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

On today's podcast, Niall Boylan speaks to journalist Laura Perrins from Gript about one of the most disturbing child abuse and murder cases in recent years.
At Preston Crown Court, 37-year-old Jamie Varley was convicted of the murder of 13-month-old Preston Davey, along with child cruelty offences, sexual offences involving a child, the production of indecent images and the distribution of an indecent image. His partner, 32-year-old John McGowan-Fazakerley, was convicted of allowing the death of a child, child cruelty and sexual assault.
The case has shocked many people across Britain and Ireland, raising difficult questions about child protection, safeguarding failures and whether warning signs were missed before this tragedy unfolded. Niall and Laura discuss the details of the case, the public reaction, the role of social services and the wider debate about accountability when vulnerable children fall through the cracks of the system.
This is a difficult but important conversation about one of the most heartbreaking cases to come before the courts in recent years.

On today's podcast, Niall Boylan is joined by Sunday Times economics columnist Cormac Lucey to discuss a growing crisis that goes far beyond politics and economics, the collapse of public trust in the media.
New figures published in the Digital News Report Ireland 2026 show that trust in "most news" has fallen sharply in Ireland, dropping from 51% to 42% in just one year. According to the report, Ireland recorded one of the steepest declines in news trust of any country surveyed. While confidence in individual news brands has remained relatively stable, trust in the wider media landscape continues to erode.
At the same time, a fierce debate has erupted over censorship and freedom of expression following the UK's proposed social media restrictions. Critics, including Elon Musk, have argued that measures presented as online safety protections could become tools for surveillance and control. Supporters insist stronger regulation is necessary to tackle harmful content, misinformation and online abuse.
Niall and Cormac discuss why so many people no longer trust traditional news organisations, whether journalists and media outlets have become too closely aligned with political and ideological agendas, and what role censorship, fact-checking and government regulation may be playing in the public's growing scepticism.
As public confidence continues to fall, the conversation asks a fundamental question: are people losing trust in the news because the media is failing the public, or because social media has fundamentally changed how we consume and judge information?
It's a thought-provoking discussion about trust, journalism, censorship, free speech and who gets to decide what information the public should be allowed to see.

On today's podcast, Niall Boylan opens the lines to callers to debate a controversial new pilot scheme being introduced in Irish prisons.
Under the initiative, prisoners in the Dóchas Centre and the Training Unit on the Mountjoy campus will, for the first time, be able to receive direct phone calls from approved family members and friends straight to telephones in their cells. The Irish Prison Service says the three month pilot is designed to strengthen family connections, improve prisoner stability and support rehabilitation. Calls will be limited, monitored and can be withdrawn as a privilege if prisoners misuse the system or breach prison rules. Prisoners will be restricted to two inbound calls per day, each lasting up to 10 minutes, and all calls will be recorded.
Supporters argue that maintaining contact with loved ones is one of the most effective ways to reduce reoffending and help prisoners successfully reintegrate into society after release. They say prison should not simply be about punishment but also about rehabilitation, and that stronger family ties can play a vital role in preventing future crime. The Irish Prison Service has said the scheme is specifically intended to enhance family support and improve rehabilitation outcomes.
Critics, however, have reacted angrily online. Many believe prison is supposed to be a punishment and that inmates already enjoy too many privileges. Some have questioned why offenders should receive direct phone access to their cells when many law-abiding citizens struggle with rising costs and long waits for public services. Others argue that victims and their families are too often forgotten in discussions about prisoner welfare.
So where do you stand?
Are direct calls to prison cells a sensible rehabilitation measure that could reduce reoffending and improve behaviour, or is this another example of prisoners being given comforts they simply don't deserve?
Should prison focus primarily on punishment, rehabilitation, or both?
And are we becoming too soft on crime?
Niall hears from callers on both sides of this increasingly heated debate

On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall opens the lines to callers to discuss a controversial new proposal that could see owners of derelict properties hit with massive annual tax bills.
Finance Minister Simon Harris is bringing proposals to Cabinet for a new Derelict Property Tax that would replace the existing derelict sites levy and allow Revenue to collect the charge directly. Under the plan, owners of derelict properties could face an annual tax of at least 7% of the property's market value unless the building is renovated and brought back into use. The government says the move is necessary because local authorities have "badly failed" to enforce the current system and thousands of potentially usable properties remain vacant during Ireland's housing crisis. The new tax is expected to apply initially in more than 100 towns and cities across the country and will be backed by Revenue's enforcement powers. According to Simon Harris, property owners have a choice: bring the property back into use or face what he described as a "hefty tax". Latest estimates suggest there are almost 19,500 derelict residential properties across Ireland.
Supporters argue that with so many people struggling to buy or rent a home, it is unacceptable for thousands of properties to sit empty and deteriorate. They say owners have had years to act and that strong financial penalties are needed to force unused homes back onto the market.
Critics, however, see it as another attack on property rights. They point out that owners have already paid income tax on the money used to buy the property, paid stamp duty when purchasing it and continue to pay various property-related taxes. They argue that the State is now effectively imposing a recurring penalty simply because somebody chooses not to use their property in a way the government approves of.
For some owners, the bill could run into tens of thousands of euro every year. A property valued at €500,000 could face a charge of €35,000 annually under a 7% tax rate.
So where should the balance lie? Should the State have the power to financially punish people for leaving a property vacant? Is this a reasonable response to a housing emergency, or a dangerous precedent that undermines private property rights?
Niall asks callers: if you own something, should the government be able to tax you into using it, selling it or renovating it? Or is this exactly the kind of action needed to tackle Ireland's housing crisis?

On this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, Niall is joined by social commentator Sandra Adams, Paul Treyvaud and secondary school teacher Eric Nelligan to discuss one of the most controversial proposals yet in the battle over children's online safety.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced sweeping new "Australia-plus" social media restrictions that would effectively ban under-16s from accessing major social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube and X. The plans would also introduce additional restrictions for older teenagers, including limits on late-night scrolling, possible social media curfews for 16 and 17-year-olds, and a ban on under-18s using romantic or sexual AI chatbots. To enforce the measures, age verification could require facial recognition technology, digital identity checks and official documents such as passports. Starmer described the proposals as "a real change for our children and our future" and said it was time to "call time on a system that's failing our kids", arguing that governments must stand with parents rather than leave families to battle powerful technology companies alone. According to the UK government, more than 90% of parents who responded to a recent consultation supported raising the minimum age for social media access to 16.
Supporters of the proposals say social media is damaging children's mental health, exposing them to harmful content, fuelling addiction and making it easier for online predators to target young people. They argue that governments have a duty to intervene where technology companies have failed to protect children.
Critics, however, warn that the measures could become the foundation of a wider digital ID system, requiring adults and children alike to prove their identity before accessing online services. Others question whether the restrictions will work at all, pointing to evidence from Australia that many young people have already found ways around similar bans. Some teachers have also raised concerns that students increasingly rely on platforms such as YouTube for educational content, exam revision and independent learning.
So where should the balance lie? Should governments have the power to decide what teenagers can access online? Is age verification a reasonable safeguard or an invasion of privacy? Are these measures genuinely about protecting children, or are they the beginning of much greater control over the internet?
Niall, Paul and Eric debate the benefits, the risks and the unintended consequences of one of the most far-reaching attempts yet to regulate life online.