In this episode, Niall explores a deeply taboo question: Do people ever regret having children? It's a topic most parents are too ashamed or afraid to speak about publicly—but for some, the feeling is real.

The conversation begins with an email from a listener who admits they love their children but quietly wonder what life might’ve looked like without them. The exhaustion, financial strain, loss of freedom, and relationship breakdowns have left them questioning whether parenthood was the right path.

Callers respond with brutal honesty.

Some say it's a thought they've had late at night when the pressure becomes too much. They talk about how parenthood isn’t always the joyful, fulfilling journey it’s made out to be—especially when support is lacking or when it comes at the cost of identity and dreams.

Others are outraged by the very idea, calling it selfish or ungrateful. To them, children are a blessing, not a burden, and regret is a luxury some can't afford to entertain. They believe that even in hard times, the love and purpose parenting brings outweighs any fleeting doubts.

This episode pulls no punches. It's raw, emotional, and brutally honest—shining a light on one of the last parenting taboos.

Date:

14/05/2025

In this episode, Niall asks: Should Ireland pay illegal migrants to leave the country? The discussion comes after Donald Trump announced plans to offer flights to help undocumented migrants “self-deport,” warning that those who refuse would face the full force of the law. Should Ireland consider a similar approach—offering cash incentives for voluntary departure—or stick to straightforward deportation?

Callers were split. Some argued that offering a one-time payment could save taxpayers money in the long run by avoiding lengthy legal battles, appeals, and costly accommodation. They said it allows people to leave with dignity while relieving pressure on housing and public services.

Others were furious at the idea of rewarding illegal behaviour, insisting it would send the wrong message and attract more people hoping for a payout. “Break the law and get paid for it? That’s madness,” one caller said.

The debate touches on national priorities, border control, and the ethics of migration enforcement. Should compassion guide policy—or common sense?

Date:

13/05/25

In this episode of The Niall Boylan Podcast, we’re asking: Should mothers be free to breastfeed anywhere they choose—or should there be limits?

The conversation stems from a viral post showing a mother breastfeeding her baby in public with the caption challenging people to stop demanding mothers be “respectful” while feeding their child. While breastfeeding is legal in public across many countries, including Ireland, mothers still face social stigma, judgmental stares, and even harassment for doing something as natural and necessary as feeding a baby.

Niall invites listeners to weigh in on whether society should normalize public breastfeeding or if discretion is still necessary in certain settings.

Some callers felt mothers should be able to breastfeed absolutely anywhere, without shame or pressure to hide. They argued that feeding a baby is a human right, not a display of indecency—and that people who are uncomfortable need to grow up and mind their own business.

Others felt there should be some boundaries. While supportive of breastfeeding, they said it should be done with “consideration,” like using a nursing cover or opting for private spaces when possible. For them, it’s about respect for others in shared public areas, not denying a baby its needs.

Dr. Marcus de Brun joins Niall Boylan to expose what he calls a dark chapter in Ireland’s COVID-19 response—one marked by censorship, coercion, and what he describes as “manslaughter in slow motion.”

A former GP and former member of the Irish Medical Council, de Brun now faces the possible loss of his medical licence. “I’ve been accused of misconduct—not for hurting patients, not for negligence—but for saying things the government didn’t like,” he says. His so-called misconduct? Speaking out—on radio, in articles, and at protests—against what he saw as reckless and unethical pandemic policies.

He paints a damning picture: hospital patients, untested, were transferred into nursing homes; diagnostic testing was pulled; GPs were told not just to follow guidelines, but to promote them. “You want to know how to conduct a mass killing of vulnerable people?” he asks. “Start by cutting off diagnostics and dump untested patients where they’re weakest.”

De Brun says he initially complied with the vaccination programme for the most vulnerable, but he drew a firm line when it came to children. “Over 70,000 cases in children, and not one single fatality. And yet they told me if I didn’t inject children, I’d be suspended. That’s not science—that’s tyranny.”

He explains the mechanism of the mRNA vaccine in sobering terms: “This isn’t a vaccine. It’s a piece of genetic code wrapped in fat that hijacks your cells. There’s no dosage control. No off switch. Any cell in your body can take it up—and start producing spike protein.”

What’s more alarming, he says, is that this technology isn’t just new—it’s a game changer for Big Pharma. “If a drug company like Pfizer can get your body to produce the drug inside you, they don’t need factories. They don’t need staff. You become the factory. And there’s no product control, because the process is happening in you—not in a lab.”

He warns that this opens a dangerous frontier in medicine. “What they’re playing with—human genetics—is highly dangerous and should be stopped. These vaccines should be completely withdrawn.”

And why were doctors barred from trying alternative treatments? His answer is blunt: “The vaccine needed emergency use approval. And under that system, there can’t be any alternative treatments. That’s why we were gagged. And the Medical Council became the enforcer.”

He adds: “The only explanation I can come up with is the influence of large conglomerates or corporations. That’s why the general public were denied access to potential treatments. And the level of incompetence in the nursing homes… could only be described as manslaughter.”

De Brun says he’s not alone. At least a dozen other GPs are under investigation for similar “offences,” including one struck off for refusing to administer the vaccine and another disciplined for simply putting up a poster in his waiting room advising caution. “None of us harmed a patient,” he says. “Our mistake was speaking.”

