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

In this episode, Niall is joined by journalist Larissa Nolan to tackle a question that’s sparking heated debate around the world: Is college becoming pointless in the age of AI?The conversation is fuelled by controversial comments from Elon Musk, who claims universities are “for fun and proving you can do your chores — not for learning.” Musk argues that with a smartphone, internet access and AI, you can learn anything you need for free.So is he right?Niall puts the big questions to Larissa:Will technology and AI eventually replace college education?Does AI now know more than the average lecturer?Is university still worth the time and money for most careers?And for many students, has college simply become a four-year drinking session?As AI reshapes how we learn and work, the traditional university model is under the microscope. Is it evolving — or heading for extinction?👉 What do you think?Comments to WhatsApp 085 100 22 55

This episode kicks off with an email that struck a nerve — and judging by the phones, a lot of listeners had opinions.Niall reads out a message from a wife who’s furious after her husband only mentioned his work Christmas party days before it happens — no partners invited, free bar involved, and all the usual “sure nothing ever happens” reassurances that nobody fully believes.Is she being controlling… or just realistic?Niall opens the lines to callers, starting with AJ, who says she’s 100% on the woman’s side. According to AJ, you can’t trust men once drink, hormones and other women are thrown into the mix — and pretending otherwise is just naïve. From there, the debate explodes.Are work Christmas parties harmless fun?Or are they a well-known danger zone everyone jokes about — but never admits to?Is asking your partner not to go a fair boundary… or a massive red flag?And should anyone be expected to stay home while their other half hits a free bar with colleagues?Expect strong opinions, uncomfortable truths, plenty of laughs — and more than a few people feeling seen.👉 Where do you stand?WhatsApp your thoughts to 085 100 22 55

In this episode, Niall opens the phone lines after receiving an email that’s struck a nerve with pet lovers and budget-watchers alike. A listener says he’s literally in the doghouse after a blazing row with his wife — not over the kids or the mortgage, but over the dog.The dog in question is a 10-year-old Bichon Frise, and the wife has spent close to €200 on toys, clothes and even a Christmas stocking. He says the spending is reckless and unnecessary. She says it’s her money, the dog is part of the family, and at 10 years old deserves to be spoiled.Callers are split down the middle. Some side firmly with the husband, arguing that €200 on accessories for a dog is excessive, wasteful, and a sign of misplaced priorities — especially at a time when many households are under financial pressure. Others question where the line gets drawn in shared finances, and whether one partner should be able to spend freely without agreement.But plenty of callers defend the wife. They argue that pets are companions, not property, and that for many people — especially couples without children — a dog is family. If the money is hers and the bills are paid, why shouldn’t she spend it on something that brings joy? Some even say the real issue isn’t the dog at all, but control, communication and respect within the relationship.There are also middle-ground voices: those who think a little indulgence is harmless, but €200 on novelty items might be over the top; those who believe older pets should be cherished while they’re still around; and those who ask whether this is really about money — or about feeling unheard.As Niall steers the conversation, it becomes a lively debate about love, limits, shared finances and whether spoiling a pet is ridiculous… or completely normal.One email. One dog. And plenty of strong opinions

In this episode, host Niall is joined by Laoise Da Brun, Barrister-at-Law, and Karl Deeter, political commentator, to tackle a contentious legal and moral question: Should criminal convictions committed as a minor be wiped clean once a person reaches adulthood?The UK is now considering following Ireland’s approach, where most criminal offences committed under the age of 18 become spent after three years — provided there are no further convictions. In practical terms, this means those offences no longer appear on a person’s criminal record once they reach adulthood, allowing them to move on without the shadow of past mistakes.Supporters of the system argue that it reflects a realistic understanding of youth behaviour and brain development. Teenagers, they say, are more impulsive, more susceptible to peer pressure, and still forming their moral judgement. Giving young people a clean slate can improve access to education, employment and housing, reducing the likelihood of reoffending and helping them become productive members of society. From this perspective, lifelong punishment for adolescent mistakes may do more harm than good.But critics raise serious concerns. What about individuals who commit repeated or serious offences at 16 or 17? Should a long pattern of criminal behaviour simply disappear on paper at 18? There are fears that such policies may weaken accountability, undermine public confidence in the justice system, and send the wrong message — that youthful crimes carry no lasting consequences. Victims’ rights and public safety also feature prominently in the debate.Together, Niall, Laoise and Karl explore the legal framework, ethical tensions and real-world consequences of expunging juvenile convictions. Is this policy a compassionate, evidence-based approach to justice — or an overly lenient system that risks encouraging bad behaviour? And if the UK adopts Ireland’s model, where should the line be drawn?A thoughtful and robust discussion on fairness, responsibility and whether society should believe in second chances — or lasting consequences.

In this episode, Niall is joined by David Quinn, journalist and columnist with the Sunday Independent, for a challenging and wide-ranging conversation on Islamic extremism, public debate, and the growing confusion around what is — and is not — anti-Semitism.David argues that Islamic extremism remains one of the most difficult topics to discuss openly in Western societies. He suggests that fear of causing offence, being labelled racist or Islamophobic, or crossing social and professional red lines has led to widespread reluctance to engage honestly with the issue — even when extremism manifests in violence, intimidation, or threats to liberal democratic values.The discussion explores why criticism of extremist ideology is so often conflated with hostility toward ordinary Muslims, most of whom reject violence and extremism outright. Where should the line be drawn between legitimate scrutiny of beliefs and unfair collective blame? And who gets to define that line?Niall and David also delve into the increasingly charged debate around anti-Semitism, particularly in the context of criticism of Israel. When does political criticism cross into prejudice against Jewish people — and when is the term “anti-Semitism” misused to shut down debate? David outlines his concerns about blurred definitions, selective outrage, and the impact this has on free speech and honest discussion.Along the way, they touch on media responsibility, political cowardice, cultural sensitivity, and whether Western societies are equipped to have nuanced conversations about religion, ideology and extremism without resorting to slogans or fear.A frank, sometimes uncomfortable discussion — but one that asks whether avoiding hard conversations is making things safer… or simply leaving them unresolved.