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

Should Children Be Banned from Pubs and Beer Gardens?**
Niall speaks to callers after a listener contacted the show to say he and his wife were disgusted by what they witnessed during a visit to a large local bar.
The couple had gone out for dinner, but the beer garden was packed with families and young children. According to the listener, many of the children appeared bored, were running around unsupervised and were completely out of control, while heavily intoxicated adults shouted, swore and held conversations that were clearly unsuitable for children.
He claimed that many of the adults were not even eating and appeared to have been sitting in the beer garden drinking for hours, while their children were left to entertain themselves in what was effectively an outdoor drinking area.
The listener says he would never have brought his own children into that environment and believes children should be banned from licensed premises altogether. His view is simple: bring children to the park, the beach, a playground or a family restaurant, but not somewhere primarily designed for adults to consume alcohol.
But is that fair?
Many parents argue that pubs and beer gardens can be perfectly suitable for families, particularly during the day, provided children are supervised and adults behave responsibly. They say families should be able to enjoy a meal and a drink without being judged because of the behaviour of a minority.
Others believe the culture has gone too far and that some beer gardens have effectively become unofficial playgrounds while parents drink for hours and expect staff and other customers to tolerate badly behaved children.
Should children be banned from pubs after a certain time? Should licensed premises be allowed to introduce adult only areas? Or have some parents simply lost sight of where it is appropriate to bring young children?
Niall hears from callers on whether children belong in pubs and beer gardens, and whether responsible families are now being unfairly blamed for the behaviour of parents who have completely lost the run of themselves.

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.

Should Every Government Service Be Forced to Accept Cash?
Niall speaks to Aontú Senator Sarah O’Reilly about her campaign against businesses, sporting venues and State services refusing to accept cash.
Senator O’Reilly has strongly criticised the National Driver Licence Service, which does not accept cash, cheques or postal orders at its centres. Customers must instead pay using a debit or credit card, Apple Pay, Google Pay or a Payzone voucher. She argues that it is astonishing for an essential public service operating on behalf of the State to continue refusing direct cash payments.
The Government’s National Payments Strategy, launched in October 2024, states that Government departments and bodies operating under their authority should accept both electronic and cash payments, or provide a way for people to facilitate a cash payment, when charging for public services, goods, fines or fees. Senator O’Reilly argues that the NDLS policy makes a mockery of that commitment.
Niall asks whether requiring someone to purchase a Payzone voucher really amounts to accepting cash, or whether State agencies should be required to take notes and coins directly at the counter.
Senator O’Reilly says the move towards a cashless society is discriminatory against older people, those without smartphones or reliable internet access, people who struggle with technology and citizens who do not have bank accounts. She argues that cash allows people to budget, protects privacy and gives everyone the ability to participate in society without relying on a bank or technology company.
She also raises serious concerns about victims of domestic abuse. Financial control is commonly used by abusers, including taking possession of a victim’s bank card, monitoring transactions or restricting access to an account. Cash can provide a degree of privacy and independence to someone attempting to escape a controlling relationship.
Ireland’s Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025 came into operation on 30 June 2025. It is intended to protect reasonable access to ATMs and cash services and to preserve the resilience of the country’s cash infrastructure. However, it does not create a general legal requirement for every shop, business or service provider to accept cash.
Although cash is legal tender, that does not automatically mean every business must accept it in every transaction. A business can generally refuse cash when it clearly tells customers in advance that another form of payment is required. The Central Bank says that where no restriction has been agreed or displayed, legal tender must normally be accepted to settle an existing debt.
But should different rules apply to essential public services funded or authorised by the State?
Niall asks Senator Sarah O’Reilly whether cash acceptance should now be placed on a statutory footing, whether the Government’s policy is being ignored and whether refusing cash is excluding some of the most vulnerable people in society.
Should customers always have the right to choose between cash and card? Is refusing cash genuinely more efficient, or is it forcing people into a financial system that can monitor every purchase they make? And when the next major power cut, banking outage or worldwide technology failure occurs, will Ireland regret allowing cash to disappear?

Niall Boylan is joined by Laura Perrins, journalist with Gript Media, to discuss the growing controversy around e-scooters and calls for tougher regulation.
Green Party leader Roderic O’Gorman has called for the law to clamp down on retailers selling e-scooters, following reports that six children were admitted to Temple Street Hospital ICU in recent days after e-scooter related accidents. Minister of State for Road Safety Sean Canney is also reported to be considering stricter rules, including mandatory registration, tax and insurance obligations similar to those placed on cars.
But is this common sense regulation, or another example of politicians encouraging a trend and then punishing the public when things go wrong?
There is an obvious irony in the Green Party, long associated with promoting electric transport and alternatives to cars, now calling for tougher restrictions on e-scooters. Supporters of regulation say these machines are not toys and that children are being seriously injured, with pedestrians and road users also put at risk. They argue that if e-scooters are being used on public roads, riders should face proper rules, enforcement and accountability.
Others say making e-scooters subject to tax, insurance and registration could destroy the very purpose of them: affordable, convenient and environmentally friendly transport. Would tougher laws protect children and pedestrians, or would they simply punish responsible users?
Should e-scooters and certain e-bikes be over-18s only? Should riders be licensed, taxed and insured like drivers? Or is this a heavy-handed response that will make cheap electric transport impossible for ordinary people?
Niall and Laura discuss safety, personal responsibility, political hypocrisy and whether Ireland needs tougher laws before more children are seriously injured.

Not Suitable For Broadcast – "Dont Call me Darling!"
This week's episode of Not Suitable For Broadcast didn't quite go to plan… and it may just have turned out even better because of it!
With AJ Walsh away, Niall was faced with a dilemma. Cancel the show, or find someone brave enough to step into the hot seat. Enter his wife, Karen Boylan, who had never appeared on a radio show or podcast before. Thrown in at the deep, Karen proved to be a natural, bringing honesty, humour and plenty of opinions to the conversation. Could this be the beginning of a brand new husband and wife podcast?
Together, Niall and Karen tackle another packed week of headlines, asking whether Donald Trump should be welcomed to Ireland or protested against, whether the soaring cost of living is forcing people to leave the country, and if politicians have become too sensitive to criticism. They also debate the controversial proposal to classify miscarriage and abortion under the same term of "pregnancy loss", the growing calls for stricter regulation of e-scooters, and RTÉ's latest request for even more taxpayers' money.
The conversation also turns to Ireland's EU Presidency and Ursula von der Leyen's visit, the shocking murder investigation into Jamey Carney in Kerry, and they wrap things up with a lighter discussion about Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's awkward podcast confession involving Kylie Minogue.
It's an episode full of laughs, lively debate, unexpected chemistry and the kind of honest conversation that Not Suitable For Broadcast is becoming known for.
Was Karen a one-off stand in, or have Niall and Karen just stumbled upon the next podcast you didn't know you needed? Listen now and let us know what you think.