I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
I doubt if the issue started at the event . And I’ve confronted many a boss and lived to tell the tale.
The issue didn’t start at the event . Burke wasn’t prepared to go along with the schools thinking . And , not that it matters but I’ve stood up to plenty of bosses and lived to tell the tale.
0.1/10 try harder please
If he did actually state a number (or did RTE just add in a figure when the article was written) then I think its a possibility that Justice Nolan wasn't given the correct figure. Which would be odd, but not impossible.
The terms of the original order in relation to daily fines was clear - they applied to every day he refuses to purge his contempt - NOT every day he turned up at the school .
Maybe?
It's still confusing how they're coming up with that number though, as the fines are for every day he refuses to purge his contempt. Every day in prison is another day he refuses to do so.
RTE and press quoted Nolan's 193k. He's hardly going to pull that figure out of his árse.
The school can't ignore the issue unless they want to end up before the WRC on the grounds of discrimination.
As many seem to forget, the students have rights under the Equal Status Acts not to be discriminated against on grounds of gender (amongst others).
Even if Burke believes that his rights to his beliefs should supersede the rights of the students under those Acts, they don't.
The school isn't going to deny their students' their legal rights (and we know there is more than one non-binary student at WHS) to mollify one bigoted teacher.
He was suspended for his actions at the event. Desperate, pathetic attempts to try claim he was suspended for something else don't actually work.
If you work with children and accost your boss at a work event, you're getting suspended. No ifs, no buts.
He is a danger in the sense of the other "wildlife" whose attention he is drawing upon the school by his actions. The same kind of wildlife who don't have jobs and like to "protest" by harassing and intimidating staff at libraries, etc.
At least one parent came forward and said his presence made her worry about escalation and that it was very disruptive to both the students and the staff.
Link to the article here.
It would seem fairer that he'd only get fined while out of prison though, as he's getting punished on the double otherwise?
Why can't they apply an attachment order on his salary he's still getting to start claiming some of the money back?
Dont count on the Teaching Council. They're as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Maybe so, that at least would be a logical explanation. Some day when I have more time I'll sit down and work it out and see if it balances!
As for attaching his earnings, I don't know if they can do that.
You've not confronted a boss in the same manner and 'lived to tell the tale' though and you know it.
Confronted "Many a Boss"…..sure.
We can stand up for ourselves/have strong words with a boss, this situation is entirely different.
A male that advances at a female (who was on crutches) in that manner, so close that she could 'feel his spittle' and had to be escorted home for fear of her safety is not something an employee should be commended for. She offered him a forum at an another appropriate time but he continued to advance at her in an agitated manner. Any employee acting like this deserves an immediate termination.
It wouldn't make sense though for it to be for not purging contempt as that itself is not committing an offence? I always thought it was for not obeying the court order, and purging his contempt was linked to avoiding being sent to jail.
https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/high-court-enoch-burke-to-be-fined-eur700-per-day-if-he-continues-to-defy-court-order
This is old ground. It was all covered in the thread at the time, (and multiple times since) - you can go back and look, if you like.
Well you're saying that you're right and the judge is wrong, so maybe provide something to back that up. Until then, I'm happy that the judge today confirmed what I thought all along.
That's not what I said, but I'm not going to get baited into an argument about it. As I said, you can go back and look at the thread at the time, if you're that invested.
But if you read to the end of the link you provided, it states this…
In assessing the appropriate response, the court held that imprisonment was an unattractive prospect given the findings in the court’s decision from December 2022. Further, the sequestration of Mr Burke’s assets did not seem likely to persuade him to comply with the court order.As such, the court held that a fine was appropriate. In IBRC v. Quinn, it was held that it was possible for a court to impose a daily fine for contempt of court. In setting the level of the fine, the court noted that contrition was not a factor in the case as the defiance had continued for an extremely lengthy period. It was also noted that Mr Burke was unapologetic and claimed to have done nothing wrong. Mr Burke refused to provide any information of his assets, although the school outlined that his estimated salary was €48,000. Taking all relevant factors into account, the court set the fine as €700 per day until he purged his contempt.
In assessing the appropriate response, the court held that imprisonment was an unattractive prospect given the findings in the court’s decision from December 2022. Further, the sequestration of Mr Burke’s assets did not seem likely to persuade him to comply with the court order.
As such, the court held that a fine was appropriate. In IBRC v. Quinn, it was held that it was possible for a court to impose a daily fine for contempt of court. In setting the level of the fine, the court noted that contrition was not a factor in the case as the defiance had continued for an extremely lengthy period. It was also noted that Mr Burke was unapologetic and claimed to have done nothing wrong.
Mr Burke refused to provide any information of his assets, although the school outlined that his estimated salary was €48,000. Taking all relevant factors into account, the court set the fine as €700 per day until he purged his contempt.
RTE reported it “Justice Nolan said”
Ok.
It's not like facts haven't been regularly and repeatedly misrepresented in the reporting on this case since day one…. but okay.
Look,
700 days give or take,
- c 500 in nick
= 200 at 70 a day = 140k
+ costs, charges etc = 200k give or take.
Legal costs awarded against EB are separate to the daily fines.
To bigots everywhere who want to drag us all back to 1956.
Have you done your sums yet? Where do you think Nolan got his 196k from, thin air?
Would love to see the day when they actually start taking money and/or property from the Burkes. You'll see how nasty Mammy really is then.
They won't take their home, unless they have other assets?
Property can mean anything you posses when the Sherrif comes, would love to see Daddy Burkes car taken away ha ha
That only applies to a mortgage default on prime residence , try suing someone for damages, even you are awarded a hundred grand but the other side only has a home, they won't be forced to sell it
Why the tone?
It was reportedly €193k quoted by Justice Nolan, not €196k and apologies, but I haven't time to drill down further into it today, (it is the last Saturday before Christmas after all - things to do!).
However, I will say I have been "doing the sums" according the ruling given by Justice O'Moore that the €700 daily fine would apply to every day EB refused to purge his contempt (see link) from January 27 2023. In all the time since then, (I have been following the case closely, and have read all the rulings) I have not seen anything to state that certain days were excluded from the daily fines, but if you'd like to point me to it, I'd be happy to read it.
So, to conclude, I don't know where the figure of €193k quoted by Justice Nolan comes from, but I'm sure it will all come out in the wash.
BK5 9:37 am
felonious_Gru 9:50 am
That’s just nonsense. Unless the parents were daft enough to transfer the family home into Enoch’s name, and there is no evidence of this, there is no risk to that asset. Only assets in Enoch’s name (sole or joint) are in play.
They can't touch anyone's assets other than Enoch's.
Mod: A reminder that this thread isn't about transgenderism. It is about the work place behaviour of Enoch Burke and the subsequent legal action taken by the school. Please be civil and report any posts that cross the line rather than responding on thread. Do not reply on thread to this, PM if you have any queries.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbd35c43580ff62b54e9919958f2a898.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
