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

In this episode, Niall is joined by barrister and political commentator Laura Perrins to discuss two stories dominating conversation in Britain and Ireland.
First, they examine the shocking murder of former Conservative minister Ann Widdecombe and the serious questions surrounding the investigation. After an initial arrest reportedly resulted in a man being released without charge, counterterrorism police later took control of the case when new evidence emerged. Niall and Laura discuss whether crucial opportunities were missed, why the investigation appeared to change direction so dramatically, and whether the authorities were too slow to recognise that this may have been a targeted political attack.
Then attention turns to tonight’s huge World Cup semifinal between England and Argentina.
While English supporters dream of repeating the glory of 1966, many Irish pubs will be filled with newly recruited Argentina fans whose main qualification is a determination to support anybody but England.
Irish people often insist that the bitterness of the past has been left behind, yet whenever England reach the latter stages of a major tournament, the old hostility quickly returns. Is it simply harmless sporting rivalry and good natured banter, or does it expose a deeper resentment that still exists beneath the surface?
Should Irish football supporters put history aside and support their closest neighbours, or has cheering against England become an accepted part of Irish identity?
Will you be waving the Union Jack and cheering on Harry Kane and the boys, or desperately hoping Lionel Messi and Argentina send England home?

In this episode, Niall speaks to callers about an email from a furious female listener whose husband wants to go on a week long lads’ holiday to Spain without her or their children.
The husband plans to travel with a group of men from his local pub, many of whom are younger, single and unmarried. His wife insists that she trusts him, but says she does not trust the situation after days of drinking, pressure from single friends and attention from other women.
What has angered her most is that the couple have not taken their two children on a family holiday this year, yet her husband suddenly appears able to find both the money and the time for a week away with the lads. After she told him he should not go, the couple stopped speaking.
Is she being controlling and treating her husband like a child, or does a married man with children have responsibilities that should come before a drinking holiday with single friends?
Can you genuinely trust your partner while still believing the circumstances are inappropriate? Should married couples be allowed to take separate holidays, or does marriage mean accepting that some parts of single life must be left behind?
Niall hears strong opinions from callers as they debate trust, temptation, double standards, family priorities and what really happens on lads’ holidays.

The number of sexual offence cases entering Ireland’s courts has risen significantly over the past two years, reigniting the debate about whether people accused of these crimes should remain anonymous until they are convicted.
In this episode, Niall speaks to Laise De Brun BL. and Dublin City Councillor Gavin Pepper about the difficult balance between protecting complainants, encouraging other potential victims to come forward and preserving the presumption of innocence for defendants who have not been found guilty.
The Courts Service’s newly published annual report shows that the District Court received 3,648 new sexual offence cases during 2025. That was almost unchanged from 3,650 in 2024, but represented an increase of 13.6 per cent from the 3,211 cases recorded in 2023.
The figures come as Tánaiste Simon Harris described domestic, sexual and gender based violence as an “epidemic” in Ireland and a “pandemic” globally. His comments were made during a wider discussion about violence against women, in which he argued that focusing solely on the race, nationality or ethnicity of an alleged offender risks missing the broader scale of the problem.
However, recorded crime figures do not tell one simple story. CSO data for the year to the first quarter of 2026 showed a 15 per cent fall in recorded sexual crime incidents, from 3,888 to 3,315. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre warned that this may not indicate a genuine reduction in sexual violence, but could instead suggest that some victims are becoming more reluctant to report their experiences.
Under legislation commenced in 2024, a person accused of a sexual offence is generally protected from being publicly identified unless and until they are convicted. Complainants are also entitled to anonymity. The law is intended to protect the alleged victim, preserve the fairness of proceedings and prevent an unconvicted defendant from suffering irreversible reputational damage.
But should that protection always apply?
Supporters of naming defendants argue that publicity can encourage other alleged victims to contact Gardaí, potentially revealing a pattern of behaviour or providing evidence that investigators would otherwise never discover. In some high profile cases, additional complainants have only come forward after an accused person’s identity became publicly known.
Opponents argue that an accusation is not a conviction. They warn that naming an innocent person can destroy their career, relationships and reputation, even where the case is later withdrawn or ends in an acquittal. There is also a danger that identifying the accused could indirectly reveal the identity of the complainant, particularly where the parties are related or closely connected.
Niall and Councillor Gavin Pepper ask whether the current law strikes the correct balance.
Should a person accused of rape or sexual assault remain anonymous until conviction? Should judges have discretion to permit identification where Gardaí believe other victims may exist? Could naming an accused person assist an investigation, or would it undermine the presumption of innocence and expose unconvicted people to trial by social media?
As sexual offence cases increase before the courts, is it time to reconsider the law, or is anonymity an essential protection in one of the most serious and damaging categories of criminal allegation?

