE kits. Once several children are involved, the bill can quickly run into hundreds of euro.
Parents may also find themselves replacing uniforms during the year because children grow out of them, damage them or lose items. At a time when families are already dealing with rising food, energy, transport and housing costs, is it reasonable for schools to insist on expensive branded clothing?
But what is the alternative?
Would allowing children to wear their own clothes genuinely save parents money, or would it create a new kind of pressure to buy fashionable brands, designer runners and the latest trends?
Uniforms may hide some financial differences, but children are not blind. They can still see who has the expensive phone, the newest shoes or the best schoolbag.
Do uniforms really create equality, discipline and school pride, or are they simply an outdated tradition that places another unnecessary expense on parents?
We want to hear from parents, teachers and students today.
Should schools be required to offer cheaper, generic uniform options? Should crests be removable so clothes can be bought in ordinary shops? Should schools operate second hand uniform schemes?
Or should we go further and abolish school uniforms entirely?
Give us a call and tell us what you think.

Niall speaks to Councillor Gavin Pepper and a local resident from Scribblestown about controversial plans to build a new town at Dunsink in north Dublin.
Fingal County Council’s draft Dunsink Urban Area Plan proposes the construction of 18,500 homes for a population of more than 46,000 people on over 1,000 acres of land beside Finglas, Ashtown, Castleknock and Blanchardstown. Most of the homes would be apartments, with some buildings reaching up to 15 storeys.
However, Uisce Éireann has warned that the full development cannot proceed unless two enormous infrastructure projects are completed: the €6 billion Shannon to Dublin water supply project and the €1.3 billion Greater Dublin Drainage Project.
While the first phase of approximately 2,500 homes could be supported through local upgrades, the remaining 16,000 homes would depend on new water and wastewater infrastructure that may not be operational for several years.
Hundreds of local residents have submitted objections, raising concerns about traffic congestion, pressure on schools and public services, excessive building heights, the loss of recreational facilities and possible health and environmental risks associated with developing land beside the former Dunsink landfill.
Supporters argue that Dublin urgently needs housing and that Dunsink is one of the largest undeveloped areas remaining inside the M50. Opponents question whether it makes sense to approve a town of this scale before the roads, water supply, sewage capacity and essential public services are firmly in place.
Is Dunsink an essential solution to Dublin’s housing crisis, or is the State attempting to build an entire town before the necessary infrastructure exists? And are the concerns of existing communities being properly heard, or are local objections preventing much needed homes from being built?