Public sector workers are warning that patience is running out over pay, and the threat of industrial action is becoming increasingly serious.Niall Boylan talks to callers about whether Ireland could be heading towards a major wave of strikes across essential public services, and whether workers in areas such as healthcare, education, public transport and social protection should have the same right to withdraw their labour as anyone else.The previous public service pay agreement expired on 30 June 2026 after delivering increases of up to 10.25% over two and a half years. Unions argue that rising prices have continued to erode living standards and that any new agreement must properly reflect inflation. Fórsa has been balloting more than 90,000 public sector members on industrial action, while SIPTU, the INMO and other unions are also moving towards ballots. Prison officers have already backed industrial action, and Unite has warned that Ireland could face a “winter of strikes” unless the Government makes what it considers a meaningful pay offer.Teachers are also becoming increasingly involved. The Teachers’ Union of Ireland has announced a ballot for industrial action in a separate dispute over a 1% salary increase which it says has not been paid as agreed, potentially affecting cooperation with elements of Senior Cycle assessment reform.But where should the line be drawn? If nurses, teachers, transport workers or other essential public servants strike, it is ordinary members of the public who can ultimately suffer. Gardaí are prohibited from striking because of the essential nature of their work, so should similar restrictions apply to other vital services?And then there is the question of pay. Do public servants deserve another substantial increase because of the cost of living, or after receiving increases of up to 10.25% under the previous agreement, is it unreasonable to expect private sector taxpayers to fund another large rise?Niall hears from callers on both sides of a debate that could become one of the biggest industrial relations battles facing the Government this winter.

The Lindsay Clancy murder trial has gripped millions around the world, and the case is now in the hands of a Massachusetts jury.Niall Boylan is joined by journalist and commentator Laura Perrins to discuss the latest developments in the extraordinary case involving Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who killed her three young children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, at their family home in January 2023.Clancy has pleaded not guilty to three counts of first degree murder on the basis that she was not criminally responsible. Her defence argues that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis, was severely mentally unwell and had been prescribed numerous psychiatric medications before the killings. Prosecutors accept that she had significant mental health problems, but argue that she still understood what she was doing and deliberately planned the deaths. After 22 days of testimony and closing arguments, jurors are now deciding whether she should be convicted of murder, found guilty of a lesser offence, or found not criminally responsible because of her mental state.At the heart of the case is an extraordinarily difficult question.There is no dispute that Lindsay Clancy killed her children, but if she was experiencing severe psychosis at the time, should she be held fully criminally responsible?Should a mother who kills her children while suffering from a profound psychiatric illness spend the rest of her life in prison without parole, or should the emphasis instead be on psychiatric treatment and compassion?And how much responsibility, if any, should be placed on a medical system that was treating a woman whose mental health had been deteriorating before the tragedy?Niall talks to Laura Perrins about the evidence heard during the trial, the prosecution and defence arguments, the debate surrounding postpartum psychosis and the verdict that could determine whether Lindsay Clancy spends her life in prison or in psychiatric care.

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks to Independent Ireland TD Ken O’Flynn about Ireland’s continuing financial and political support for Ukraine.O’Flynn has criticised Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s participation in the Coalition of the Willing, warning that “standing with Ukraine cannot mean a blank cheque with no questions asked.”With the EU proposing a new €90 billion loan for Ukraine, questions are being raised about what Ireland’s eventual share could be. Ireland accounted for roughly 2.2% of the EU budget in 2025, and while the final liability cannot simply be calculated on that basis, a proportional comparison would put Ireland’s potential exposure at close to €2 billion.That comes on top of hundreds of millions already provided directly to Ukraine, billions spent accommodating Ukrainians in Ireland, and more than €4 billion recorded in official development assistance across 2024 and 2025, although those figures also include some refugee-related expenditure within Ireland.Niall asks Ken O’Flynn whether the Government is right to continue committing Irish taxpayers’ money to Ukraine, whether there should be greater scrutiny of future funding, and whether Ireland’s generosity abroad is coming at the expense of problems at home.Are we mugs handing out blank cheques, or are we simply a generous and good-natured nation doing our duty?

