In this episode, Niall asks: Should you put a dog down for biting?

A distressed listener wrote in about a painful family dilemma. Her five-year-old dog bit their three-year-old son on the leg badly enough to need stitches. Her husband now insists the dog must be put to sleep to protect their child. She believes it was a one-off incident that could be managed with training or rehoming. Who is right?

Some callers sided with the husband, saying once a dog bites a child so seriously, you can never fully trust it again. They argued the safety of a child must always come first, even if it means making a heartbreaking decision.

Others said putting the dog down is too extreme. They pointed out that dogs often bite when provoked or scared and that proper training or rehoming could prevent it from happening again. Some argued families have to take responsibility too, and killing the dog is not the only answer.

As Niall points out, this is not just about a dog. It is about balancing love for a family pet with the responsibility to protect a child, and deciding whether one bite should mean the end.

In this episode, Niall asks: Should there be limits on free speech?

The EU is pressuring the Irish Government to bring in stricter hate speech laws that would make it illegal to say or share certain things that are seen as inciting hatred or violence. Some say this is badly needed to protect vulnerable groups. Others believe it is a dangerous step towards censorship and losing the right to speak freely.

Some callers supported tighter rules, saying free speech should not mean giving people a free pass to spread hate, threats, or messages that fuel real-world violence. They argued that with so much online abuse and polarisation, clear limits help keep communities safe.

Others argued the opposite. They said once you start restricting speech, it becomes easy for governments to control what people can say about anything, including politics. They warned that fear of saying the wrong thing could silence ordinary people and damage honest debate.

As Niall points out, this debate is about finding a balance — how to protect people from harm without losing the freedom to speak your mind.

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.