Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If you are pregnant , don't bother with MY school

Options
1…78101213…29

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The Radiator wrote: »
    That's not cool

    Tbh its not exactly a secret...the journal had a comment naming the school this morning.


  • Options
    #273
    The Radiator
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭The Radiator


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Tbh its not exactly a secret...the journal had a comment naming the school this morning.

    Yeah, but only eejits read the journal


  • Options
    #274
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    eviltwin wrote: »
    She has had the baby so there is no "distraction"

    In that case the principal acted like a halfwit.


  • Options
    #275
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    prinz wrote: »
    A fairly ill-thought out one, predictable in nature all the same. I'd imagine it's hard enough to keep secondary school students focused and paying attention, I can't see much productive work getting done when you have 30 odd students who want to feel the baby kicking for example. But hey, you want to pretend I was advocating a magdalene laundry, go ahead.

    Jeez, if fears over '30 odd student wanting to feel the baby kicking' are the best you can come up with, the argument is over. Pregnant females manage to survive in all kinds of environments without being run over by mass charges of people trying to feel a kicking baby.


  • Options
    #276
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    The Radiator wrote: »
    Yeah, but only eejits read the journal

    There will probably be a stampede now :D In fairness it was a forgone conclusion, you can't keep things like this secret for long in this country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    Jeez, if fears over '30 odd student wanting to feel the baby kicking' are the best you can come up with, the argument is over..

    It was over long before that. In some people's heads anyway.


  • Options
    #278
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    eviltwin wrote: »
    She has had the baby so there is no "distraction"

    Yeah because being a single teenage mother is easy.

    We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse. As far as i am concerned the Ombudsman was very wrong to go public with this case and only a few facts.

    The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply. On the other hand the girl could be a real victim and the last thing she needs is the whole country looking at her.


  • Options
    #279
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    eviltwin wrote: »
    She has had the baby so there is no "distraction"
    She did attend a different school while she was pregnant, apparently without causing 'distraction'.
    Ombudsman Report wrote:
    The young person enrolled in another school, which she reports were supportive of her in relation to the pregnancy and she attended there until she went on maternity leave during which period she received Home Tuition through the Department of Education and Skills

    Maybe its only extreme Catholics that are distracted so much by a young pregnant girl that they would feel the need to exclude her from their midst.


  • Options
    #280
    St.Spodo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭St.Spodo


    The irony is that, without a doubt, Jesus would allow the girl into the school.


  • Options
    #281
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    MagicSean wrote: »
    Yeah because being a single teenage mother is easy.

    We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse. As far as i am concerned the Ombudsman was very wrong to go public with this case and only a few facts.

    The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply. On the other hand the girl could be a real victim and the last thing she needs is the whole country looking at her.

    I never said it was easy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    MagicSean wrote: »
    We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant.
    Her reasons for wanting to move school are in the report - did you read it at all?
    We're all adults here, so I think we all know how she got pregnant.
    MagicSean wrote: »
    As far as i am concerned the Ombudsman was very wrong to go public with this case and only a few facts.
    What facts that aren't in the report do you think would be relevant, and why?
    MagicSean wrote: »
    The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply.
    So they might have circumvented their own admissions criteria, lied to the girl and to the ombudsman? That would be nearly worse than what they did do.


  • Options
    #283
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    prinz wrote: »
    Not really relevant to this case though, catchy and all as it seems.

    Of course it's relevant, as the case highlights that a person is basing policy off faith...so it only makes sense to either go all the way or not at all.


  • Options
    #284
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    micropig wrote: »
    Yes. Unable to choose a suitable partner


    Choosing a person who will run, instead of facing their responsibilities and all the 'accidents' with the contraception:rolleyes:

    I've read some mind numbingly stupid bile on this thread, but this post has to take the biscuit!

    I hate to break it to you, especially seeing as you seem so happy in la la land up in that ivory tower of yours, looking down on everyone else, but life isn't always perfect. People aren't always perfect. Sh!t happens, even to the people who weren't expecting it or didn't ask for it. Even the best laid plans can go awry.

    The obviously massive disdain you have for single parents is tainting your logic completely. I can only hope you are either extremely young or extremely sheltered, because some of the ludicrous assumptions you have posted on here just smack of pure naivety at best and utter ignorance at worst.


  • Options
    #285
    Bigtoe107
    Registered Users Posts: 378 ✭✭Bigtoe107


    This is retarded imo, a state funded school should not have the right to exclude any pupils based on some bull**** religious ethos. It's actually making me angry thinking how much sway and power the church still has in this country


  • Options
    #286
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Logical Fallacy wrote: »
    Of course it's relevant, as the case highlights that a person is basing policy off faith...so it only makes sense to either go all the way or not at all.

    Except you are referring to a Mosaic law, which isn't relevant to Christians, much like circumcision and eating pork.


  • Options
    #287
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Bigtoe107 wrote: »
    This is retarded imo, a state funded school should not have the right to exclude any pupils based on some bull**** religious ethos. It's actually making me angry thinking how much sway and power the church still has in this country
    In this case, its even stranger.
    The then school principal is also the school founder, owner and patron and has appointed his son as school manager. Its looks like a personal fiefdom.

