Mod- Thread title updated to reflect what has actually happened, and the op's text link has been turned into a working link
Lazy effort op, don't do it again
Threadbanned
john123470
The family excel academically but ................
Great summary.
More debate .
Again however, in that case the person involved followed the procedures and went through the process and eventually the court found in their favour.
Which is how it should be - Follow the process to the end and accept the outcome whatever that might be.
The Burke family have a history of not doing that - They feel they are "wronged" in some way and then they completely over react and behave dreadfully at every turn and refuse point blank to engage in any kind of process to remotely attempt to resolve the issue.
As much as a don't like it . he is absolutely entitled to his viewpoint - But there is a way to do things which he and his family seem to think doesn't apply to them.
They seem to feel that once their moral alarm has been set off that then they are free to rant and rave and disrupt without any care or attention to any other party involved.
That is the entirety of the issue at hand - Not Pronouns or otherwise , it's him and his appalling behaviour and his refusal to engage in any form for mature discourse or negotiation.
The old zealots vs the modern zealots😅
If I was a teacher and a kid asked me to call them Spongebob Squarepants, i would do it to be nice but that would not make me believe they were an animated sea sponge
Agreed. EB isnt a nice person but hiniting he should be raped in prison like a few posters here have done is disgusting.
Not sure how thats relevant. Maya Forstater didnt go shouting the odds, chasing her boss around the place and have to be legally restrained from turning upto her workplace.
Just an example that some things just aren't as " cut and dried " as some may think .
As regards the teacher's actions , I would definitely agree with yourself and others that he acted like a " complete Tool " ( to put it mildly ) . He should have sought legal advice and followed due process .
I am also of the opinion that the school shares some responsibility for this issue also . The teachers beliefs should have been given more consideration , instead of what looks like some " decree " being issued .
We should live in a society where ALL faiths / beliefs / versions of humanity live in harmony.
No the dangerously simple fúckwit who chased his female boss around and refused to vacate a school is the bad one.
Anything else you near clarity on, I'm here. 👍️
Again, establishing facts via boards posts, dont be silly 😂
I'm very familiar with the current attempt to pull a three card trick around pronouns from the quarters that are trying to do the same with sex.
For hundreds of years we were not referring to people as they/them because that person was neither a "he" or a "she", because we knew that such a notion was all guff and nonsense. As it is now.
In your opinion,
In my opinion also someone complaining about not being called "They" shows the world has gone mad
You never hear of thinkspeak?
He followed her around a hall and "questioned her loudly" 😦😦😦 Yes it's improper but I can't say I'm shocked to the core of my being.
I've seen worse things in places I've worked - both on construction sites and in offices.
The pronoun angle, with the initial clickbait coverage, is how it came to be national news. Breaking the injunction is fairly dramatic though I grant you.
How the hell was he ever hired? A 2 second Google will tell you all you need to know about him and the family of shitheads he comes from. The school board of management have a lot to answer for. Hiring him was really negligent on their behalf.
I think the major objection is his standing up and declaiming the issue at a public event to mark the 260th anniversary of the school and, reportedly, persistently following the principal at the event speaking loudly to the extent that others had to intervene to shelter the principal.
If true these are certainly very poor behaviours and would seem to justify a suspension pending an investigation. To then continue to come into school premises and subsequently thwart an injunction not to do so means that it is essentially irrelevant whether the school had grounds to require him to respect the pupil’s views. He certainly does not seem to act in a sensitive and child-centred manner.
In fairness, construction sites and offices are rarely populated by children. Whatever the merits of his original complaint, his failure to try and deal with them appropriately will likely be his undoing.
likewise with his sister, the family picketed Arthur Cox on a number of occasions after she left. Personally that was not in her best interest irrespective of the merits of her case. It would make any future employer wary. Their behaviour at the WRC marks them out as failing to respect accepted procedures etc. I thought that the should not have had to take the case to get accredited grades for their home-schooled child and the DoEd should have seen that it was likely to work out. They succeeded by following procedure in that case.
elsewise it seems that if the procedures don’t follow their chosen path then they act like belligerent toddlers.
Well, in fairness, he might have been a decent teacher, all things aside. That said, I wonder how long he teaching there and what the kids thought of him before that.
Clearly you're not very familiar with the facts on hand and you might learn something from boards posts. While I wouldn't ever suggest you take them as gospel, when they point at something elsewhere that you can check, they're an excellent starting point. So here's a couple for you. Are Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Jane Austen good enough as sources for singular they?
Singular "they/them" pronouns are nothing new.
Examples of the singular "they" being used to describe someone features as early as 1386 in Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales and also in famous literary works like Shakespeare's Hamlet in 1599.
"They" and "them" were still being used by literary authors to describe people in the 17th Century too - including by Jane Austin in her 1813 novel Pride and Prejudice. ~ https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49754930
Cool, we should base what is acceptable in work based on your anecdotes
I'll email the WRC.
I didn't say it was acceptable. I said was "improper".
Did someone complain? Or did you just invent that?
My definition of mad would be a weaselled faced hateful cúnt using the story of God to legitimise his scumbaggery in a school.
Maybe he can reflect when he is in the Joy.
Amen.
Yeah, but in reality you and the boys chasing each other around on construction sites aside, what he has done is probably a firing offence.
Not applicable? But you use them yourself
Scumbags getting their asses handed to them — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'
A question to the NO side? why are yee insulting people and want to keep them in dark - Page 3 — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'
Gardai want ban on people photographing and recording them on duty - Page 10 — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'
Is it time to join Nato - Page 89 — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'
Orban party Fidesz wins election in Hungary - Page 5 — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'
Yeah probably but there's a limit to how shocked people can claim to be by it.
Given your language ('c*nts') I doubt you fainted from indignation when you heard the story first.
There is nothing alleged about behaviour, as it was witnessed by a room full of people and by those who had to intervene to stop him from following the principal around the venue.
There is also plenty of examples earlier in the thread of when its appropriate to refer to one person as "they" or "them".
Again - If only you had bothered to read it.
That's about as relevant as your construction site anecdote.
Lol. It is relevant if you can't even be part of a discussion without becoming intemperate but at the same time we're meant to believe you're shocked to your very core by intemperate behaviour (raising one's voice etc.)
Do you not see how your own behaviour is going to affect how others judge your sincerity?
Lol. I don't think cursing on the internet is the same thing as chasing my boss around aggressively or being in contempt of court, also I don't think I am the one that is being judged here. Extremely bizarre tangent you are on.
David Koresh Lite will be, Monday apparently.
I imagine by the time all the judging is finished he will be unemployable.
Amen to that.
In fairness this was described as a simplified version which is entirely accurate.
I’m going to leave the rest of the events and injunction aside.
The description offered while accurate about the legal basis is very much an interpretation which elides some very interesting areas. It may well be that the elided areas never see the light of day in court. In other words, Mr Burke may have, in the current metaphor, chosen the wrong hill to die on.
The school allegedly made a decision to ask staff to accept and use the new name and pronouns of a transgender student who was transitioning. Note that the verb “ask” isn’t quite what it seems. In normal usage it implies a right of refusal. That is a ground of contention in this episode if not the current High Court case.
Mr Burke allegedly refused to do that. He was placed on paid administrative leave.
Had Mr Burke avoided the rest he might have been on a very interesting legal trail. That would be a clash between school ethos/characteristic spirit and the transgender issue which is supported in Irish law. As it’s a CoI school the ethos may be somewhat more …. elastic. Wrong hill Mr Burke.
You don't sound like a withering violet to me.
I suppose he'll work for himself or the mammy after all this.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/14ff3f6cb09641b8eb36e8fb7c3a4d14.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d5a8197d7274f92eab37915a6d9f12a1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6cf5dc758823be7b2ebdb601ec3d15b8.svg)