#424 Should Ireland Lower the Age of Consent to 16?

In this episode, Niall asks: Does Ireland really need a president?With new presidential hopefuls putting their names forward, some are questioning whether the office still serves any real purpose. Is the president an important neutral figure for the country, or just an expensive tradition Ireland can no longer justify?Some callers said the role is a waste of taxpayer money. They argued the Taoiseach runs the country and the president is mostly there for ceremonies and photo opportunities. In their view, the funds could be better spent on services like housing or healthcare.Others said the presidency is more than just symbolic. They pointed out that the president plays a vital role as guardian of the Constitution, with powers to refer laws and act as a final check on government overreach. Some callers said having a unifying figure above party politics helps keep the country together, especially in difficult times.As Niall points out, this debate goes beyond cost. It is about identity, trust, and whether Ireland still values a head of state who stands above the political fray.

In this episode, Niall asks: Should Ireland lower the age of consent to 16?There have already been suggestions about reducing the voting age, with arguments that young people today are mature enough to decide at 16. On the same basis, some believe the age of consent should match the EU average and be lowered from 17 to 16. Would this protect teenagers better or put them at greater risk?Some callers supported lowering it, saying teenagers are already sexually active and that the current law just ignores reality. They argued that aligning with the rest of Europe would remove unnecessary stigma and better protect young people in normal relationships.Others were firmly against it. They said sixteen-year-olds are still too young and vulnerable and lowering the age makes it easier for adults to take advantage of them. Some warned that instead of protecting teenagers, it would lower safeguards and open the door to exploitation.As Niall points out, this debate is not just about numbers on paper. It is about trust, maturity, and what it really means to protect young people in today’s world.

In this episode, Niall asks: Should Irish citizens living abroad or in Northern Ireland have the right to vote in Irish elections?Sinn Féin has put forward a motion to extend voting rights in presidential elections to Irish citizens overseas and in the North. Supporters say it would honour the global Irish community and reflect modern realities. Opponents argue that voting should be reserved for those who live, work, and pay tax in Ireland.Some callers said voting must be tied to residency. They felt people living abroad are too disconnected from daily life in Ireland to influence decisions that don’t affect them directly. Others raised concerns about security, fraud, and voters basing choices on outdated views.But others passionately supported the motion, saying Irishness doesn't end at the border. They pointed to the importance of the diaspora in shaping Ireland’s story and said presidential elections are largely symbolic. One caller argued that excluding Irish citizens in Northern Ireland is especially unjust.As Niall points out, the debate raises deep questions about identity, participation, and what it really means to belong to a nation — even from afar.

In this episode, Niall asks: If your landlord gave you 30 days to get rid of your dog or face eviction, what would you do?We received an emotional email from a woman whose landlord found out she had a dog in breach of her lease. Now she’s been given a choice — rehome the dog or lose her home. Her husband says the dog has to go, but she refuses. The story has sparked debate about responsibility, rules, and the bond people have with their pets.Some callers said the answer is clear. As much as they love animals, no one should risk losing their home over a pet. Others argued that when you sign a lease, you agree to the terms, and breaking those terms has consequences.But many callers took the woman’s side. They said pets are more than animals — they are family. Some argued that landlords should show compassion, especially when renters have limited options. Others called for legal changes to protect tenants with pets.As Niall points out, this is about more than just a lease or a dog. It’s about housing, dignity, and the limits of what people are expected to give up just to keep a roof over their head.

In this episode, Niall asks: Do you oppose all immigration, or just illegal entry?The media often labels protestors as anti-immigrant, but many say they are only against illegal immigration. So where do you draw the line? Is it fair to oppose immigration entirely, or is the real issue how it is managed?Some callers said they have no problem with legal immigration. They support people who come to Ireland through the proper channels, contribute to society, and follow the rules. What they oppose is abuse of the system, such as fake claims, destroyed documents, or overstayed visas.Others said even legal immigration has gone too far. They pointed to overcrowded hospitals, a housing crisis, and overwhelmed schools. For them, the issue is not about how people arrive but how many are arriving. They believe Ireland simply cannot absorb more people, regardless of their status.As Niall points out, this conversation is no longer just about border control. It is about public trust, national capacity, and the fear that raising these concerns comes with a label.

In this hard-hitting episode, Niall sits down with Dr. Gerry Quinn and Dr. Ronan Connolly to unpack one of the most controversial scientific papers published since the pandemic began. Titled What Lessons Can Be Learned from the Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic, their work challenges the mainstream response to Covid-19 from multiple angles—lockdowns, vaccines, data manipulation, and the silencing of dissent.Niall reflects on his own experience during the pandemic, revealing he was nearly fired not for voicing an opinion, but for letting guests question the official narrative. "I was threatened, not by my employers, but by outside forces who didn’t want these conversations aired," he says. The episode sets out to revisit the core claims made during the pandemic and interrogate which of them have stood up to scrutiny.Dr. Gerry Quinn admits he initially believed the official warnings. But when early policy proposals made no immunological sense, alarm bells rang. "They were proposing things that just didn’t add up," he recalls. "Infection control standards I had used in HIV labs were being completely ignored in public health measures."Dr. Ronan Connolly breaks down how pandemic modelling became detached from reality. He explains that many of the early models were based on outdated mathematical frameworks with almost no grounding in biology or human behavior. “The same models could be run with any new virus and they’d spit out the same terrifying results,” he says. He also points out that excess mortality was lower than predicted in many regions, suggesting the scale of the threat had been overstated.The episode pulls no punches on vaccine policy either. Both doctors raise serious concerns about how traditional treatments like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine were shut down, while experimental mRNA technology was fast-tracked without the usual safety thresholds. “I personally don’t think it should have been released,” says Dr. Quinn. “Too many unknowns. Any other drug with that level of uncertainty would never have been approved.”They also expose the uniformity of lockdown measures across countries as evidence of top-down coordination. “These policies were almost identical worldwide. That doesn’t happen by accident,” says Dr. Quinn. He suggests international bodies may have shaped national strategies more than people realize.The paper at the heart of the conversation is backed by 37 scientists and academics, including Dr. Robert Malone, one of the inventors of mRNA technology. The group argues that fear was prioritized over facts, debate was suppressed, and honest scientists were punished for speaking out.“Science only works when people disagree,” says Dr. Connolly. “The biggest failure wasn’t the lockdowns or the masks or the modeling. It was the refusal to let anyone question the answers we were being given.”This episode is a must-listen for anyone who wants to understand what went wrong, why so many were silenced, and how to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated.The full scientific paper is linked in the episode notes.

In this episode, Niall asks: Should Ireland bring in welfare payment cards?We received an email from a listener who suggested that welfare payments should be issued on a card that can only be used for essentials like food and clothing. The card would block spending on alcohol, cigarettes, or gambling. Supporters say it ensures taxpayer money is spent responsibly. Critics say it is insulting and strips people of basic dignity.Some callers agreed with the idea. They said State support should be used for essentials and argued that a card system would help protect families, especially where addiction is involved. They felt the measure was about accountability, not punishment.Others disagreed, saying the proposal treats welfare recipients like children and unfairly assumes the worst of them. Some warned that it could lead to even tighter restrictions and punish people who already use their payments responsibly.As Niall points out, this debate is not just about how people spend money. It is about how much control the State should have over private lives and whether help should come with conditions.

In this episode, Niall asks: Should Gardaí be allowed to tell potential partners if someone has a history of domestic violence?There have been calls for a new law that would let Gardaí share information about individuals who’ve been accused — or convicted — of domestic abuse. Supporters say it could save lives. Critics argue it’s an invasion of privacy and undermines the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”Some callers said it’s a no-brainer: If someone has a pattern of abuse, especially if convicted, new partners deserve to know. Others were more cautious, warning that unfounded accusations could ruin reputations and be misused during bitter breakups. One caller insisted even allegations should be taken seriously, pointing to the difficulty of securing convictions in such cases.As Niall points out, it’s a complex issue that pits personal safety against personal rights — and asks how far the state should go to protect people from potential harm.

In this episode, Niall asks a provocative question: Is shouting at your children a form of child abuse?The debate was sparked by a top psychologist who claimed that shouting at children — or even arguing loudly in front of them — can be just as damaging as physically slapping them. The expert warned that such behaviour can have long-lasting emotional and psychological effects, and even suggested it should be legally recognised as harmful.Is this an overreaction? Or are we only beginning to understand the impact of verbal and emotional discipline?Some callers strongly agreed, arguing that constant shouting creates fear, anxiety, and insecurity in children. They believe emotional abuse is often overlooked simply because it doesn’t leave bruises, and that parenting should focus on calm, respectful communication.Others said the idea goes too far. Parenting is chaotic, stressful, and imperfect — and sometimes raising your voice is the only way to get a message across. One caller asked: “If we ban shouting, are we also banning being human?”Others took a middle ground, saying occasional shouting doesn’t equal abuse, but that consistent yelling, insults, or aggressive behaviour can cross the line into real harm.As Niall points out, this is about more than parenting styles — it’s about defining where discipline ends and damage begins.

In this episode, Niall asks: Should children repay their parents for college fees?A mother wrote to the show after a heated disagreement with her husband. Their 26-year-old daughter, now working in a well-paid legal job, had her college fees fully covered by her parents. The mother believes it’s only fair that she repays them now, but the father insists that supporting your child through education is part of parenting — not a loan with strings attached.The conversation opened the lines to passionate callers. Some argued that repayment shows respect and gratitude, especially if parents made financial sacrifices. Others said it’s wrong to treat family support like a business transaction, and that the cost of education is something parents take on willingly.Some took a middle-ground view — suggesting repayment depends on family circumstances. If the parents are struggling, a payback plan might be reasonable. But if the family is financially stable, perhaps the support should be seen as a gift.As Niall points out, this debate isn’t just about money — it touches on values, responsibility, and the evolving expectations between parents and adult children.