I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
The issue of his religious beliefs and his refusal to use they/them as requested is at this point, an entirely separate issue.
No one is disputing his right to object whatsoever , the issue is the manner in which he chose to object - namely interrupting a public event at the school and then refusing to adhere to the terms of the subsequent school disciplinary process.
The order of events from what I can see is as follows.
Resolve the issue of his breach of the injunction and realistically there is only one ultimate resolution here, the law is the law.
Once that is resolved then we can move to the next stage which is the disciplinary hearing regarding his actions at the School event that resulted in his suspension. Possible outcomes here are that he is exonerated , that he receives some kind of fine/suspension or potentially that he is fired. Either of the two latter options appear to be far more likely outcomes than the former to be honest.
Only then do we move to the point of attempting to resolve the underlying issue of his refusal to refer to a child as they/them.
And depending on the outcome of the earlier disciplinary hearing , this final stage might be totally moot as if he is fired on foot of the disciplinary hearing there's nothing left to resolve.
Burke was asked to use gender neutral pronouns.
When something is "gender neutral" it means it does not denote any gender.
So, no, he was not asked "to call a boy a girl" or vice-versa.
You can only imagine the amount of spurious transactions going on right now in an attempt to show he has none.
He had no right to object in the manner he did.
Burke's disciplinary process cannot look at what he did after the function because he was suspended for what he did at the function and not for what happened afterwards
Why can't they?
Is there anything in a teacher's code of conduct about how they should raise any grievances they have? It goes without saying that giving out to the head teacher in front of a bunch of students is a no no. Is it specified on paper though?
So do trans people suddenly become trans on their 18th birthday?
I think it's more the manner of his objection rather than the objection itself.
I'd slightly disagree what he is doing is against employment law and I admit I may be totally wrong but is there anything in employment law that prevents an employee from seeking an injunction against their employer?
No. Quite obviously. But no law firm unless there was obvious gross misconduct or malpractice by the employer would recommend it, A judge will not intervene unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice or at least a question of it, they rarely if ever get involved in work place relations where instruments have not been exhausted.
Again this hasn't even got to the hearing.
What he is doing although he has the "right to do" is not consequence free, as under his particular employment, frivolous delays or interfering in the process is in itself is gross misconduct.
Of course it being a school, the policies of misconduct are over engineered. Much more robust than someone working in an office or warehouse, etc.
Aside from the fact that we've had a law allowing people have their preferred gender legally recognised for almost 7 years, the specifics of this case was the use of the pronoun "they", which isn't calling a girl a boy, or visa versa. If I were to refer to your post to someone else, I would say "they wrote...", and it would be linguistically correct, uncontroversial and nothing to do with social media.
The fantasy land some folk here live in, I don’t think I can be bothered to engage anymore.
Great post. Sums it up.
I suspect when he sues the school and State, religious beliefs will have far more relevance on the story than you are describing above. Whether rightly or wrongly, his contention is that he had a right to object to the directive on religious grounds.
What Burke did wrong is very clear , there is absolutely no ambiguity about it whatsoever
His visits to court , his time in Prison and potentially his temporary loss of assets have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his religious beliefs or transgender rights. When he stood up at that school event and started to complain , he could just as well have been complaining about the lack of teabags in the Staff canteen and it would not have altered any of the subsequent events one iota.
ALL of his problems are down to his point blank refusal to engage in the Staff disciplinary process to which he would have agreed to when he signed his contract.
That's it , that's the ball game here.
Burke's disciplinary process cannot look at what he did after the function because he was suspended for what he did at the function and not for what happened afterwards. That may be subject to a second disciplinary process if he survives the first one, which will eventually go ahead no matter how much Burke tries to block it.
My thoughts are, and others here disagree with me (I'm looking at you Boggles 😀), that he's legally entitled to seek injunctions if he thinks he's been treated unfairly or not in accordance with the law. I'd argue that he's legally entitled to do that until the courts rule otherwise. And until the court process is exhausted, he's not breaking any laws in not facing the disciplinary process.
Again, I'm just a lay person. Someone with legal experience may be able to show me that I'm talking out of my hoop.
I think that you are not the one looking at the case coldly.... Everyone else on this thread has been looking at it for what it was. He broke the injunction against him which he has to follow by the law. We removed what you you say "triggered" this because in the cold light of day the reason he was in prison was because he broke the law.
You keep bringing up about the church being too much of an influence in the schools. This case the school is a religious school and they respected the students wishes and Enoch himself wasn't taught in a school religious or otherwise so I'm not even sure what you are trying to equate here?
Also with regards to your comment about him being a hypocrite to his religion if he accepted the students wishes to be addressed as they/them. Please do tell me all the things in the bible that you think that he follows to the actual letter? I suspect like a lot there is cherry picking here ( not just from evangelical christians) for what people do not like and then arguing that it's their beliefs
I'd slightly disagree what he is doing is against employment law and I admit I may be totally wrong but is there anything in employment law that prevents an employee from seeking an injunction against their employer? I didn't think there was.
