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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1…89111314…18

Comments

  • #502
    languagenerd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    Spent a while reading through this thread - some of the wild assumptions and ridiculous excuses are nothing short of shocking!

    We don't know ANYTHING about this girl, other than her age and the county she lives in. There is absolutely no basis for deciding she's a slut, or a troublemaker, or a wannabe welfare scrounger.

    Obviously, teenagers shouldn't get pregnant, but it happens. Accepting that it happens does not equal accepting it to be the norm! But someone should not be ostracized for something they did when they were 15/6, and especially not for having a baby. We don't know the circumstances in which she got pregnant - whether it was a long-term relationship, whether it was her first time - there's no reason to assume she's "putting it around". But even she'd slept with every teenage boy in her town, that's none of the school's business. Your private life has nothing to do with your school or your work. She wasn't asking to bring the baby to class with her!

    Yes, it's a school with a Catholic ethos - but it's a public school. If you get the state's funding, you play by the state's rules. If it was a private school, then that would be their decision, but it's not.

    As for all this crap about her being a bad influence or a troublemaker: she was not rejected for being a troublemaker, the letters quite clearly state she was rejected for being pregnant / an unmarried mother. I went to an all-girls Catholic school and there were a couple of girls in my year who had babies in 6th year. One took just three weeks off to have her baby and came back to class, another sat her exams over 8 months pregnant. If anything, we admired them for continuing to study, but they did not "glamourise" teenage pregnancy for us - we saw how hard they had it! The LC was bad enough without having a screaming baby to look after or dealing with morning sickness, thanks. And as for them being a distraction, I assure you that not once was a class interrupted so that "30 people could feel the baby kicking" ffs!

    From what I can see, this was a case of a public school telling a sixteen year old who was already in a very stressful situation that she was inferior to them and not good enough for them. Yes, she had another school to go to, but that is completely besides the point. This school had no right to treat her like that. I can only imagine what effect that would have on someone's self esteem!

    (Apologies for the long post, but this thread has made me angry!)


  • #503
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    LOL. Apart from in the vast majority of schools, provide the land, provide funds to build them, provide funds to help run them etc etc.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html


    ...did you read that yourself?


  • #504
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    languagenerd wrote: »
    Spent a while reading through this thread - some of the wild assumptions and ridiculous excuses are nothing short of shocking!

    We don't know ANYTHING about this girl, other than her age and the county she lives in. There is absolutely no basis for deciding she's a slut, or a troublemaker, or a wannabe welfare scrounger.

    Obviously, teenagers shouldn't get pregnant, but it happens. Accepting that it happens does not equal accepting it to be the norm! But someone should not be ostracized for something they did when they were 15/6, and especially not for having a baby. We don't know the circumstances in which she got pregnant - whether it was a long-term relationship, whether it was her first time - there's no reason to assume she's "putting it around". But even she'd slept with every teenage boy in her town, that's none of the school's business. Your private life has nothing to do with your school or your work. She wasn't asking to bring the baby to class with her!

    Yes, it's a school with a Catholic ethos - but it's a public school. If you get the state's funding, you play by the state's rules. If it was a private school, then that would be their decision, but it's not.

    As for all this crap about her being a bad influence or a troublemaker: she was not rejected for being a troublemaker, the letters quite clearly state she was rejected for being pregnant / an unmarried mother. I went to an all-girls Catholic school and there were a couple of girls in my year who had babies in 6th year. One took just three weeks off to have her baby and came back to class, another sat her exams over 8 months pregnant. If anything, we admired them for continuing to study, but they did not "glamourise" teenage pregnancy for us - we saw how hard they had it! The LC was bad enough without having a screaming baby to look after or dealing with morning sickness, thanks. And as for them being a distraction, I assure you that not once was a class interrupted so that "30 people could feel the baby kicking" ffs!

    From what I can see, this was a case of a public school telling a sixteen year old who was already in a very stressful situation that she was inferior to them and not good enough for them. Yes, she had another school to go to, but that is completely besides the point. This school had no right to treat her like that. I can only imagine what effect that would have on someone's self esteem!

    (Apologies for the long post, but this thread has made me angry!)


    Well said. I bet you the guy who got her pregnant wont face the same level of discrimination she has.


  • #505
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...did you read that yourself?

