Niall opens the lines for one of the most heated dilemmas yet:

A wife admits to slapping her husband in front of her friends. She says it was “just a tap” in the middle of a row, and that she’s been apologizing ever since. But two and a half weeks later, he’s still hurt and won’t forgive her—reminding her that if the roles were reversed, it would be a very different story.

💬 Callers weigh in with passionate takes, bringing both sides of the debate:

Pros of forgiveness (according to some callers):

Everyone loses their temper sometimes—relationships can survive one mistake if genuine remorse is shown.

Public arguments can push emotions over the edge, but love and long-term commitment deserve another chance.

If he was deliberately riling her, he should also take responsibility for provoking the situation.

Healing could come through counseling, humor, or agreeing to rules about how to argue respectfully in future.

Cons / reasons against letting it go (according to other callers):

Violence—no matter how small—is never acceptable, especially in public humiliation.

If the genders were reversed, society wouldn’t minimize it as “just a tap.”

Holding grudges for weeks can signal deeper cracks: maybe this wasn’t about one slap but years of resentment.

Forgiveness without change risks repeating the same behavior again.

Niall asks the big questions: Was this truly just a moment of madness, or is the husband right to hold firm? Can respect return after public humiliation—or is it the end of the road?

This week, Niall is joined by Jason Osborne from Gript Media to tackle one of the most morally gut-wrenching questions imaginable.

Last Friday, Niall applauded the actions of Matt Robinson—the father who restrained his own son, Tyler, and handed him over to police after the murder of Charlie Kirk. But not everyone agreed. One X user responded:

“I am delighted he is caught. However, I am disgusted with the actions of his father. He is supposed to protect his son, instead he is responsible for him spending his life in prison getting butt ****ed. With a father like that no wonder he turned out bad.”

🔥 The debate splits right down the middle:

Some callers argue that justice must come first—no matter if it’s your child, your partner, or your best friend. To protect society, you must act.

Others believe blood is thicker than water—your duty is to family above all, and you could never condemn your own son to life in prison or even the death penalty, as still practiced in Utah.

Niall and Jason put the big question to listeners: If you knew your son committed cold-blooded murder, would you call the police—or protect him at all costs?

📞 The lines are open, and the opinions are fiery.

In this episode, Niall opens the phone lines to tackle a sensitive and urgent issue: childhood obesity in Ireland. A new UNICEF report shows that one in five Irish children is overweight or obese—twice the global rate—and in DEIS schools, that figure rises to one in four. For the first time in history, childhood obesity has overtaken underweight as the most common form of malnutrition worldwide.

Niall hears from callers with a wide range of views:

The Tough Love Approach – Some argue that parents who consistently feed their children junk food are guilty of neglect or even child abuse, and that the state should step in.

The Compassionate View – Others say blaming parents is unfair, pointing to low incomes, food deserts, and the aggressive marketing of fast food to children.

The Personal Responsibility Angle – A few callers insist that regardless of circumstance, families must take responsibility for diet and exercise, no excuses.

The Bigger Picture – Some listeners highlight systemic issues—school meal programs, urban planning, and screen time—as key drivers behind rising obesity rates.

The Freedom Argument – And there are those who push back against “nanny state” interference, arguing it’s not the government’s job to tell parents how to feed their kids.

This frank and sometimes fiery discussion asks: Who is really to blame for childhood obesity—and what can be done before the crisis worsens?