#515 The Great Divide: Left, Right & Online

In this episode, Niall talks to Senator Gerard Craughwell to discuss the upcoming presidential election, his views on the race, and what’s at stake for Ireland. Later, Niall is joined by Jason Osbourne from Gript Media for a deep dive into one of today’s most pressing cultural questions: Has the divide between left and right grown wider, and has the internet and social media fueled that divide?Listeners are invited to call in and share their thoughts on the bigger question: Do the negatives outweigh the positives when it comes to the internet and social media? From free expression to online echo chambers, the conversation asks whether these tools are connecting us or pulling us further apart.Pros callers might raise:Connectivity & access to information – Social media allows people to connect across borders instantly and gives a voice to those who might otherwise be unheard.Accountability & transparency – It has exposed corruption, amplified grassroots movements, and held powerful people and institutions to account.Cons callers might raise:Polarisation & misinformation – Algorithms often reward outrage, leading to echo chambers, disinformation, and deeper political divides.Mental health & social pressure – Constant comparison, cyberbullying, and the addictive nature of platforms can damage mental wellbeing and social cohesion.

Host Niall talks with former election candidate Elaine Mullay about a developing trend overseas — in the Netherlands there's a push to introduce laws that would give people a legal right to work remotely (or at least from home), under certain conditions. They’ll explore whether Ireland should follow suit. What are the benefits? What are the pitfalls? What does Ireland currently allow, and what might new laws look like? Niall and Elaine also invite listeners to call in with their own opinions and experiences: do you favour a legal requirement, or should remote work remain at employer discretion?What’s Happening: Netherlands vs IrelandNetherlands:The Netherlands has been considering amendments to its Flexible Working Act (“Wet flexibel werken”) to strengthen employees’ rights to request working from home / remote work. Under current law, employees who have worked for an employer for a certain period (≈ 26 weeks) may make requests to adjust working location/hours etc., and employers must consider these requests. But the law does not yet give an automatic, unconditional right. IamExpat in the NetherlandsThere was a proposed bill sometimes called “Work Where You Want Act”. It would have made employers more strictly obliged to allow working from home when feasible or else justify denying requests. But that Senate rejected this Act in 2023.

In this episode, host Niall sits down with Laura Perrins from Gript Media to discuss a high-profile case currently unfolding in Utah — the suspected murderer, Tyler Robinson, is increasingly likely to face the death penalty. Together, Niall and Laura explore the moral, legal, and practical dimensions of capital punishment.Is it justice, deterrent, or an inhumane relic? What are the arguments for and against? And how do public opinion, cost, racial and racial bias, mistakes of justice, and international norms come into play? Niall also invites callers to share their own views and personal stories on whether the death penalty has a place in modern society.Example Talking Points:Pros could include:Deterrence: The idea that the death penalty may discourage others from committing serious crimes.Retribution / justice for victims: Some people feel that the most violent crimes deserve the severest punishment.Closure: For some families, knowing that the perpetrator cannot possibly harm again brings a sense of finality.Cost savings (argued by some): Supporters sometimes say that executing someone will, over time, cost less than keeping them in prison for life (though this is highly disputed).Cons might include:Risk of wrongful convictions: Innocent people have been sentenced to death and then exonerated.Moral / ethical objections: Some believe state-sanctioned killing is inherently wrong.Unequal application: Evidence that race, socio-economic status, quality of legal representation, or geography have strong impacts on who is sentenced to death.High cost and complexity: Death penalty trials are typically longer, more expensive, with multiple appeals; sometimes cost more than life imprisonment without parole.

In this thought-provoking episode, host Niall sits down with Elanie Mullaly, former election candidate and outspoken social commentator and Laura Perrins from Gript Media to tackle a heated cultural flashpoint: the wave of educators, teachers, and professors in America who are losing their jobs after posting celebratory remarks online about the death of Charlie Kirk.Niall asks the tough questions: Is there a level of hypocrisy here? After all, Kirk himself built his brand as a fierce advocate of free speech and a critic of “cancel culture” on the left. Should his critics now be silenced—or is this a case where lines have to be drawn?The conversation takes on multiple layers as Niall opens the phone lines to callers who share sharply divided opinions:Arguments For Firing Them:Teachers and professors are role models, and celebrating someone’s death is incompatible with the professional and ethical standards of education.Such public statements can create a hostile environment for students and undermine trust in schools and universities.Free speech may protect someone from government censorship, but it doesn’t shield them from professional consequences.Arguments Against Firing Them:Free speech must include the right to express even distasteful or unpopular opinions without fear of losing one’s livelihood.If Kirk championed free expression, silencing critics after his death only validates claims of double standards.Canceling people for their online posts risks turning society into one where fear, not honesty, dictates public discourse.Elanie weighs in with her trademark sharpness and nuance, offering insight into whether America is moving further away from genuine free expression—or simply struggling to balance it with accountability.This episode dives deep into the clash between free speech, morality, and professional responsibility.

Host Niall is joined by restaurateur and social commentator Paul Trayvaud as the presidential race begins to take shape. With three candidates already declared and two more hopefuls scrambling for nominations from TDs, Senators, or local councils, the conversation turns to a bigger constitutional question:Should the Irish president remain a largely ceremonial figure—or should the office hold real executive power?At present, the Irish president has very limited authority: signing bills into law, representing the nation abroad, and acting as a moral and cultural figurehead. Unlike presidents in countries such as the United States or France, the Irish head of state does not set policy or wield executive decision-making power.Niall and Paul weigh up the arguments:Pros of Expanding Power:A president directly elected by the people could provide stronger democratic legitimacy.Greater executive authority could allow the president to act as a counterbalance to government and political parties.In times of crisis, a powerful president could respond quickly without being tied to parliamentary gridlock.Cons of Expanding Power:Ireland’s parliamentary system could be destabilised by a strong presidential office.Concentrating executive power in a single individual risks authoritarianism.The current ceremonial model avoids political partisanship and preserves the role as a unifying national figure.Should Ireland rethink the role of the presidency—or does its symbolic and ceremonial function make it stronger in its own right?

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.

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?

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.

“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 povertyPrevents excessive profiteering by energy companiesCreates stability for consumers during a cost-of-living crisisCons of government intervention:Distorts competition in the free marketCould reduce investment and innovation in the energy sectorRisk of higher long-term taxes to fund subsidies or capsNiall also invites callers to share their views live on air: Is regulation the solution, or does the market need to run its course?