    Yes I did. Are you going to argue that it says the taxpayer funds everything for every national school in the country?


  • #506
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Nodin wrote: »
    Why do you presume that there may be some 'dark side' with no basis for it?

    Why, for the love of all fuckery, would you introduce such derogatory speculation on no grounds whatsoever while at the same time urging people not to judge a party on statements that clearly indicate their line of reasoning? It defies all reason.

    I haven't made any presumption. That's why I made two polar oppsite suggestions. My whole point is that we can't make a presumption based on what we know. You're just ignoring it.

    Nodin wrote: »
    (...let's see...it doesn't cover whether the mother is a closet satanist...doesn't say she isn't one certainly....doesn't say the child wasn't convicted of murder carried out in a form consistent with ritual sacrifice....)

    And by that "logic" you introduce the notion that there may be an invisible pink unicorn in the room, and that people should run off and prove conclusively it's not there.

    The principal gave reasons why he did not want that student in the school. Do please give a reason why we should discount their own words, and why we should even suspect the teenage girl of being some form of 'dubious' character.

    I've already said we can't make assumptions and I've given reasons why. You're just ignoring and being ridiculous.


  • #507
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    Yes I did. Are you going to argue that it says the taxpayer funds everything for every national school in the country?


    No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

    Do you have a breakdown of actual church contributions as a percentage of the total funding?


  • #508
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

    Do you have a breakdown of actual church contributions as a percentage of the total funding?

    It wouldnt matter who funds it. Discrimnation against and sexisim like this shouldnt go on in this day and age!


  • #509
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

    Then your point is redundant, have a read of my post that you responded to and point out anything that is false... it's plainly there who traditionally provided the lands, paid towards building costs, contributed to running costs... and guess what? It was the church. Only in recent years has that started to change. So comments like...
    The church doesn't do jack****, all the Catholic schools are funded by us, the taxpayer.

    Sound great and all, but don't actually reflect the reality of the history of our national school system.


  • #510
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    MagicSean wrote: »
    I haven't made any presumption. That's why I made two polar oppsite suggestions. My whole point is that we can't make a presumption based on what we know. You're just ignoring it..

    Somehow I think - if the circumstances demanded it - I could have made the point without mentioning "career scumbag", "drug gang" "pyromaniac psycopath" etc. In fact I'm fairly positive. It looks like an attempt to undermine or blacken one of the parties to me. Why, I have no idea.

    You still haven't explained why somebody can't make a presumption/assumption, based on the principals correspondence released by the Ombudsman in the report.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Nodin wrote: »
    No, I will point out that they fund a hell of a fucking lot of it.

    Do you have a breakdown of actual church contributions as a percentage of the total funding?

    ... and maybe a figure for the amounts that priests and religious have drawn down in salaries from the Dept. of Education for jobs that they didn't have to compete for to get.


  • #512
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dvpower wrote: »
    ... and maybe a figure for the amounts that priests and religious have drawn down in salaries from the Dept. of Education for jobs that they didn't have to compete for to get.

    ....and deduct the value of the land that was provided by the religious etc etc etc. Like it or not, it's total rubbish to suggest that the tax payer paid 100% of the cost of establishing our primary and secondary education system.


  • #513
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    Then your point is redundant, have a read of my post that you responded to and point out anything that is false... it's plainly there who traditionally provided the lands, paid towards building costs, contributed to running costs... and guess what? It was the church. Only in recent years has that started to change. So comments like...
    .

    "recent years"....?

    National/primary has been locally and state funded since its inception in the early 1800's, to the best of my knowledge, whatever about secondary 'voluntaries'.

    We're talking about a teenage mother being refused schooling now, by the way.


  • #514
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    ....and deduct the value of the land that was provided by the religious etc etc etc. .....

    ...then adjust for the shortfall in abuse payments.


  • #515
    PrincessLola
    Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    prinz wrote: »
    ..

    Sound great and all, but don't actually reflect the reality of the history of our national school system.

    HA HA I give precisely zero f*cks about the history :)

    These so-called Christian schools are funded by the state and are being judgemental pricks to single mothers.


  • #516
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    "recent years"....?

    Did you read it yourself?
    New arrangements were introduced in 1999.

    Maybe you missed that bit.
    Nodin wrote: »
    We're talking about a teenage mother being refused schooling now, by the way.

