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

Don’t Call Me Darling with Niall and Karen Boylan is the podcast where a husband and wife give their honest, unfiltered opinions on the stories, relationship dilemmas and social issues that affect us all.
Nothing is off the table, and this week’s episode covers everything from hookers and paternity fraud to the far more important question of whether Niall and Karen would like to own a baby goat.
They also tackle some of the arguments and awkward questions that come up in almost every relationship. Should married couples sleep in separate bedrooms to avoid snoring and duvet stealing? Should couples share their phone passwords, or is everyone entitled to some privacy? Is it acceptable to return a present you secretly hate, and should you ever tell your partner that their outfit looks terrible?
Niall and Karen also debate whether surprise parties are actually cruel, whether backseat driving should be grounds for divorce, and whether couples should reveal their full sexual history or simply accept that the past is the past.
It is honest, intriguing, occasionally uncomfortable and full of laughs as Niall and Karen disagree, overshare and say the things most couples are probably thinking but would never dare say out loud.

BOYLAN & HOOK: NOT SUITABLE FOR BROADCAST
Niall Boylan and legendary broadcaster George Hook join forces once again for a lively, outspoken and unapologetic look at the biggest stories of the week. In this episode, they ask:
Is Climate Policy Just Another Excuse to Tax Us? Is Working for the State Like Winning the Lottery?
You Can Shove Your Tax Cuts Up Your Arse! Should Barney’s One Bite Cost Him His Life?
Are Criminal Solicitors Being Forced to Work for Free? and Will Electric Cars Really Stand the Test of Time? Expect strong opinions, sharp disagreements, humour and the kind of conversation that may not be suitable for broadcast.

In this episode, Niall talks to social commentator Karl Deeter about People Before Profit’s proposal for the Government to establish not-for-profit supermarkets to tackle food poverty.
The party is calling for a pilot scheme involving five discount stores across Ireland, following a similar proposal announced by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. The stores would sell essential food items at prices reportedly around 30% below standard retail prices.
People Before Profit says the scheme could be funded through a new tax on the largest supermarket groups and fast-food chains. However, critics argue that these businesses could simply pass the additional cost on to customers through higher prices.
Would state-backed supermarkets genuinely reduce food poverty and force greater competition in the grocery market? Or would taxpayers end up subsidising low-cost shops that could be used by people who do not need financial assistance?
Niall and Karl debate whether the proposal is a practical response to rising food prices or another costly government intervention that could create more problems than it solves.

In this episode, Niall talks to political commentator Nick Delehanty about whether employers should have the right to control what their staff post on social media.
Most people would accept that an employer can stop workers scrolling through Facebook, TikTok or X while they are being paid to work. But what happens when an employee posts something from a personal account, using their own phone and in their own time?
Workers have been disciplined and even dismissed over political opinions, controversial jokes and comments made outside the workplace. Adding “my views are my own” to a profile may offer little protection if an employer believes a post has damaged the company’s reputation or upset customers.
Employers argue that staff members are still associated with the company and that offensive or inflammatory posts can cause reputational and financial harm. Employees, however, may feel that their bosses should have no authority over their private lives or personal political opinions.
So, where should the line be drawn? Is protecting a company’s reputation more important than an employee’s freedom of expression, and should something posted at home be allowed to cost you your job?

The “Save Europe Act” is a controversial citizens’ campaign launched by Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Austrian activist Martin Sellner. It calls for a halt to inward migration from non-Western countries, tougher enforcement of Europe’s borders, faster deportations of people living illegally in Europe and an EU-wide policy of “remigration” for migrants considered unwilling or unable to integrate. The campaign also argues that individual European nations should have greater powers to preserve their cultural and national identity.
In this episode, Niall speaks to journalist John McGuirk of The Statement about the proposals and the growing political support behind them.
John does not agree with every aspect of the proposed act, but believes it raises questions that Europe’s political establishment can no longer simply dismiss. Has uncontrolled migration placed unsustainable pressure on housing, public services, social cohesion and national identity, or would the measures proposed under the Save Europe Act undermine basic individual rights?
They discuss calls for mass deportations or remigration, a complete halt to non-Western migration and stronger powers for EU member states to decide who enters their countries and under what conditions.
Are these measures now necessary to secure Europe’s borders and protect its national cultures, or does the Save Europe Act go too far? Where should the line be drawn between a country’s right to control immigration and the rights of individuals already living within its borders?
Do you support the Save Europe Act, oppose it completely, or believe Europe needs tougher immigration controls without adopting every proposal contained within it?