In this episode, Niall Boylan speaks to economic journalist with The Sunday Times Ireland, Cormac Lucey, about Ireland’s continuing cost of living crisis and whether Government policy is actually making inflation worse.Prices rose by 3.4% in the year to July, with some household costs increasing far more sharply. Education costs were up 8.9%, clothing and footwear increased by 8.5%, while housing, water, electricity and gas rose by 7.7%.Cormac Lucey argues that the Government is not simply failing to control inflation, but is actively fuelling it through its own spending and economic policies.Niall asks whether politicians have become detached from the reality facing ordinary households, and whether part of the reason there is not greater public anger is that a significant section of society can still comfortably absorb the increases.Is Ireland becoming divided between those who can shrug off higher prices and the so called “I’m alright, Jack” brigade, and those who are quietly being pushed closer to the financial edge every month?Are you still coping comfortably, or is the cost of living finally becoming impossible to ignore?

Should Ireland follow Portugal and ban full face coverings in public?Niall Boylan is joined by journalist John McGuirk to debate whether Ireland should introduce a nationwide ban on clothing that conceals a person’s face in public, including the burqa and niqab.Portugal has now introduced one of Europe’s newest face covering laws. Under Law No. 58/2026, published on 24 August, clothing designed to conceal the face or prevent identification will be prohibited in public streets, public services, businesses, sporting events and demonstrations. The law comes into force on 23 September 2026. Anyone who breaches it can face a fine of €150 to €750 for a negligent offence, or €400 to €3,000 where the breach is deliberate. There are exemptions for health, work, artistic and entertainment purposes, security, weather conditions, places of worship, diplomatic premises and aircraft. The legislation also makes it a criminal offence to force somebody to cover their face because of their sex, with a possible prison sentence of up to two years, increased where the victim is a minor.Portugal is far from alone. France, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Bulgaria and Switzerland have introduced broad restrictions on concealing the face in public. The Netherlands has a more limited ban covering places such as schools, hospitals and public transport, while Germany and Norway have restrictions in particular settings. Italy already has long standing legislation restricting the concealment of a person’s identity in public, while the issue has also been debated in countries including Spain. Across Europe the argument remains deeply divided between religious freedom and individual choice on one side, and security, identification, integration and women’s rights on the other.Supporters of a ban argue that nobody should be permitted to completely conceal their identity while walking through public spaces, entering shops, using public services or dealing with authorities. They also argue that some women may be pressured by husbands, fathers or communities into covering their faces. Opponents say governments should not dictate how people dress and that banning the burqa or niqab disproportionately targets Muslim women and interferes with freedom of religion and cultural expression.Niall asks John McGuirk where the balance should lie. Should Ireland follow Portugal and other European countries and ban full face coverings in public, or would such a law represent an unacceptable intrusion into religious freedom and personal choice?

Why are men’s mental health struggles so often dismissed until they reach crisis point?In this episode, Niall Boylan talks to callers about a difficult listener dilemma involving marriage, depression, money and the limits of emotional responsibility.A woman has written to the show about her husband, who is in his 40s and says he is depressed. He is self employed, but has stopped looking for work, spends most of his time at home and appears to have lost interest in almost everything, including himself. His wife says she has supported him for months, attended the doctor with him and encouraged him to seek further help, but she feels he is making little effort to change his situation.Their relationship has now deteriorated badly. They have not slept in the same bed or had any intimacy for a year, they are struggling financially and the household is surviving entirely on her income. She says constantly dealing with his depression is now affecting her own mental health and she is beginning to wonder whether she needs to leave the marriage while she still has a chance to rebuild her life.But where does compassion end and personal responsibility begin?Is she being selfish for considering leaving a husband who is clearly struggling, or is it unreasonable to expect one person to carry the emotional and financial burden of a relationship indefinitely?Niall hears from callers on both sides and asks a difficult question: When somebody you love is depressed but appears unwilling to help themselves, how long are you expected to sacrifice your own happiness to save them?