    Good man.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    languagenerd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    Yes, because everything must be financialized..!


  • #518
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    PrincessLola wrote: »
    HA HA I give precisely zero f*cks about the history :).

    I thought as much. No suprise you'd be so very wrong then is it?


  • #519
    Jogathon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 516 ✭✭✭Jogathon


    This is very strange. I can't believe any teacher/principal would behave in this way. I went to a Catholic school, we had girls who were pregnant in school with us, they stayed and sat their exams with no problem, just support. This was in mid-90's so it wasn't the dark ages and it wasn't recently either.

    What I would like to know is how much say the teachers in the school have with regard to this... the principal sounds like a complete autocrat and it must be hell to work there.


  • #520
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    ....and deduct the value of the land that was provided by the religious etc etc etc.

    and add the land and money that was donated by ordinary people to the church specifically for the provision of education services ... its not as if it was sent over by head office.


  • #521
    PrincessLola
    Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    prinz wrote: »
    I thought as much. No suprise you'd be so very wrong then is it?

    But, I'm not wrong lol.:pac:

    Why should I care that they own the land? Seriously. They're biggots.


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    omega666
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭omega666


    Jogathon wrote: »
    This is very strange. I can't believe any teacher/principal would behave in this way. I went to a Catholic school, we had girls who were pregnant in school with us, they stayed and sat their exams with no problem, just support. This was in mid-90's so it wasn't the dark ages and it wasn't recently either.

    What I would like to know is how much say the teachers in the school have with regard to this... the principal sounds like a complete autocrat and it must be hell to work there.



    people don't seem to grasp that different schools have different admission policies, catholic or not. this particular school had a policy that they didn't want to admit pregnant teenagers who had already dropped out of two schools. they have a certain standard and that's their choice.

    dosen't mean that all catholic schools have the same policy, i'm sure the teenager got accepted to another catholic school in the end.


  • #523
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    omega666 wrote: »
    people don't seem to grasp that different schools have different admission policies, catholic or not. this particular school had a policy that they didn't want to admit pregnant teenagers who had already dropped out of two schools. they have a certain standard and that's their choice.

    dosen't mean that all catholic schools have the same policy, i'm sure the teenager got accepted to another catholic school in the end.

    So if a school has a 'no blacks' policy you are okay with that? Nice one.


  • #524
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Tbh I can't get my head around a school being founded, owned and managed by one person. Surely to get state funding the Department would have insisted on decent separation of powers, corporate governance etc.


  • #525
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    omega666 wrote: »
    people don't seem to grasp that different schools have different admission policies, catholic or not. this particular school had a policy that they didn't want to admit pregnant teenagers who had already dropped out of two schools. they have a certain standard and that's their choice.
    People grasp this very well, and find it unacceptable.


  • #526
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    omega666 wrote: »
    people don't seem to grasp that different schools have different admission policies, catholic or not. this particular school had a policy that they didn't want to admit pregnant teenagers who had already dropped out of two schools. they have a certain standard and that's their choice.

    dosen't mean that all catholic schools have the same policy, i'm sure the teenager got accepted to another catholic school in the end.

    We've no idea what their admissions policy is, because they have none defined that we can tell.

    No mention of "dropped out" was made.

    Are you saying that somebody having a child is "below" some standard or other? If so, what standard would that be?

    You never got back to me on this earlier either....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78426295&postcount=367


  • #527
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    Did you read it yourself?



    Maybe you missed that bit.

    You're stating that state funding started for voluntary secondaries in 1999?


  • #528
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Nodin wrote: »
    Somehow I think - if the circumstances demanded it - I could have made the point without mentioning "career scumbag", "drug gang" "pyromaniac psycopath" etc. In fact I'm fairly positive. It looks like an attempt to undermine or blacken one of the parties to me. Why, I have no idea.

    You still haven't explained why somebody can't make a presumption/assumption, based on the principals correspondence released by the Ombudsman in the report.

    I have. i said it doesn't give all the facts necessary. I've said it many times. Why would i want to undermine or blacken anyones name? I have no stake in this.


  • #529
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Nodin wrote: »
    You're stating that state funding started for voluntary secondaries in 1999?

    No. Please read the link I provided of you want to discuss it.


