Bride and groom getting fired on Monday

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

How does singing that song prove they have sectarian beliefs?

Are you serious?

buried wrote: »

Are you serious?

As I said how many people have said 'ooh and up the ra' 'Sinn Fein' IRA and never supported any of the above - just sang along with drunken chants?

If the amount of people who sang those songs and actually joined the IRA and voted SF Ireland would be a very different place.
Plus SF is trying to move away from the Knuckle dragging Celtic jersey wearing SF voter.

Your main arguement seems to be that they are teachers - so you hold them on a very high standard - above former CEO's like John Delaney, Tyrone football players, or average celtic football fans.
Why is it only teachers you seem to hold to this high standard?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I said how many people have said 'ooh and up the ra' 'Sinn Fein' IRA and never supported any of the above - just sang along with drunken chants?

Your main arguement seems to be that they are teachers - so you hold them on a very high standard - above former CEO's like John Delaney, Tyrone football players, or average celtic football fans.
Why is it only teachers you seem to hold to this high standard?

Because teachers are employed by the state, through the taxation of citizens just like me, just like you, they are employed by the state, paid for by us, to Educate our future generations.
You dont think that should be held to a high standard?

Once again, are you serious?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Your mindset Irish rebel songs = Natural fun a bit of craic
Anything on the other-side of the coin = abhorrent.

Please, show me exactly where I said that

buried wrote: »

Please, show me exactly where I said that

That was in reply to armaghlad.
Who will no doubt find out where I live! Plus if I do not post again - I may or may not have ended up like your username!:D

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh right, so we have moved on from a teacher who thinks the age of consent should be lowered to a proud and vocal member of an organisation that wants to abolish any age of consent for the express purpose to engage in a sexual relationship?

Bit of a difference there.

It would all depend on the motives really. If a teacher had valid motives for his advocacy for the reduction of the legal age limit and I had no reason to question his ethics, I think I would be ok with him voicing his opinion.

The other extreme example you threw out there, no. I wouldn't be ok with Nambla.

I wouldn't waste your energy AndrewJRenko does not only move the goalposts, he moves the whole stadium to another planet. NAMBLA

buried wrote: »

It is totally unacceptable to hold twistedly culturally sacred SECTARIAN beliefs if you are in the employ of a institution of a state that is trying to escape the threat of a violent SECTARIAN conflict within that state.

Unfortunately their education system is itself sectarian.

So is ours...

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I wouldn't waste your energy AndrewJRenko does not only move the goalposts, he moves the whole stadium to another planet. NAMBLA

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh right, so we have moved on from a teacher who thinks the age of consent should be lowered to a proud and vocal member of an organisation that wants to abolish any age of consent for the express purpose to engage in a sexual relationship?

Bit of a difference there.

It would all depend on the motives really. If a teacher had valid motives for his advocacy for the reduction of the legal age limit and I had no reason to question his ethics, I think I would be ok with him voicing his opinion.

The other extreme example you threw out there, no. I wouldn't be ok with Nambla.

Nothing has moved - that's exactly where I started out, with NAMBLA - remember this post?


But it's good to see that we've established a principle that private statements of a teacher can have an impact on their professional status.

buried wrote: »

Yeah you are right sure it's what 4000 miles away on another continent right?



Yes.



No never sang a webel song so there you go.




Yes. El vino Veritas.

Fair enough as long as you would treat all people the same regardless.

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

not even The Fields of Athenry?

It's the fields of athenwy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah that’s the kicker right there hp - any matter and whether or not it relates to their employment is a question for their employers to determine according to the terms and conditions of their employment contract.

Employers nowadays have code of conduct policies and disciplinary policies which allow them to discipline employees whose conduct they determine would damage the employers reputation.

In the circumstances under discussion here, their employers if it’s in their contract of employment (which it very likely is), would be well within their rights to discipline the people in question if they determined that any disciplinary action was warranted.

Me personally I don’t imagine any disciplinary action is warranted, but I understand that other people have every right to disagree, and even though I think in these particular circumstances it’s insidious, I do understand why people would be calling for their dismissal.

I understand the current paradigm, I’m merely stating that I quite bitterly oppose it. I am absolutely and completely opposed to the encroachment of workplace authority into personal free time. It is manifesting itself in different ways and I suspect many people would agree with me about at least some of it (the idea that people should be on call 24/7 to answer calls or emails even if their work day is finished, for example) but personally I’m just blanketly opposed to it full stop. As far as I’m concerned, your boss is only your boss during the hours in which he or she is paying for your time. And provided you perform to standard during those hours, he or she shouldn’t be allowed to penalize you for what you choose to do outside those hours, unless it directly impacts your work or your workplace.

FWIW, I apply the same standards to schools and colleges - when the bell rings at the end of the school day and you leave school property, your teachers or lecturers no longer have any authority over you whatsoever. If your behavior outside those hours directly impacts on your classmates or schooling (not doing homework, bullying which carries on outside the school grounds, etc) then they absolutely have a right to punish you for it when you return the next morning. If it doesn’t, then regardless of how they feel about it (underage drinking on the weekends, offensive comments online, etc) it’s just straight up, bluntly, none of their f*cking business.

Probably seems strange to see comments like this from someone of the “always on” generation but there you go I believe in an absolute “separation of powers” if you will in terms of having a distinct and absolute red line beyond which your employer or educator does not have any say on what you do in your life, and I find it incredibly disturbing that this has been eroded in, from what I can see, the relatively short period that has been the 2010s decade.