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
Just so nobody is under any delusions as to whats going on, here's Enoch to explain why he's still in jail
Enoch Burke has informed jail bosses he has no intention securing his own release from prison by purging his contempt.
It’s understood he has spoken with a prison governor after his period of isolation ended.
Sources say Burke was unreceptive to reminders he could achieve his freedom at any time by accepting the terms of the court order and purging his contempt.
As to how he feels about the student in question:
Mr Burke reiterated claims that transgenderism was against the teachings of every major church on the island of Ireland.
But on the plus side, Enoch thinks Enoch is a great lad
He said that during his time in prison he had time to consider whether any of his actions were wrong or amounted to misconduct and concluded that what he had done was “honourable”.
and so on
Enoch looking to legally challenge the disciplinary process
The latest on the hearing above
Hearing continues so the article may be updated throughout the evening
Update this Monday evening 12 Sept.
I can’t summarize it all; essentially Mr Burke’s account of school service is very different, he’s claiming disciplinary process is flawed on constitutional grounds. He does claim a CoI document from 2002 (superseded by now anyone?) is in his favour. Best to read the article.
It's in everyone's interest to get the disciplinary process over with. That's why I thought a day release could be arranged.
yeah he's throwing a lot at it, obviously hoping something will stick
As for the 2002 reference, I saw that and expect it to play zero part.
The plot thickens. There appears to be two of them in it. The Principal is no longer the principal, no reason given for her no longer being in the role. Both Mr Burke and the student have rights. Does one override the other's? She should have agreed to disagree with Mr Burke, it may have saved the whole circus from starting. It does not look good for the school to cancel the meeting on Wednesday, thus causing Mr Burke a longer stay in the Joy.
The Burkes have plenty of experience and an inhouse legal team, it could go on for years. They just need to stop Mrs Burke from getting the case thrown out of court!
A quick summary of his counterclaim. Info sourced from the RTE article below as well as the IE & IT articles above. Note, there are 3 injunctions he is seeking
The disciplinary process is due to his actions, not his beliefs
Disciplinary procedures are not unconstitutional (JFC that I had to type that lol)
Honestly, I'm gobsmacked that he didn't like a report that outlined his behaviour, gobsmacked I tells ya
Not sure if he's arguing here that he shouldn't be paid while suspended. Anything is possible in this farce
It doesn't
The school countered with
Makes sense, can't have a hearing if the person its about is hiding in jail to avoid it
Errrrrr
Anyway, the first injunction, to prevent the disciplinary hearing, is rejected as the hearing is already on hold until Enoch comes out of the joy.
There are still 2 other's he is seeking
preventing him from being put on administrative leave or continuing to be on administrative leave.
Important to note, he said he was concerned about the welfare of the children so couldn't follow this instruction which would damage the welfare of the children by, umm, doing something which would positively impact the welfare of the children.....its all rather confusing
Maybe he thought she wasn't at the service so he should repeat himself, repeatedly
Enoch didn't like that, and I'm paraphrasing here, but something along the lines of "I am a very fine person, lots of people tell me this, so many people, many fine people".
Given the worldwide attention he's drawn upon himself, his own actions seem to have taken care of his good name and character. Whats the bar for "blemish"? Does breaching an injunction qualify?
The rest ye should be well aware of (going to the school, being asked not to, going back, being asked not to, court injunction, breach, breach, breach, jail etc)
.
..
The plot thickens. There appears to be two of them in it. The Principal is no longer the principal, no reason given for her no longer being in the role.
Nope, her departure from the Wilson school had been announced back in June as she was moving to a school in Bandon
It does not look good for the school to cancel the meeting on Wednesday, thus causing Mr Burke a longer stay in the Joy.
I don't see how seeing as it couldn't go ahead with him present.
Did you also miss the fact that Enoch was trying to get an injunction to stop the hearing? A request that was rejected as the hearing is postponed because Enoch is refusing to walk out of the joy
this post was a joy to read, would you consider summarising the stories of the day on an ongoing basis pls
Seems to believe something the school said in 2002 trumps Equal Status legislation
It doesn't "trump" the Equal Status Act but if it's true, and there has been no other formal guidance to their employees, then the school are liable under the act for this instance of discrimination.
But there is absolutely no discrimination.
His behaviour caused all this for himself.
oh you're back and predicting more stunning victories for enoch if mysterious unlikely occurrences .... occur
Mortgage won't let me
..and he's loving it, as he thinks it makes him the only christian in the village.
No....I'm pointing out that "Seems to believe something the school said in 2002 trumps Equal Status legislation" is misleading, because "something the school said" is very relevant under the legislation.
If Burke's actions were discriminatory under ESA then the school would already be liable for this discrimination by default given that they're the employer. But if they gave no guidance on the ethos since 2002 or training to Enoch to say, e.g., transgender women are women and you must use certain pronouns, then what they said in 2002 may be important to the claims Burke is making.
In a word, nope.
He'll want to make it all about religion but its not, for anyone, except him.
To everyone else its about his behavior and his actions.
His reasons as to why he behaved or acted the way he did do not excuse said actions or behaviour.
Also, you seem to be saying he is being discriminated against because he's not being allowed to discriminate against a student, am I reading that right?
Hopefully there are some folk in Mountjoy with enough of a sense of humour to just refer to Burke as they at all times.
What we need now is a good old fashioned hunger strike.
Noone has claimed or stated Burkes actions were discrimination under the Equal Status Acts. It has been claimed that the schools position (of agreeing to the students request) is congruent with the Equal Status Acts and also their own admission and anti bullying policies. You'd have to wonder why Burke accepted the job when the school has explicitly trans inclusive admission and anti bullying policies.
Is it the taxpayer or the Board of Wilson's Hospital that will end up paying the costs of Eunuch's latest publicity stunt?
As of last week, Burke was ordered to pay the School's costs.
Whether that has changed, I don't know.
His stay in the joy also has a cost to the state / us!!!!
The plot does not thicken; there are not two of them in it. The Principal is no longer the principal because she moved on to another post, as announced, months ago. She (the student) should have agreed to disagree with Burke?! How do you see that working - a teacher (in a position of authority) over a student? "My personal religion overrides your right to an identity" is something you believe should take precedence over "I'd just like to be called by my name, thanks!" And she should compromise?!
The school website has hit some sort of bandwidth limit (I wonder why?) but looking at archive.org's copy from earlier this month, they have no less than 27 policies listed, including anti-bullying, child protection, one-to-one staff/pupil interaction, etc., etc., - the oldest of the dated policies dating from 2018. This school seems to be really on top of things.
Reminded of all the people who thought that anti lockdown court cases were gonna be won....
The suspension was for him publicly confronting and haranguing the principal in a public setting. At no point does that become okay and it's pretty telling that the courts aren't taking him particularly seriously. Hope he enjoys his stay in Mountjoy for however long he chooses.
I asked that a few pages ago was told it was the schools fault for not having a clearer ethos. Judging by @TaurenDruid s post above, that seems not to be case - they have very clear values in place.
Freedom of religion, as far as I know is not unlimited. And workplaces are off limits, especially when it comes to how you treat the people you interact with. So that argument won't get far.
The media reports I can access are quite short but they seem to be saying that Mr Burke’s focus on the suspension is arguing that :
“As part of his challenge, Mr Burke is seeking a declaration that a report by school principal which led to his suspension by the board, led to prejudicial conclusions being reached about him without him being given a right of reply.”
If the media report is accurate this raises an interesting legal point about a process which results in very significant action without right to defend. It is a fundamental right that you have to know of what you have been accused and have the right of reply. This seems to be the line Mr Burke is taking. Equally the procedures allow for action in serious circumstances. “If there is an allegation of serious misconduct, the teacher may be suspended on full pay pending an investigation and the conclusion of any appeal process.” The question seems to come down to whether this provision of the Department circular is itself unconstitutional as it sets aside a fundamental right. It would seem unlikely that such a provision would be made by the civil service if it had not already been tested. We will know on Wednesday.
The email quoted elsewhere from the principal to the Board prior to the suspension mentions the ethos of the school. As that formed part of the case against him to the Board a determination will have to be made about it probably at the disciplinary hearing. Obviously the Board that passed school policies will hardly find the policies they passed are against the ethos of the school. That raises an interesting question (which may not be an interesting legal question) about if they are the body which should decide on that as they are essentially deciding on a matter they have previously judged. No doubt Mr Burke will have an extensive scriptural and theological presentation. The Board will have to put forward its reasoning if it rejects his argument. That too will be interesting. If the Board makes the expected decision it will be appealed. More of the same. While Mr Burke may not be able to get these questions into a legal forum he may be able to get them into a public forum. The thread has already posts about how messy that could get. (Recap: public division between Anglican bishops 2018).
A sad spectacle.
especially when it comes to how you treat the people you interact with
Or even in this case, people whose welfare you are responsible for.
i suppose in all the furrowed brow thinking you've gone into here, you've bothered to check whether or not the right to represent your side of an accusation can come after suspension on full pay if the situation can be argued to merit same?
say, for instance, if there was a clear indication of erratic behaviour from a teacher on school premises.
you would have checked that out, right? before declaring a massive potential issue favouring enoch, right?
again, the efforts here are transparent
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6cf5dc758823be7b2ebdb601ec3d15b8.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/761dc761e98b4e4a2ae41c6abf8a928b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d5a8197d7274f92eab37915a6d9f12a1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e28477cb8381b089d86bb2f8d128369.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/540d8cb314832a1dac2dc9192a568ed1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/892f365931e5cb4ba5c9d4ce2c7da299.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