He believes the Irish media helped suppress dissent. “RTE never called again. They took the state’s money and became mouthpieces. People weren’t informed—they were manipulated.”

And the contradiction? “92% of healthcare workers didn’t even take the booster last year,” he says. “But they’re still giving it to nursing home residents—many of whom can’t consent. What kind of ethics is that?”

As Niall recalls being labelled “anti-lockdown” in a government-funded report, Dr. de Brun reflects on what this was really about. “It was never about public health. It was about control. About power. And now they want us to forget.”

When asked whether it was worth it—after losing his practice, facing investigation, and enduring years of silence and depression—he answers plainly: “Ask me after June. If they take my license, they’ll take my livelihood. But they won’t take what I know to be true.”

This is a conversation the system hoped you’d never hear—and one that still demands answers.

In this episode, Niall asks: Would knowing your co-worker’s salary make the workplace fairer – or just more toxic? The discussion is sparked by the EU’s new directive on pay transparency, which will soon require companies to publish salary ranges for advertised roles and allow employees to request the salary range for their own positions.

This move, aimed at reducing the gender pay gap and promoting fairness, is set to challenge one of Ireland’s last taboos: openly discussing pay. Under the directive, employers will also be banned from asking candidates about their pay history—an effort to prevent lowball offers and empower jobseekers. While many praise the transparency as a step toward equality and negotiating power, critics argue it could lead to resentment, tension, and unnecessary workplace drama.

Callers were split on the issue.

Some welcomed the change, saying salary secrecy allows inequality to flourish unchecked. They argued that transparency would empower employees—especially women and younger workers—and ensure people are being paid fairly for the same work.

Others warned that revealing salaries would sow division, resentment, and jealousy in the workplace. They felt that pay often reflects experience, skills, or negotiation—not just job title—and feared salary comparisons could fuel bitterness instead of cooperation.

Niall concluded by acknowledging the deeply personal nature of salary discussions in Ireland, but noted that greater transparency is now inevitable. Whether it leads to a fairer workplace—or a more fractured one—remains to be seen.

In this episode, Niall asks: Do protests still have the power to make a difference—or are they being ignored? The discussion follows last weekend’s enormous demonstration in Dublin, where tens of thousands flooded O’Connell Street in a grassroots protest against Ireland’s immigration policy.

Despite the protest's size, it received minimal media attention and no formal response from the government, leading many to question whether public demonstrations can still force change. Unlike the usual state-funded rallies or trade union-backed marches, this protest had no political party or media machine behind it—just ordinary people voicing their frustration.

The demonstration was framed as a tribute to the 1916 Easter Rising, with protesters marching in memory of those who gave their lives for Irish freedom. But for many, it also served as a sharp critique of modern Ireland’s direction—highlighting issues like mass immigration, housing shortages, rising cost of living, and what many see as a government out of touch with its people.

Some callers felt the protest marked a turning point, showing that public anger is growing and that change could be coming, even if not immediately. They believe such mass mobilisation is essential to send a message to the government and inspire more people to speak out.

Others weren’t so sure. They argued that without political organisation or action at the ballot box, protests alone won’t make a difference. While powerful in spirit, they fear these events are easily dismissed by those in power unless voters follow through with change at the polls.

In this episode, Niall asks: Should older people living alone in three-bedroom council houses be required to downsize to make way for younger families?

As Ireland’s housing crisis deepens, the question of how social housing is allocated has sparked a new debate. With growing numbers of families stuck in emergency accommodation and a severe shortage of larger homes, is it reasonable to ask elderly tenants to move into smaller properties when their housing needs have changed? Or is it unfair to expect someone to leave the home they’ve lived in for decades?

Some callers think it’s a necessary step in managing scarce resources. Council housing should be based on need, not comfort. If someone is occupying a home that no longer fits their situation, it’s only fair to make room for families who desperately need space. The state should provide incentives or suitable alternatives like one-bedroom bungalows or retirement communities to support the move.

While other callers feel it’s cruel and disrespectful to push older people out of the homes they’ve built their lives in. Many have lived there for decades, raised families, and maintained their communities. Forcing them out now feels like a punishment. Moreover, the lack of appropriate downsized housing makes this idea unrealistic and unjust.

In this episode, Niall asks: Is animal testing a necessary evil?

The Irish Anti-Vivisection Society (IAVS) has condemned the grim reality that over 106,000 animals — including cats and dogs — were used in painful experiments in Ireland last year. With growing public outrage, Niall discusses whether all animal use in medical research should now be banned.

Some callers argue that although it’s uncomfortable, animal testing is still necessary. They point out that without it, many life-saving medicines and vaccines would not exist. Until reliable alternatives are available, they believe limited, ethical testing remains essential to save human lives. They also stress that efforts should continue to reduce animal use, but abandoning it now would be dangerous for medical progress.

Other callers believe animal testing is outdated and cruel. They argue that in an age of AI, computer modelling, and advanced lab technologies, we no longer need to exploit animals for scientific gains. To them, it's a moral failure to continue using animals when more humane methods are increasingly accessible. Some even suggest that if society truly cared about animals, we would rethink our entire relationship with them, far beyond just the lab.

Niall reflects on the passionate views shared and acknowledges the complexity of balancing human progress with compassion for all living beings.