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

On today’s show, Niall reads a powerful and deeply honest email from a woman married for 20 years, with three children all under 16. On the surface, her life looks stable — no rows, no drama, no big blow-ups — but underneath, she feels stuck, disconnected, and quietly unhappy.
She says she still loves her husband, but she’s no longer in love with him. The intimacy is gone. The spark has faded. They feel more like best friends sharing a house than a couple sharing a life, staying together largely for the sake of the kids. Despite raising it many times and asking for change, she feels he’s uninterested — not just in intimacy, but in himself and in her as a woman.
Now, with friends telling her to “get out while she’s still young,” rediscover herself, and find someone who truly desires and appreciates her, she’s torn between loyalty, fear, guilt, and the quiet question she can’t shake: Is this really it for the rest of my life?
Niall opens the conversation to listeners:
Do you stay and accept comfort without passion — or leave to chase something more, even when it risks everything?
A raw, relatable discussion about marriage, desire, duty, and what it really means to choose happiness.

This week on the podcast, Niall is joined by two voices who never shy away from a straight answer.
Mark Noble — better known as Nobby On Cars, the man behind Ireland’s biggest motoring channel, famous for honest car reviews and zero waffle.
And Nadia Adan from Ashford Motors, well known in the motor trade for many things… including her absolute love of EVs (yes, that is sarcasm).
They’re digging into the latest headlines claiming electric vehicles are now outselling petrol cars year on year — but is that really the full story? With hybrids actually leading the charge, and most of those still petrol-powered, are consumers quietly hedging their bets rather than going fully electric?
Are drivers genuinely ready to make the jump to EVs, or is range anxiety, charging infrastructure and cost still holding people back? And with the US scrapping its green targets, the UK pushing deadlines out to 2035, and Europe still talking 2030 — will governments really be able to force a full EV transition?
Plus, Niall opens the phones to listeners:
Have you made the switch — or are you sticking with petrol or hybrid for now?
No spin. No hype. Just real-world motoring talk.
Very brief article summary
New Irish car sales figures show petrol has slipped to third place, with hybrids leading the market and EVs close behind. While EV registrations hit a record high, hybrids — many of them petrol-powered — remain the most popular choice, raising questions about whether the shift away from petrol is as clear-cut as the headlines suggest.

But amid the noise, a warning has been issued by some newspapers and commentators: that media outlets are increasingly publishing long lists of names based purely on association — not accusation, not evidence, not charges. Phrases like “Unsealed names,” “A-listers named,” and “Biggest celebrities exposed” can subtly — or not so subtly — imply guilt by mere mention.
Niall and Ian dig into where journalism, justice, and public anger collide.
A brief timeline of Epstein and the latest revelations:
2008: Jeffrey Epstein is convicted of soliciting a minor and serves a controversial, lenient jail sentence.
2019: Epstein is arrested again on federal sex-trafficking charges.
August 2019: Epstein dies in a New York jail cell while awaiting trial, officially ruled a suicide.
2024–2025: Court documents linked to civil cases are unsealed, revealing names of individuals who had contact with Epstein — many without any allegation of wrongdoing.
Now: Public debate reignites as social and reputational consequences hit people named, regardless of evidence.
So where do we draw the line?
If someone socialised with Epstein, attended his parties, or accepted his hospitality — especially before his conviction — does that make them morally or socially culpable?
Or is it dangerous, unfair, and legally reckless to blur association with guilt?

On today’s episode, Niall is joined by Cathal Leavy from P.A.W.S. to discuss a case that shocked the internet long before “going viral” became routine — and which has now resurfaced, reigniting fierce debate about punishment, cruelty, and justice.
It’s been 15 years since the case of Mary Bale, the woman caught on CCTV in Coventry placing a neighbour’s cat, Lola, into a wheelie bin and closing the lid. The footage spread rapidly online in 2010, provoking international outrage. The cat survived after being trapped in the bin for around 15 hours and was later reunited with her owner.
Mary Bale pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. She was fined £250, banned from owning animals for five years, and avoided a custodial sentence. At the time, the judge cited her mental health struggles and the absence of prior offences. Following the case, Bale reportedly went into hiding after receiving death threats and widespread online abuse.
Now, with the video circulating again, many people are asking whether justice was truly served.
Some argue the punishment was far too lenient — that deliberately harming an animal reflects the same moral failing as harming a child. Others say equating animal abuse with child abuse risks oversimplifying the law and ignoring crucial differences.
So today’s question is an uncomfortable one — but an important one:
Should those who deliberately harm an animal be treated the same as those who harm a child and face prison?
Is calling it “only an animal” a dangerous minimisation of cruelty?
Or should the law draw a clear and necessary distinction?
Niall and Cathal explore what animal cruelty tells us about human behaviour, where the law currently stands, and whether society’s instincts are running ahead of justice — or finally catching up.

Ireland is in the midst of a housing emergency — rents and homelessness are rising, while tens of thousands of homes sit empty. According to the 2022 Census, there were over 160,000 properties recorded as vacant across the State — nearly 8 % of all housing stock — including houses and apartments that have been unoccupied for years. Around 48,000 of these homes were vacant in both the 2016 and 2022 censuses, suggesting long-term vacancy rather than short-term gaps between tenancies or renovations.
More recent mapping data from GeoDirectory shows roughly 80,000 residential homes vacant nationwide — even though the overall vacancy rate has fallen to around 3.7 %.
With so many homes unused, some campaigners suggest introducing “Use It or Lose It” laws — similar to measures in the UK — that would allow the State to take over privately owned properties that remain vacant for a defined period and bring them into the social housing stock.
Proponents argue this could:
Turn under-utilised housing into homes for people in need, helping reduce homelessness and ease rental pressures;
Encourage owners to renovate or sell empty properties, increasing supply quickly without costly new builds.
Critics counter that:
Many “vacant” homes are empty temporarily — between tenancies, under renovation, or awaiting sale — and are not genuine long-term vacancies;
Compulsory takeover could be seen as an overreach of state power and unfair to property owners who may have legitimate reasons for vacancy.
Enforcement and valuation issues could create legal and financial complications.
Should Ireland introduce “Use It Or Lose It” laws for vacant homes — or would this trample on property rights without solving the root of the housing crisis?