  • #530
    languagenerd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    omega666 wrote: »
    people don't seem to grasp that different schools have different admission policies, catholic or not. this particular school had a policy that they didn't want to admit pregnant teenagers who had already dropped out of two schools. they have a certain standard and that's their choice.

    dosen't mean that all catholic schools have the same policy, i'm sure the teenager got accepted to another catholic school in the end.

    Did you miss the posts that explained that this school didn't have a written admissions policy? It was one man making it up as he went along, seemingly on a case by case basis.

    And even it was written in an admissions policy, many people still would not find it acceptable.


  • #531
    emo72
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭emo72


    one thing i noticed. its always the same old pricks arguing on controversial threads. do i need to list the names. obviously they have no lifes.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    Mr.Biscuits
    Closed Accounts Posts: 750 ✭✭✭Mr.Biscuits


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G333Is7VPOg


  • #533
    omega666
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭omega666


    Nodin wrote: »
    We've no idea what their admissions policy is, because they have none defined that we can tell.

    No mention of "dropped out" was made.

    Are you saying that somebody having a child is "below" some standard or other? If so, what standard would that be?

    You never got back to me on this earlier either....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78426295&postcount=367


    mention of made in the article of being enroled in 2 schools previously..

    The standard of not being a single teenage mother. Like it or not it not an
    desireable or normal suitation to be in.

    i missed your earlier post, the point i was making is i pay my tax's the same as you and have no problem with funding of these types of schools. judging by the aparent popularity of the school it seems the local tax paying community are in agreement.


  • #534
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    omega666 wrote: »
    mention of made in the article of being enroled in 2 schools previously...

    "dropped out" has a negative connotation.
    omega666 wrote: »
    The standard of not being a single teenage mother. Like it or not it not an
    desireable or normal suitation to be in. ...

    It is not a criminal offence, however. It is not desirable or normal to be confined to a wheelchair either, are you saying that is "below" some standard.
    omega666 wrote: »
    i missed your earlier post, the point i was making is i pay my tax's the same as you and have no problem with funding of these types of schools.
    .

    Why would you? They don't discriminate against anyone and have good records.
    omega666 wrote: »
    judging by the aparent popularity of the school it seems the local tax paying community are in agreement.

    Some undoubtedly are. However we all pay towards it, and we all aren't happy at its discriminatory policies.


  • #535
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    MagicSean wrote: »
    I have. i said it doesn't give all the facts necessary...........


    It gives the principals position, rather bluntly stated. Again - why can't somebody make a presumption/assumption, based on the principals correspondence released by the Ombudsman in the report?


  • #536
    Delancey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,451 ✭✭✭Delancey


    I did find a certain irony in the words of the Childrens Ombudsman describing this 16 year old as '' a child '' - seems to me she wants it both ways - be a ' grown-up ' with a baby ( and doubtless an entitlement to all manner of state benefits ) and yet wants to be seen as a downtrodden ' child ' - whats it to be then ?


  • #537
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Delancey wrote: »
    I did find a certain irony in the words of the Childrens Ombudsman describing this 16 year old as '' a child '' - seems to me she wants it both ways - be a ' grown-up ' with a baby ( and doubtless an entitlement to all manner of state benefits ) and yet wants to be seen as a downtrodden ' child ' - whats it to be then ?

    In the eyes of the law 16 is a child. Certain benefits are given to under 18's. OPFA and some disability payments are paid directly to the claimant.


  • #538
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Delancey wrote: »
    I did find a certain irony in the words of the Childrens Ombudsman describing this 16 year old as '' a child '' - seems to me she wants it both ways - be a ' grown-up ' with a baby ( and doubtless an entitlement to all manner of state benefits ) and yet wants to be seen as a downtrodden ' child ' - whats it to be then ?

    That's an awful lot of assumption in just one sentence.


  • #539
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Delancey wrote: »
    I did find a certain irony in the words of the Childrens Ombudsman describing this 16 year old as '' a child '' - seems to me she wants it both ways - be a ' grown-up ' with a baby ( and doubtless an entitlement to all manner of state benefits ) and yet wants to be seen as a downtrodden ' child ' - whats it to be then ?

    I usually find it breaks down the rights/responsibilities line. You want all the rights of an adult, but when it comes to shouldering the responsibilies ah sure you're just a child. You'll see the same with a lot of hard men about town, who turn back into boys when it comes to the courtroom.


