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

In this episode, Niall speaks to education commentator Jana Lundan about the upcoming Convention on Education and the National Conversation on Education, a major initiative that will help shape the future of Ireland’s school system.
Chaired by Anne Looney, the Convention will meet over four weekends in 2026 — March 21–22, May 9–10, September 26–27, and November 14–15 — bringing together 150 participants from four groups: 30 children and young people, 30 parents and guardians, 30 school employees and early years educators, and 60 education stakeholders.
The focus will centre on primary and post-primary education, key transitions within the system, what is working well, what challenges need urgent attention, and what changes may be needed in the years ahead. The recommendations from the Convention will feed directly into a new long-term strategy from the Department of Education and Youth.
But Jana argues there’s a problem.
She believes many parents are largely unaware that this Convention is even happening — and questions whether that lack of visibility is accidental. With the expression of interest process now closed and selected members due to be notified by 28 February 2026, she says parents are being “hoodwinked” out of meaningful involvement in decisions that will affect their children’s future.
The conversation also explores another trend raising eyebrows: the steady increase in homeschooling across Ireland. Niall shares that he recently spoke to a mother who chose to homeschool because she disagrees with aspects of the moral and relationship education curriculum. With no formal qualifications required to homeschool, and some parents having limited educational backgrounds themselves, it raises a challenging question:
Are homeschooled children at an advantage — benefiting from tailored, values-based learning — or are they potentially missing out on broader academic and social development?
It’s a lively and thought-provoking discussion about transparency, parental voice, educational standards, and who ultimately gets to shape the future of Irish education.

In this episode, Niall sits down with social commentator Karl Deeter to examine the Government’s latest commitment to issue a State apology to Ireland’s thalidomide survivors.
After the Taoiseach initially declined to confirm whether an apology would be forthcoming, a subsequent “constructive” meeting with representatives signalled that a formal apology is now on the way — potentially opening the door to further redress.
Over the past two decades, the Irish State has issued a series of landmark apologies: to survivors of industrial schools, the Magdalene Laundries, victims of clerical abuse, and those affected by Mother and Baby Homes, among others. In many cases, apologies have been accompanied by substantial financial compensation schemes, costing the State billions.
There is little disagreement that grave wrongs were done — and that victims deserve recognition. But this conversation goes deeper:
As a society, we inevitably make mistakes — and we will make more. In twenty years’ time, will another generation be apologising for today’s policies?
Should the modern taxpayer continue to shoulder the financial burden of historic failures? Is compensation a moral necessity, or has the State created a model where apology and redress are now inseparable?
And crucially — does the process of apology help us learn from the past, or has it become a political and financial reflex?
It’s a thoughtful, challenging discussion about accountability, justice, public money, and whether saying sorry is enough — or too costly to sustain.

In this episode, Niall sits down with Irish women’s rights activist,Catherine Monaghan a founding member of Wicklow Women 4 Women, for a wide-ranging and thought-provoking conversation on some of the most debated issues in Ireland today.
Together, they explore the future of women’s single-sex spaces, the impact and implications of the Gender Recognition Act 2015, and the broader cultural and legal questions surrounding gender identity. Catherine shares her perspective on advocacy, public debate, and what supporters and critics alike can expect from their upcoming speaking event in Dublin on March 7th.
This episode also turns the conversation outward. Niall asks you, the listeners:
Do you believe gender pronouns should always be respected?
Should educators and public services be obliged to use a person’s chosen pronouns rather than those associated with their biological sex at birth?
Expect a candid, respectful discussion that doesn’t shy away from difficult questions. Whether you feel strongly one way or are still making up your mind, this is a conversation that invites you to think critically and engage openly.

In this emotionally charged episode, Niall opens the lines after receiving a heartfelt email from a mother facing an incredibly difficult family decision.
Her mother-in-law, who had been living with the family, passed away just two days ago following a long illness in hospital. Now, her husband wants to bring his mother home and hold a traditional open-coffin wake in the house, allowing neighbours and friends to call and pay their respects.
But the emailer is deeply worried about their two young children, both under the age of ten. She feels that having an open coffin in the family home could be overwhelming and potentially traumatic for them — especially given how close they were to their grandmother. In her words, “No child should have to see someone they lived with in that way.”
Her husband sees it very differently. He believes that bringing his mother home is an important part of saying goodbye — not just for him, but for the whole family, including the children. He feels it could help them understand death, grieve properly, and be part of a significant family moment.
So tonight, Niall asks:
Who is being unreasonable — the husband or the wife?
Should young children be shielded from death, or gently included in the rituals of goodbye?
Is an open coffin at home a healthy way to process grief — or too much for little minds?
It’s a sensitive subject that touches on parenting, culture, grief, and what it really means to protect our children.
Join the conversation as callers share their experiences, opinions, and advice.

On this week’s episode, Niall is joined by social commentator Karl Deeter for a provocative discussion about free speech, censorship, and who really gets to decide the limits of public debate.
The conversation centres on reports that the US has developed a new portal — freedom.gov — designed to allow users, including Europeans, to access content blocked under national or EU laws, including material deemed hate speech or linked to extremism. The move comes amid growing tension between the Trump administration and the European Commission over Europe’s tightening regulation of big tech platforms.
With investigations into companies like X and Meta, and increasing enforcement of hate speech and disinformation rules across the EU, the debate over who controls online speech is intensifying. At the same time, critics argue that speech laws in Europe are becoming more restrictive — while supporters say they are necessary to protect democracy and public safety.
So where is the line?
Are our speech limits changing?
Do you feel more cautious about what you say publicly — or post online?
Are people self-censoring for fear of being cancelled, fined, or even arrested?
And should America be interfering in Europe’s laws at all?
Niall and Karl explore whether this is a battle for freedom of expression — or a geopolitical power struggle dressed up as one.
We want to hear from you.
Has the space for open debate shrunk?
Do you think free speech is under threat — or properly regulated?
And should the US have any role in challenging European speech laws?