    It wouldn't be so bad if it was a private school, but this school is being paid for by state funds and they seem to show disdain for any state oversight.
    3.12 The Office also sought a meeting with representatives of the school but they did not avail of the opportunity to represent any further views regarding the matters under investigation. A letter from the School Manager dated September 2011 stated:
    ’Do not try to blame this school for having a moral code. You have no business coming down here to single us out - we are a Catholic school and shall remain so’. [Emphasis as per letter]

    When asked for details of various school policies and procedures by the Ombudsman for Children:
    3.10 A response was received from the School Manager in late July in which it is stated:
    ‘Neither am I obliged to have any other frills that you mention. This school is NOT a haven for young pregnant people or for young mothers who, in particular, have been in two other post primary schools. The school has an uncompromising ethos and will not become a dumping ground for those rejected elsewhere”.


  • Options
    #288
    Corruptedmorals
    Registered Users Posts: 4,194 ✭✭✭Corruptedmorals


    I wonder if anyone who thinks that there is an element of society who thinks that teen pregnancy is glamorous have ever actually watched '16 and pregnant'. If anything, it works as a contraceptive and they have several live shows where a doctor bangs on about its importance. The show glamourises nothing, it shows them losing their friends, losing their sleep, having a terrible time trying to get the fathers to do anything or even stick around, and a good few having dysfunctional families and how that plays out. Only one of them I think ever actually finished high school and got her GED whatever that is. It makes no bones about how limited their prospects are without their education. All of the girls at the end always state that they love their children but they wish they had been wiser and had them later in life. Seriously, no glamour, no matter what MTV pays them. I think it's a pretty effective tool really- here's what having a baby at 16 is actually like.


  • Options
    #289
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Tbh its not exactly a secret...the journal had a comment naming the school this morning.

    Plus, a modicum of googling skills would get you the name of the school ... there aren't that many where one person is the founder, owner and patron who "appointed his son as manager of the school in 2006". The Whole School Evaluation Reports are public information.


  • Options
    #290
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Corruptedmorals wrote: »
    I wonder if anyone who thinks that there is an element of society who thinks that teen pregnancy is glamorous have ever actually watched '16 and pregnant'..

    Great show. Some of the people involved are incredible, but there's a couple of muppets too...*cough* Farrah.... All in all though, yes good TV.


  • Options
    #291
    muppetkiller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,199 ✭✭✭muppetkiller


    I blame the teachers !!!
    Students see how Teachers can get out of working the entire school year by giving birth in September so now the students are simply copying the trend...simples really.

    :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dvpower wrote: »
    In this case, its even stranger.
    The then school principal is also the school founder, owner and patron and has appointed his son as school manager. Its looks like a personal fiefdom.

    Sounds very odd.


  • Options
    #293
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    prinz wrote: »
    Except you are referring to a Mosaic law, which isn't relevant to Christians, much like circumcision and eating pork.

    Actually, not really, but you have highlighted my point quite perfectly.

    Kudos.


  • Options
    #294
    geeky
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    Hmmm... it's an easy comment but 'let he who is without sin,' etc.

    A bit of googling turns up the 2007 report, which names the school. Charming place.


  • Options
    #295
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Logical Fallacy wrote: »
    Actually, not really, but you have highlighted my point quite perfectly. Kudos.

    You didn't have one. You tried to be smart by asking why a Catholic school wouldn't adhere to Mosaic Law... because it is Mosaic Law that's the answer. Your point was that they should adhere to all the rules of their religion... mixed fibre cloth isn't one of them so your point falls flat.


  • Options
    #296
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Does anyone know the name of this evil minded kip? (I have it now, thanks)
    prinz wrote: »
    On the one side:
    She should get her education.

    On the other side:
    The school should have the right to promote the ethos, and all that that encompasses, including views on teenage pregnancies, premarital sex etc without fear of one student then kicking up a fuss about discrimination or feeling picked on. You'd also have to take steps that it doesn't become a distraction for other pupils. You'd also have to look at the insurance on the school etc in the worst case scenario anything were to happen the girl on school grounds.

    On the balance:
    Let her in, if she's willing to play her part.


    She wasn't prgenant. She'd had the kid. As regards your guff with regards to her "risk factor" when she was pregnant - you might as well ban the fat, the short sighted and buck toothed while you were at it.


  • Options
    #297
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    As regards your guff with regards to her "risk factor" when she was pregnant - you might as well ban the fat, the short sighted and buck toothed while you were at it.

    Yes guff. Heaven forbid anyone actually have concerns about the safety and well being of a pregnant teenager.


  • Options
    #298
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    To forgive one has to be sorry for the wrong they did.

    Was this schoolgirl sorry she has loose morals while wanting to enter a lay Catholic school which has different morals?
    If the school girl was sorry for her actions, then the school should have taken her in, if not then the problem is not the school's.

    A new low, which, given your record, is some achievement.


  • Options
    #299
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    Yes guff. Heaven forbid anyone actually have concerns about the safety and well being of a pregnant teenager.

    .....by which lights no workplace would have them on-site from the moment preganancy is discovered. Yet they do.


  • Options
    #300
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    .....by which lights no workplace would have them on-site from the moment preganancy is discovered. Yet they do.

    Are you trying to equate workplaces with schools? It's been a few years since I was in school but I distinctly remember people running through the corridors, pushing others out of the way on stairs, lads wresting and horseplaying in the class room, books etc being thrown around but hey if that's the kind of workplace you work in good for you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Pregnancy isn't an illness. Pregnant women can do pretty much anything a non pregnant woman can with a few modifications as time goes on. Besides this was not the reason she was refused a place, had that been the case I am sure they would have had no problem letting her attend after the baby arrived. Its just blatant discrimination. Don't kid yourself this guy acted out of concern.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement