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?

In this episode, Niall takes on one of the most urgent and unsettling issues of our time: political violence and the future of free speech. The shocking shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University has reignited debate about whether violent confrontation is becoming a grim fixture of American political life.

Niall speaks with Turning Point UK and John McGuirk of Gript Media to explore the wider context—why free speech is under attack, whether it can ever be truly absolute, and why political disagreements are increasingly spilling into violence.

Listeners also join the conversation as Niall opens the lines to ask: Where should the limits of free expression lie? And what does the rise in political violence mean for democracy at home and abroad?

This episode blends expert analysis with raw public opinion, asking difficult questions at a critical moment.

In this episode, Niall shares an email from a listener who discovered private Facebook messages between her husband and his teenage ex-girlfriend. When she confronted him, he insisted they were “just catching up,” but tensions exploded when she asked him to stop. Now, after 10 years of marriage and two young children together, the couple haven’t spoken in days.

Niall opens the phone lines to listeners: Is the wife right to feel betrayed, or is she being too controlling? Should her husband respect her wishes and cut off contact, or is this harmless chat with an old flame?

It’s a debate about trust, boundaries, and whether a little online catch-up can do real damage in a marriage.

“Energy Crisis – Should the Government Step In?”

This week, Niall sits down with social commentator Paul Tryvaud to tackle the surge in energy prices that could leave families and older people shivering in cold, dark homes this winter.

They explore the big question: Should the government regulate energy costs, or would that be an overstep into the free market?

Pros of government intervention:

Protects vulnerable households from fuel poverty

Prevents excessive profiteering by energy companies

Creates stability for consumers during a cost-of-living crisis

Cons of government intervention:

Distorts competition in the free market

Could reduce investment and innovation in the energy sector

Risk of higher long-term taxes to fund subsidies or caps

Niall also invites callers to share their views live on air: Is regulation the solution, or does the market need to run its course?

In this episode, Niall takes calls from listeners after yesterday’s London Underground strike that brought the capital to a standstill and cost the economy billions. Tube workers walked out over disputes on pay, pensions, and proposed job cuts, leaving millions of commuters stranded.

The big question Niall asks: should essential services like transport be banned from striking?

Callers deliver passionate opinions from both sides:

Pro-ban: “When nurses, firefighters or transport workers strike, it’s the public who pays the price. Essential services should never stop — find another way to negotiate.”

Anti-ban: “Without the right to strike, workers have no leverage. If you ban strikes, you’re condemning essential staff to accept whatever terms they’re given.”

With emotions running high, the episode explores whether strikes in essential services are a legitimate fight for fairness — or an unacceptable disruption to daily life.

In this episode, Niall sits down with journalist Laura Perrins to discuss her provocative piece on the so-called “Tradwife” trend, the Irish Department of Education’s take on it, and what it really means for mothers today. Together, they explore whether the traditional role of the stay-at-home mother was empowering in its own right or an unfair expectation placed upon women in times gone by.

Niall asks the central question: was it sexist that women were expected to stay at home and raise children while men went to work, or did society lose something valuable when this role was dismissed?

The conversation digs into:

Pros of the traditional stay-at-home mother

Deep maternal bonding and stability for young children.

Emotional fulfilment in raising a family and creating a home.

A slower, more family-centred lifestyle not dependent on external childcare.

Cons of the traditional stay-at-home mother

Economic dependence on husbands, leaving women vulnerable.

Limited opportunities for career, personal ambition, and independence.

Social isolation and lack of recognition for domestic labour.

Laura argues that the “tradwife” panic is more about ideology than reality, while Niall challenges whether nostalgia for the role ignores the hard truths of gender inequality.

This episode asks listeners to reflect: is homemaking a harmful stereotype, or a legitimate choice society should respect?

In this episode, Niall is joined by Karl Deeter to explore whether Ireland should follow Sweden’s lead in tightening restrictions on smoking. Sweden is on track to become “smoke-free” by 2025, thanks to high cigarette taxes, outdoor smoking bans, and a harm reduction approach that promotes safer alternatives like nicotine pouches.

With smoking rates in Ireland still hovering around 18% of adults, Niall asks: should we go further by making cigarettes even more expensive and banning them in public outdoor spaces? Would such measures fairly protect public health, or unfairly punish smokers?

Callers join the debate, sharing both the pros and cons of stricter smoking laws—from reducing secondhand smoke and saving lives, to concerns about personal freedom, enforcement, and the impact on those struggling with addiction.

It’s a lively conversation about health, fairness, and the future of smoking in Ireland.

In this episode, host Niall sat down with listeners to unpack Europe’s move toward the EU Digital Identity Wallet, a scheme due to be in place by the end of 2026. Designed to let citizens, residents, and businesses securely prove who they are and access services across borders, the wallet sparked plenty of debate.

Callers weighed in on both sides. Some praised the idea, pointing out how it could simplify life by letting people open bank accounts, access healthcare, sign documents, or even store diplomas in one trusted app. Others liked the privacy-by-design principle, where only the minimum data is shared, and the potential to reduce fraud with strong EU-wide security standards.

But the conversation also highlighted worries. Callers raised concerns about centralization, the possibility of government overreach, and what might happen if security was breached. Others worried about digital exclusion, leaving behind those without smartphones or strong digital skills. Trust also came up often—would people really be comfortable handing so much identity power to a digital wallet?

The show captured the tension between convenience and control, with some seeing the wallet as a passport to a more connected Europe, while others warned it could be a step too far.