I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
It is unlawful discrimination. I know you’re familiar with the limited circumstances under which that exemption applies, and it doesn’t apply in circumstances which those limitations aren’t relevant, much like the way a candidates religious beliefs or lack thereof are irrelevant in terms of their competence to fulfil the duties and responsibilities of the role for which they are seeking employment.
I already told you I can’t speak about what happens in all schools, I don’t need to speak for what happens in all schools when it’s you is making the extraordinary claim of wrongdoing for which you have provided little evidence. That’s really not how this works either. You’re required to provide substantive, credible and relevant evidence to support your claim, otherwise it can simply be dismissed as nonsense. It’d be unreasonable to expect you should be able to accuse people of wrongdoing, and then expect the burden of proof is on them to prove their innocence!
Well, actually might even be more common than we all think. A report from Mary Immaculate College suggests that indeed non religious teachers have a hell of a time trying to get a job and keep it in a catholic school.
From requiring parish priest references in the application to priests on the interview panels asking them what school they went to and that schools ethos, if you’re atheist and a teacher, it’s hard times, according to this.
Page 22 and onwards is the findings of the study and the examples of religious discrimination. According to it there is a significant exemption of sorts in the discrimination laws that allow the Catholic Church to do so? Maybe I’m misreading but that’s what it seems to say. Basically they’re free to discriminate against teachers based on their religion, if they’re a Catholic school. An educate together can’t though.
Can you provide a specific quote where I was attempting to speak on behalf of all schools please?
A court ruling applies to the circumstances of that one particular case only. The legislation stands.
You may well be right about the action of the BoM, and I'd suggest that it is far from unique, as the MaryI research suggests.
A court ruling applies to the circumstances of that one particular case only.
I'm afraid this is simply not true. It establishes precedent and the ruling on the narrow interpretation of the exclusion is broadly applicable. The ruling that personal faith is not covered is pretty straightforward and unless overruled by a higher court is now established precedent. You don't need a new case every time there is any minor differences to re-confirm this.
I would not be surprised if it was broadly ignored though indeed.
It depends on the court the ruling is made in. Rulings on lower level courts like the District Court are not binding. Rulings by higher level courts are binding on courts at the same level and below.
I will grant there is a difference between something being binding and setting a precedent but the latter is not nothing and is still more relevant than an a priori reading of legislation.
Unless the same court/equal court comes up with a different judgement that requires referral to an upper court this is all we have.
It establishes precedent for cases that have the same circumstances as the case in question. It doesn't change legislation.
The legislation says clearly that religious schools are allowed discriminate. Why are people being so difficult about simply highlighting this reality?
Did I miss some new Boards policy update that says that YOUR opinion is accepted as true by default without any evidence and everyone else has to prove YOU wrong with evidence?
any chance you could take this shite to PM or start a separate thread? No one is interested in your low level gibberish
Mod - Back on topic please everyone
As published on Courts.ie judgments yesterday.
Enoch Burke has been refused the injunction against members of the schools employment appeals panel. This judgment was delivered to him on 20th December 2023.
There's another judgment relating to the hybrid/remote hearings about the court audio recordings when his brother was arrested. Judgment delivered on 9th January, published yesterday. The Judge makes very sharp remarks about his participation in court and whether Ammi Burke is legally able to represent him or not.
I can't link to either on Boards but if you go to the judgments section you can see both towards the top of the list.
Enoch Burke will be next in court on Monday and it looks like the employment appeals panel will go ahead but unclear what date and whether he will attend remotely or not.
I don't believe that aged nuns and priests actually interview anyone at all now.
the titles of the judgements are below for anybody who wants to find them. I wont link them because they link directly to a PDF. In the case of Ammi the judge confirmed that she cannot act as his solicitor as she does not have a practicing cert.
Burke -v- Ó Longáin & Anor
Garda Siochána Ombudsman Commission -v- Board of Management of Wilson's Hospital School and Enoch Burke
https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/b2110e49-b4db-4727-8aed-4ef0249cf0a8/2024_IECA_2.pdf/pdf#view=fitH
Ammi, bless her, rightly gets slaughtered for her disgraceful behaviour as a qualified solicitor who should know better. I'd be curious as to whether the Law Society would give her a practising cert should she ever find an insurer that would cover her and apply for one.
She could pull a golden unicorn out of her arse and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, a solicitor who doesn't know how to conduct herself in court (or anywhere really) is unemployable.
How do you find mouth when him and the rest of his family are in court. I’m eager to pay a visit and watch the circus with my own two eyes. Think it time that Ireland considers court tv
Sorry for going wildly off topic but if I can just have a brief moment to ask a question. I’ve just had a quick glance at one of the judgements, 75 pages with lots of cases referenced and quite detailed, this obviously takes up a vast amount of time and energy. Would the judges have staff to dig out some of these cases or would they have to do it all themselves.
This nonsense with the Burkes has to be stopped. Absolute waste of resources.
They have judicial assistants who do research.
Just saw a picture of the Burke dad, is there single member of that family that doesn't wear glasses?!
I was thinking more that she'd have her own practice, obviously no credible firm would even read her CV, but there probably aren't enough crackpots out there that would actually hire her when push comes to shove.
I'm tempted to ask her to do something for me pro-bono.
Myopia is genetic to be fair. As it seems complete lunacy is too with this shower.
What is it they say makes you go blind?
I doubt it, those ten kids didn't come out of thin air.
The entire family have blown up their chosen careers.
Multiple degrees and post graduate qualifications between them and not one of them will ever get a job doing the things they studied for.
And for what??
Even if a crackpot would hire her, there's a baseline of behaviour every solicitor would be expected to adhere to - which she singularly showed incapable of doing. No more than anyone would hire a plumber who caused your bathroom to flood, who'd hire a solicitor who can't / won't keep their cool in the court room?
If any of them ever get deprogrammed they’ll have to change their names and the lads grow their hair long.
Hopefully the cult deprogramming will remove their resting facial expression of ‘I’m ready to verbally attack you’.
Eternal salvation?
Very true. If this case is ever overwith emmigration is their only option. There's no shortage of religious crackpots in the U.S that will welcome them with open arms.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/925678a10b2fdb0546d802550390a10f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
