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
Religion has changed but the rule is the same: follow the school ethos or leave.
If a private catholic (or any other denomination, for that matter) school insisted that all teachers lived alone, with other members of the same gender or with married partmers, they'd be well within their rights. They'd look backward and archaic and probably wouldn't survive very long because I don't think the demand for strict conservative religious education is there any more; but they'd be well within their rights.
Time to help you see the hole you’ve dug for yourself. You saw this sentence “Apparently recommendations around the area made in 1994 have not been implemented. The report itself is from 2016.” That is what the 2016 report says. I’m sure you’ve read it at this stage. You seem to think I’m writing the recommendations. I’m quoting the report. Can’t make it much simpler for you.
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?
NO HE WON'T!!!
Absolutely NONE of the charges against Enoch Burke , whether the school suspension or his breaches of a Court Order have anything to do with his "Religious Ethos"
Any fines , charges , suspension or expulsions that befall Enoch Burke will be exclusively down to his poor behaviour and inability to follow basic processes.
He is suspended from the school for his unprofessional behaviour at a Public event. He then made that worse by ignoring the suspension and turning up for work as if nothing had happened , He was asked to stop and he refused forcing the school to take out an court order, which he immediately broke. When taken to court to review his breach of said order he refused to confirm to the judge that he would obey the terms of the injunction which is why he is in Jail.
Enoch Burke will almost certainly lose his job for being utterly unprofessional and for displaying a complete disregard for the Schools mgmt structures and indeed for repeatedly breaking the law.
His "religious ethos" won't even come in to the discussion as his subsequent actions have made his original complaint almost entirely moot.
Calm down. We’re discussing possible Teaching Council striking off after other hearings.
and we are still no closer to knowing what those recommendations were.
And neither did I make any claim that the judge was at fault. That claim exists in your imagination.
and if he is struck off it will be for his behaviour. His religious ethos is irrelevant.
That remains to be seen. I linked previously to the TC professional conduct piece and a refusal to implement a school policy based on its ethos could be used.
It’s fascinating to see how many people get uneasy when Mr Burke has inadvertently dragged the absurdity of religious ethos into the light of day. What is that about? And we all know it’s not part of the CC hearings or the disciplinary.
The ones the report I linked to mentioned.
he was suspended for his behaviour not his religious ethos. you seem obsessed with making this about his religious ethos.
and around and around and around we go. does it cause you physical pain to actually say what they are?
Your first sentence is correct and one everyone agrees with.
Your second sentence is just imagination on your part. Mr Burke stated that his objections to the school policy were religious. That is fact. His actions in pursuit of those objections are what led to the suspension which led to the injunction which led to CC. Those also are facts. The real question for you and several others (some of whom regard Mr Burke's religious ideas as daft) is why so reluctant to call out the basis of his objections in the first place? Objections based on religious ethos.
No mate.
He was suspended for his unnecessary and unacceptable and persistent poor behaviour towards the School Principal and other staff members and officials on relation to a disciplinary matter.
A disciplinary matter for which he had agreed to be bound by due procedure when he accepted a contract of employment in the School and which he was persistently ignoring and challenging.
A procedure similar to one any one of us will have signed up to at any job we have had.
Burke is lucky in one way that its a school he works for, because had he gone toe-to-toe with the boss in any private sector company I've ever worked for, he'd have been summarily dismissed for gross insubordination and the only legal proceedings would be him chasing a fruitless unfair dismissal petition. Quite a few old bosses of mine would have kicked the head off him for the insolence too, but thats by the by.
This has absolutely nothing to do with religious ethos and everything to do with Enoch Burke's personal conduct as an employee.
Now, where have I heard that before.....
With the greatest respect and agreeing with the vast majority of what you have written I will take issue on a matter of fact with your second last paragraph: if by “this” you mean the suspension and the CC and the upcoming disciplinary hearing then definitely agreed. But “this” can mean also the whole grounds of the issues which led to the above.
Some information, older teachers never had written contracts. They still don’t. Mr Burke should have had. Schools are different environments and particularly religious schools and what passes there might not be tolerated in a private sector setting alright.
I gave up looking after all of the above
Low level and persistent trolling
Do not post in this thread again
Hey, I am not @rsed to read a whole report in order to see just the relevant bit(s). Can you just quote the part you are talking about? Cheers, thanks!
Edit. Shoot. Sorry. Ignore. I just see Beasty's warning not to post in this thread
By 'this', I mean his contempt of the Court and the injunction it issued. An injunction to restrain his aggressive and insubordinate personal conduct, not his personal faith based opinion.
We've agreed now, religion has nothing whatsoever to do with matters at hand.
We can also safely say, that at his age and career stage, Burke absolutely has a contract.
That's about the gist of it.
Equally obviously at this stage Mr Burke’s stance has religious roots
So what?
That doesn't, and shouldn't, gain him any special privileges.
and he believes that those roots have at least as strong a footing in law as the opposing side.
He can believe what he likes. The court has adjudicated on his actions not his beliefs, no matter how much he and his supporters try to claim otherwise. He and his ilk can talk about "god's law" all they like, but that's strictly a matter between themselves and their imaginary superhero.
There's always the one his ma runs... you'd have to wonder what sort of oddball would send their child there though.
He's not a member of the Church of Ireland so you imagining that a conflict between the CoI school's ethos and his own personal "ethos" makes any sort of point at all is redundant.
I would have thought any Religious schools would be for oddballs. Whatever the flavor of wizard they believe in.
Not really, majority of our schools are religious so they've simply learned to adapt around it. Average church is gonna avoid interfering in actual running of it these days, it's just gonna be atrocious pr.
Meh Never understood the need for Religious schools.
That seems very far-fetched. Let's say Joe Bloggs is a teacher and refuses to implement the religious ethos in an RCC school. That does not make him unfit to teach in e.g. an ETB or ET school. TC is only supposed to be concerned with fitness to teach. Using the law of the land to take someone's profession away, depriving them of their livelihood, on the basis of arguments over the nature of imaginary friends would be too bizarre even for the Irish education system.
You may be unfamiliar with our very "special" education system. 95% of primary schools, fully funded by taxpayers, are controlled by churches. About half of secondary schools, similarly, and most of the rest (ETB) are de facto catholic "ethos" despite being owned by the state.
NB - replies to Diespies were posted before reading Beasty's post. It's not as if I was expecting any sort of constructive reply anyway...
Mr Burke is expecting the school management to be in step with him and his personal religious beliefs and insistent that it does not have the right to manage the school in line with its duties and obligations. He has accused the school management of stepping outside its religious ethos. It might be worth looking at Mr Burke's actions in light of his particular religious creed and the one the school follows.
He is, AFAIK, a member of the evangelical wing of the COI, as are the rest of his clan.
Does she actually run a school? I know she's a teacher, but didn't think it went beyond homeschooling.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6cf5dc758823be7b2ebdb601ec3d15b8.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
