Orange is the new Burke

what makes you think the burke children were born out of wedlock?

I wonder would Enoch be claiming the dole at the moment. Sure isnt turning up at the school gates trying to get back teaching ample evidence that he is looking for work?

I believe his "logic" goes that the school had no right to suspend him, so the court had no right to issue the order for him to not go to the school. And since he doesn't accept that the school could suspend him obviously they didn't have the right to sack him. So since they had no right to sack him, he still works there and is showing up to teach class.

Of course since he doesn't accept that he has been fired I can't imagine that he would try and get jobseeker's benefit, since as far as he is concerned he is still employed.

The "Immaculate Conception", the notion that Mary was conceived without sin, is a Catholic doctrine, and and as non-Catholic Evangelicals, the Burkes would most likely reject it as heresy. Also, it has nothing to do with being born out of wedlock. They (like most Christians) would believe that everyone is born with original sin, regardless of the marriage status of the parents. Of course, it goes without saying that they would also believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin in itself.

garnishing of wages, sure. garnishing of social welfare, not likely. I remember a few years they tried to introduce it and got knocked back because social welfare was considered the minimum amount required to live on. In the end they capped it at €2 a week or something equally useless.

An appeal would he heard by "an independent appeal panel appointed by the board of management" of the school. I'm not sure if he has sought such an appeal.

What he is doing, though, is seeking a trial in the Court of Appeal against the entire disciplinary procedure. Mr. Justice Brian O’Moore of the High Court delivered a judgement on the 14th of February in relation to "case management" of this. (PDF: https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/77e86861-4fed-4522-a0a6-724205d3212e/2023_IEHC_78.pdf/pdf#view=fitH)

In this judgement, it outlined that while Burke originally described any possible trial at the Court of Appeal as "an abomination" (this was when he was trying to get the High Court to quash the proceedings), he's now actively looking for one at the earliest opportunity. The Judge's directions give the timeline for working towards the appeal Court of Appeal hearing itself:

Once all that is done, a trial date can be set, but it seems the Judge (and Burke and the School) want it within the current term (Hilary) which ends on the 31st of March. So it currently looks like that trial will occur in the second half of March. Burke thinks it will last 2 days, the judge originally thought it would last 6 days (and the school didn't object to this), but given that Burke says that his side of the evidence will only take 1 day, the Judge is scheduling it for 4 days.

Also, according to that judgement, his actual dismissal does not come into effect until 21st of April 2023. i'm not sure why that is, and the Judge mentions it was a surprise to him:

and

If this is true, that Burke's actual dismissal does not come into effect until 21st of April 2023 (and the Judge describes it as a "fact" and is basing scheduling the appeal around the date), then it's likely Burke is still being paid by the Department of Education.

I don't?

Yeah, I can't figure out the April 21 date, but the term time could be it alright.

The Revised Procedures for Suspension and Dismissal of Teachers outline the appeals process, and there's 10 days to lodge an appeal, then there's 10 days for a submission to the panel by the teacher, and a further 10 (from the date that the panel receive the teacher's submission) for the school to lodge their submission, then the hearing has to be scheduled for within 20 days of that date. So the maximum amount of time for the hearing to occur would be 50 days from the original disciplinary hearing. I guess the're working days, so add in 14 weekend days and 2 public holidays, and that gives 62 calendar days.

His hearing was on the 21st of January, so that would bring us up to the 24th of March, which is a lot sooner than the 21st of April. But either way, if he is appealing the dismissal via the guidelines (and not by going to court, which he certainly is doing), by my napkin calculations, the 24th of March is the very latest date it could happen.

He's already got a court order requiring that he not go to the school. He's ignoring it. I don't think another one would change anything.