Ireland is officially in the middle of a housing emergency, with thousands of people struggling to buy or rent a home. Yet another proposed apartment development has been stopped over concerns about its impact on people already living nearby.
In this episode, Niall speaks to property expert Karl Deeter about plans by Ires Reit to build a six storey block containing 38 apartments on the former Bruce House site on Main Road in Tallaght.
South Dublin County Council initially granted permission, but required the developer to include more three bedroom apartments, reducing the overall development from 38 homes to 33. Ires Reit appealed that condition, arguing that reducing the number of apartments would threaten the financial viability of the project.
Following an appeal from the local community, An Coimisiún Pleanála refused permission, citing the proposed building’s proximity to the existing Priorsgate apartments and concerns about overlooking and the loss of daylight to neighbouring homes.
Niall and Karl debate the difficult conflict at the centre of Ireland’s housing crisis. Existing residents have every right to protect their privacy, access to daylight, property values and quality of life. However, when almost every substantial housing development faces objections, reductions, appeals or legal challenges, where exactly are the homes Ireland desperately needs supposed to be built?
Is Ireland’s planning system protecting communities from unsuitable development, or is it making the housing crisis impossible to solve?
Should homeowners have the power to block badly needed apartments beside their properties? Are developers attempting to squeeze too many homes onto unsuitable sites, or must established communities accept greater density as Ireland’s population grows?
Niall asks whether people effectively believe they should have a veto over who lives in their area, how many people can live there and what type of homes can be constructed on their doorstep.

Niall speaks to callers and former RTÉ correspondent, now Independent Ireland MEP Ciarán Mullooly, about the national broadcaster’s demand for another guaranteed, multi annual Government funding package when its current arrangement ends in 2027.
The Government has already committed €725 million in public funding to RTÉ for the three years from 2025 to 2027. This combines television licence income with increasingly large taxpayer funded top ups intended to guarantee the broadcaster an agreed level of funding. RTÉ received approximately €183 million from licence fees last year, along with a €41 million Exchequer top up. For 2026, it expects roughly €185 million from licence sales and a further €54 million from the Government. Reports suggest that, once the present agreement expires, RTÉ could require an additional €60 million to €65 million from taxpayers in 2028 if licence revenue continues to fall. RTÉ says it is not requesting money beyond the existing agreement at present, but it has strongly appealed for another guaranteed multi annual deal to be negotiated in 2027.
The collapse in television licence payments remains at the centre of the crisis. Licence sales are now reported to be 19 per cent lower than they were in 2022. Only 299,373 licences were sold during the first five months of 2026, generating just under €48 million and representing a further year on year fall of approximately 4.5 per cent. Separate Department figures indicate that television licence revenue fell by €58.4 million in the two years following the RTÉ payments scandal, with 365,000 fewer licence transactions recorded compared with the previous two year period.
With fewer households paying the €160 licence, renewed suggestions have emerged that it could eventually be replaced by a compulsory household broadcasting charge covering televisions, phones, laptops and other connected devices. That could mean households being required to fund public service broadcasting whether they watch RTÉ or not.
Supporters argue that RTÉ provides essential news, current affairs, Irish language, cultural and sporting coverage that commercial broadcasters could never fully replace. Critics say it remains an outdated, oversized organisation that has failed to regain public trust following the secret payments controversy, governance failures and years of financial mismanagement.
Has RTÉ genuinely reformed enough to deserve another taxpayer guarantee? Should people who never watch or listen to RTÉ be forced to fund it through a new household charge? Is the broadcaster an essential national institution, or is the Government simply pouring more public money into an organisation that has become financially unsustainable?
Niall asks Ciarán Mullooly whether his former employer has earned another rescue package and whether Ireland would truly miss RTÉ if taxpayers finally refused to keep writing the cheques.