  • #540
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    My patience is really sorely tested by some of the crap here...
    Delancey wrote: »
    I did find a certain irony in the words of the Childrens Ombudsman describing this 16 year old as '' a child '' - ?

    Legally thats what she is. A minor.
    Delancey wrote: »
    ........
    seems to me she wants it both ways - be a ' grown-up ' with a baby ( and doubtless an entitlement to all manner of state benefits ) and yet wants to be seen as a downtrodden ' child ' - whats it to be then ?

    Theres been no mention of benefits whatsoever.

    Theres been no statement from the child, whatsoever.

    So far, all we know is that she wants to go to secondary school, which would put her as acting like a reasonably adjusted minor.

    Therefore I have to ask - what - exactly and precisely - led to you stating "seems to me".


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    prinz wrote: »
    No. Please read the link I provided of you want to discuss it.

    I have no idea what you're on about. State has always part funded the national /primaries. The only question is to when they started paying towards the secondary schools which are/were church run.


  • #542
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    Delancey wrote: »
    I did find a certain irony in the words of the Childrens Ombudsman describing this 16 year old as '' a child '' - seems to me she wants it both ways - be a ' grown-up ' with a baby ( and doubtless an entitlement to all manner of state benefits ) and yet wants to be seen as a downtrodden ' child ' - whats it to be then ?

    Seems to me that she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

    If she left school on finding out she was pregnant, she was a SW scrounger.

    She instead tried to return to school and further her education and got a kick in the teeth for her trouble.

    I personally commend her for trying to go back to school, which in anybody's opinion was the more difficult of the two options.


  • #543
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mishkalucy wrote: »
    Seems to me that she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

    If she left school on finding out she was pregnant, she was a SW scrounger.

    She instead tried to return to school and further her education and got a kick in the teeth for her trouble.

    I personally commend her for trying to go back to school, which in anybody's opinion was the more difficult of the two options.

    ...indeed. It seems to me that far too little has changed in this country since the early/mid 80's in some quarters. "Which 80's" you might ask...which infuckingdeed.


  • #544
    MrVestek
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,242 ✭✭✭MrVestek


    If she had been in school in the first place then maybe someone would have taught her about condoms. Ho-ho!


  • #545
    languagenerd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    Achilles wrote: »
    If she had been in school in the first place then maybe someone would have taught her about condoms. Ho-ho!

    Not in a Catholic school! :P


  • #546
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Achilles wrote: »
    If she had been in school in the first place then maybe someone would have taught her about condoms. Ho-ho!

    Not in a catholic school.


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Well the holier than thou attitude of some of the posters here has saddened and scared me. I thought we left those attitudes behind long ago.

    I can't understand the need to punish this girl by denying her an education. She only had a baby, no one died. We should applaud her for having goals.


  • #548
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    languagenerd wrote: »
    Not in a Catholic school! :P
    Sharrow wrote: »
    Not in a catholic school.

    Don't know about ye but I got plenty of sex ed..... in "Catholic schools".


  • #549
    Cedrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,429 ✭✭✭Cedrus


    prinz wrote: »
    ....and deduct the value of the land that was provided by the religious etc etc etc. Like it or not, it's total rubbish to suggest that the tax payer paid 100% of the cost of establishing our primary and secondary education system.

    Where do you think this valuable land was procured from? The parish priest's pocket?

    The land was either donated by better off parishioners or bought with church collections from less well off parishioners right down to the widows pence which couldn't be afforded at all.

    The national schools system was set up by the government in the early 1830s and were centrally funded and non denominational until Cardinal Cullen hijacked the system for fear of 'godlesness'.


  • #550
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Well the holier than thou attitude of some of the posters here has saddened and scared me. I thought we left those attitudes behind long ago.

    I can't understand the need to punish this girl by denying her an education. She only had a baby, no one died. We should applaud her for having goals.


    She HAD SEX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Worse still, SHE MAY HAVE ENJOYED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • #551
    Fluffybums
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 362 ✭✭Fluffybums


    As for Roman Catholic ethos perhaps that principal should try reading the bible.

    Mary was, after all, pregnant with Jesus outside marriage.

    I suspect there would have been no problem with the baby's father attending a Roman Catholic ethos school.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement