Westmeath school gets temporary injunction banning a suspended teacher from it's premises

why dont you say what you wish is happening or what you think might be happening

the hints and halfdrops in your posts on this topic make it clear you think theres big things afoot but youve just kept coming up with quite silly speculation that always falls flat

i just think it would be good if you said something clearly for once if you had something to say

right, thats enough responding to you then- gluck

For clarity a number of posters here are blocked because of an inability to respond to the post made. I drew attention to questions raised in the legislature if imprisonment is always appropriate in contempt of court issues. To claim that there is some obligation on me to then offer alternatives is silly and absurd. It’s also lazy in the extreme. These posters can all use Google. The first link you will get is this:

Apparently recommendations around the area made in 1994 have not been implemented. The report itself is from 2016. The idea that the law in the area is “cut and dried” is itself disputed by the judiciary in cases mentioned. Civil contempt of court is traditionally seems as coercive but it’s very basis as an indefinite punishment is seen differently from a legal and human rights perspective. The “legals and gloamers”.

The very obvious basis of the current court case doesn’t need restating. Equally obviously at this stage Mr Burke’s stance has religious roots and he believes that those roots have at least as strong a footing in law as the opposing side. Most legal opinion disagrees with him both in the applicability of his argument in the contempt hearing and in any broader case. But, and here’s the thing for the churches, the loss of a case in the broader area is a loss for the whole structure of ethos and denominational education in Ireland. That raises the nightmare issue for the department of education and politicians about patronage as the model to deliver education.

I’m referring to the report I linked to.

If you know that you know that to which the report referred. You don’t seem to understand that the report said that. I’m drawing attention to what the report said.

I’m not up to speed on decisions there. I saw a recent case of someone struck off for forging qualifications. Any TC action will probably have to wait until all the disciplinary hearings and likely legal follow up are done and dusted. There will be great ironies if he is struck off as a result of refusing to uphold ethos of the school.

Nothing ironic about being struck off for harassing staff and humiliating children.

Therein lies the crux of the issue with your posts, you see this as some grand legal challenge that he is mounting, everyone else, including the courts, see it for what it is, a nut job religious zealot refusing to follow simple instructions and suffering the consequences.

On a side note, I wonder if he'll get cranberry sauce with his Christmas Dinner in the Joy

You’ve just revealed the crux of the issue alright: people who don’t understand posts and keep replying to their own imagined versions. It’s quite funny but sad too.

Let’s explain the irony: Mr Burke has based his objections to the transgender accommodation of the school on religious ethos. He could end up being struck off for refusing to follow religious ethos if the school establishes, as it will, that it’s policy is in keeping with the CoI ethos. Geddit?

Theres another irony in that because religious ethos was used years ago to fire a female teacher from a RC school as she was unmarried and living with a man. It seems that religious ethos can be weaponised for whatever the moment demands. Ironic, given that religion claims access to divinely revealed absolute truth. Oooops.

You accuse me of seeing this as a grand legal challenge he is mounting. False. I’ll state as fact you either don’t read posts or don’t understand them. Everyone gets the CC stuff, the disciplinary stuff about the event. He’s going to CoA apparently on religious grounds, perhaps among others. If you don’t understand that fine but kindly don’t make accusations based on ignorance. You can look back through my posts on the last two pages and see that I stated the balance of legal opinion is that he will lose, even on those grounds. But don’t let facts get in the way of talking to your own version of them.