In this episode, Niall Boylan is joined by journalist Laura Perrins to debate whether the law is tough enough on young drivers who deliberately put innocent lives at risk.The discussion comes after a horrifying series of wrong way crashes in Ireland and Britain. Two weeks ago, eight teenagers travelling in a stolen car drove the wrong way onto the M50 before crashing head on into another vehicle, leaving an innocent motorist seriously injured.Days later, tragedy struck again on the M9 when five teenagers were killed after their car was driven the wrong way down the motorway and collided head on with a family travelling to Dublin Airport. Three women and a seven year old boy were seriously injured.Then, on Saturday in Britain, five young men travelling the wrong way on the A66 crashed into a police vehicle. All five occupants of the car were killed, along with two police officers.Niall argues that deliberately driving the wrong way on a motorway is not simply reckless driving. When someone knowingly sends a vehicle towards oncoming traffic at motorway speeds, innocent motorists have nowhere to go and no way of knowing what is coming towards them.He has called for emergency legislation that could see anyone who deliberately drives in this manner, putting innocent lives at extreme risk, facing a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, regardless of their age.Critics say 20 years would be completely disproportionate, particularly when young offenders are involved, and argue that sentencing must still take account of age, maturity, intent and the circumstances of each individual case.But Niall asks where society should draw the line. If somebody deliberately turns a car into what is effectively a lethal weapon and plays Russian roulette with the lives of innocent families, should being 15, 16 or 17 substantially protect them from the consequences?Laura Perrins joins Niall to discuss punishment, personal responsibility, youth justice and whether the threat of much tougher sentences would actually deter this kind of behaviour.How many more innocent people have to be killed or seriously injured before the law gets tougher? Is 20 years an appropriate punishment for deliberately putting motorists' lives at risk, or would it be an excessive response to an appalling problem?

In this episode of The Niall Boylan Show, Niall opens the phone lines to listeners to debate a controversial question: should married couples with children receive greater priority for social housing in Ireland?The debate follows comments from Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice, who has argued that marriage provides children with greater stability and suggested that married couples with children should be given greater priority when social housing is allocated.Supporters argue that governments already use taxation and other policies to encourage certain behaviours, so why should marriage be any different? If stable two parent families are considered beneficial for children, should the State actively encourage marriage when deciding how scarce public housing is distributed?Critics say such a policy would create two classes of family. An unmarried couple with children, a single mother, a single father or somebody whose marriage has broken down could potentially find themselves behind a married couple, even when their housing needs are exactly the same.Niall asks callers whether social housing should be allocated purely according to need, or whether governments are entitled to consider the type of family being housed.If two families have identical incomes, the same number of children and exactly the same level of housing need, should the married couple get the house first?And should the State be encouraging marriage at all, or is it none of the Government’s business how people choose to organise their family lives?Niall takes calls from both sides of a debate that goes straight to the heart of how we define family, fairness and who should get priority when there simply are not enough homes to go around.

The Irish Government is considering tougher citizenship rules that could increase the standard residency requirement from five to eight years. Applicants may also have to demonstrate English proficiency, financial independence, good character and an ability to support themselves and their families. These are currently proposals being considered, rather than rules already in force. The Sunday TimesNiall speaks to Nick Delehanty, who believes the proposed changes still do not go far enough. They compare Ireland with Denmark, where applicants must pass a 45-question examination covering Danish society, history, culture, current affairs and national values. Candidates need at least 36 correct answers, including four of the five questions on Danish values. Is Irish citizenship being handed out too easily? Should applicants have to prove that they understand Irish history, culture and values, or would tougher requirements unfairly punish people who genuinely want to become part of the country?

Fewer Than 100 Points to College Lecturer: Are We Lying to Teenagers About the Leaving Cert?Niall talks to Cleo Knight, Ms Offaly 2026, who left school with fewer than 100 Leaving Certificate points believing she was not academic and that higher education was not for her. The only course she thought was available to her was jam-making, but Cleo had very different ambitions.Today, she is a Business and Media lecturer, a model and the coordinator of an Honours Degree in Business and Psychology. Through Further Education, Cleo found an alternative route into college and proved that one set of exam results does not determine a person’s intelligence or future.Cleo discusses her new “Further Than You Think” campaign and explains why students from very different backgrounds are being judged by the same points system.Do Leaving Certificate points genuinely measure intelligence, hard work and ability, or simply how well someone performs in one set of examinations at 18? Is Ireland placing too much pressure on teenagers and making many of them feel like failures before their adult lives have even begun?