My second point is the courts are supposed to be open to all, even if they are obnoxious evangelical types. We all know suspect he's using the courts as a delaying tactic but it's not always illegal to do that.
And yes, I think the courts will get fed up of his behaviour and he'll eventually run out of road and have to face the music. We mightn't be there just yet though.
I'm looking forward to the Pantomine tomorrow.
Is it correct then to take it you are inferring that Burke publically disparaged the Principal?
No.
It was a hypothetical scenario involving a pupil speaking out against Burke/his teaching "policy", in an analogous fashion to how he spoke out against school policy
The point I was making was that Burke was able to publicly criticise the policy (and by implication the one student that policy applies to) but that student, or any other, has no forum to publicly criticise Burke without also facing suspension.
Seeing as the thread title is
Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite suspension
I think the lad is just trying to compensate for the fact his parents never sent him to school as a long lad.😉
Feel free to explain how your scenario singles out / victimises / bullies a specific pupil.
There is no comparison to what Burke has done. You are in effect talking about a "work to rule" by a teacher, or a form of limited strike action.
If all teachers who are not believing christians did this, it would be great! It would end the system of enforced religious indoctrination overnight. But the INTO have no cojones and have spent the last century or more happy to have their members under the thumb of the RCC and CoI.
If it could
What do you mean "if"? This isn't my opinion.
There is nothing in law that states an employee has to be present at the hearing.
IF that was the case he just has to not show up for 40 odd years, gets paid and he retires.
Him getting himself intentionally incarcerated or fúcking off to Spain is not the disciplinary processes problem.
As long as he is furnished with the documents that are required and the conclusion of the process in writing, that's all they are obliged to do.
Why they haven't held it yet would be pure speculation on my behalf. Lets hope it gets done quickly because this muppet is costing the tax payer an absolute fortune.
I’m sure he has a fierce few pound from 3.5 months of wages he couldn't spend on top of any savings etc. i also understand, but open to correction, that he has some US supporters who have been paying him to fight the case?
Even if he doesn’t have a lot of money seizing his assets is going to make life very uncomfortable for him to say the least.
Now that's a bit strong.. some here have accused me of trolling. Which is quite incorrect - I'm just disinclined to join in the general group think that many here are participating in. Some are being moderate enough, others have engaged in character assassination of Burke, which is totally inappropriate. You may not like Burke or his views, but you should be sure of exactly what he has done 'wrong' before you hang him.
He is refusing to cooperate with the dislplincary process though? Part of that process has involved Burke being suspended until they review the evidence and have a hearing, he’s still showing up as if he’s not suspended. Occupying corridors and classrooms. He’s being disruptive and a nuisance at best.
The hearing was initially scheduled for September but because he was in prison they couldn’t have it, so he tried to stay in longer to delay it more. When the courts realised what he was at he tried to seek orders to delay it even more.
Now I don’t know about you, but if I was innocent of something I would want my hearing over and done with asap I wouldn’t get myself jailed for nearly 4 months & try and delay it more after I was released. How can anyone look at his behaviour and not have it scream “guilty”..
He's using the courts to try and stop it. Which is his right
No it isn't. In the context of employment law.
Using the courts frivolously to delay due process is in direct violation of it. It is incumbent on him to adhere to the process in a consistent manner. I think we can both safely state he has done whatever the opposite of that is.
This will be explained to him tomorrow by a Judge who will be accused of criminal collusion and will have to have him physically removed from the court.
If it could, why didn't they hold it back in September? Or at any point after that.
And I’m sure after the dislplincary process & any subsequent court cases are done and dusted we may learn more about what happened. It would be foolish at best for the school to lay out all their evidence against Burke in public, that would be utterly stupid.
But what you can be sure of is when a school is going to the trouble they are to keep him away it wasn’t a minor incident. The money being spent to deal with this is ridiculous and I honestly hope if he’s sacked and courts rule against him in any appeals he’s made pay their costs.
I just can’t for the life of me understand why he’s showing up despite being suspended.
Ide say he is a big fan of debating German history 😜
I see he also teaches Debate.... How's THAT working out for ya?
School seeks temporary possession of Burke's assets (rte.ie)
Mr Burke, a German, History and debating teacher at the school, was released from prison on 21 December, after spending three-and-a-half months in Mountjoy Prison
Also - If they put him back in jail, then the disciplinary hearing gets punted again which again is only of benefit to Enoch Burke
The Disciplinary Hearing can go ahead in his absence.
Which I suspect it will anyway at least in part, he will show up with whatever Adams family sibling, rant and rave to the point they will have to be removed.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/08231869fd786c2459f2d35b207b4d26.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
