This episode kicks off with an email that struck a nerve — and judging by the phones, a lot of listeners had opinions.

Niall reads out a message from a wife who’s furious after her husband only mentioned his work Christmas party days before it happens — no partners invited, free bar involved, and all the usual “sure nothing ever happens” reassurances that nobody fully believes.

Is she being controlling… or just realistic?

Niall opens the lines to callers, starting with AJ, who says she’s 100% on the woman’s side. According to AJ, you can’t trust men once drink, hormones and other women are thrown into the mix — and pretending otherwise is just naïve. From there, the debate explodes.

Are work Christmas parties harmless fun?

Or are they a well-known danger zone everyone jokes about — but never admits to?

Is asking your partner not to go a fair boundary… or a massive red flag?

And should anyone be expected to stay home while their other half hits a free bar with colleagues?

Expect strong opinions, uncomfortable truths, plenty of laughs — and more than a few people feeling seen.

👉 Where do you stand?

WhatsApp your thoughts to 085 100 22 55

In this episode, Niall is joined by journalist Larissa Nolan to tackle a question that’s sparking heated debate around the world: Is college becoming pointless in the age of AI?

The conversation is fuelled by controversial comments from Elon Musk, who claims universities are “for fun and proving you can do your chores — not for learning.” Musk argues that with a smartphone, internet access and AI, you can learn anything you need for free.

So is he right?

Niall puts the big questions to Larissa:

Will technology and AI eventually replace college education?

Does AI now know more than the average lecturer?

Is university still worth the time and money for most careers?

And for many students, has college simply become a four-year drinking session?

As AI reshapes how we learn and work, the traditional university model is under the microscope. Is it evolving — or heading for extinction?

👉 What do you think?

Comments to WhatsApp 085 100 22 55

In this episode, Niall is joined by David Quinn, journalist and columnist with the Sunday Independent, for a challenging and wide-ranging conversation on Islamic extremism, public debate, and the growing confusion around what is — and is not — anti-Semitism.

David argues that Islamic extremism remains one of the most difficult topics to discuss openly in Western societies. He suggests that fear of causing offence, being labelled racist or Islamophobic, or crossing social and professional red lines has led to widespread reluctance to engage honestly with the issue — even when extremism manifests in violence, intimidation, or threats to liberal democratic values.

The discussion explores why criticism of extremist ideology is so often conflated with hostility toward ordinary Muslims, most of whom reject violence and extremism outright. Where should the line be drawn between legitimate scrutiny of beliefs and unfair collective blame? And who gets to define that line?

Niall and David also delve into the increasingly charged debate around anti-Semitism, particularly in the context of criticism of Israel. When does political criticism cross into prejudice against Jewish people — and when is the term “anti-Semitism” misused to shut down debate? David outlines his concerns about blurred definitions, selective outrage, and the impact this has on free speech and honest discussion.

Along the way, they touch on media responsibility, political cowardice, cultural sensitivity, and whether Western societies are equipped to have nuanced conversations about religion, ideology and extremism without resorting to slogans or fear.

A frank, sometimes uncomfortable discussion — but one that asks whether avoiding hard conversations is making things safer… or simply leaving them unresolved.