Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

What I don’t accept is the assertion that the child “has nothing to do with events”. There is a connection, albeit indirect. If there was no child, there would no decision. If there was no decision, there would be no reaction.

"Your honour, the victim had too much to drink and clearly doesn't remember consenting."

"If she didn't want the attention she shouldn't have been wearing such provocative clothing!"

"What did they expect, being out in that area after dark."

Take your victim-blaming back to the 1970s, where it belongs. The child in this case doesn't need to justify their existence to you or to Burke.

The teenager should shoulder blame for being transgender? That's pretty idiotic..

Why should the child shoulder any blame simply for being who they are ?!?!?

I see McGregor has turned up now and has been granted an audience with Mr President. That's really going to piss off the Burkes.

Birds of a feather, flock together.

I don’t see why the school had to make any decision at all!

if the child wanted to be trans or whatever, let them get on with it, what business is it of the school ?

Does every organisation, sports club, or group that the child is affiliated too have to send out instructions to all their members because a child has made a decision in their private life ?

By getting involved the school is forcing the issue when their is no need to do so.

But the students parents said they or the student never made the request for they or them. Just that the student be called by their new name. The school added the they or them to it.

Correction. The school asked the student during the course of their meeting with them and their parent, if the student would also like to be referred too by gender neutral pronouns, and they said yes.

The school didn't force a change of pronouns on them.

It looks like we're back to explaining the basics of this case again!!!

Lol, spoken like someone with no children.

The details of the conversation that took place between the student, their parent and WHS was part of Principal Niamh McShane's testimony at the High Court back in March 2023.

Apologies, that is incorrect. It was part of an affidavit given by Principal Frank Milling.

You can go look for it if you wish > some of the details are here.

“The student was clear that they did not want to use their previous gender-specific pronouns and all, including the parent, agreed that ‘they/them’ would be used going forward in the school.”

The issue is that Burke doesn't care about the school's version of events anyway. As soon as anything to do with transgenderism was in the school, it put him on a collision course with the school, because he has to actively oppose it for his religious beliefs and his performative family who look for things like this to protest.

People say Burke, the school and the child and/or their parents should have sat down when this came up and worked on some sort of compromise. Burke never would have compromised. They literally can't. If it's against their beliefs, it's entirely wrong and cannot ever be accepted.

It could very well be a case that the school was being overly-cautious in trying to make sure they weren't going to be breaking any discrimination laws in relation to the student and maybe jumped the gun a bit or gave directives they didn't need to give, but it's irrelevant. Once that student revealed their preferences, Burke jumped on the opportunity to proselytise his beliefs and make a protest over it.

Here is a quote from the parents email….

“However, the parent said in the email to Mr Milling they wished to be clear that the purpose of the meeting was to “re-engage [their child] back to school”. The parent also said that while the child had requested to go by a new name, “the they/them pronoun came from Wilson’s” and there was no principal or deputy principal at the meeting.”

also …

“In an email to the school’s principal in January, the parent said they only learned “the child in question is my child” after reading a court judgment which outlined what year the unidentified student was in.“The school did not inform me and I feel now that there’s a safety concern for my family. This whole situation could have been avoided,” the parent wrote.The parent also said their child had never requested they be called by the “they/them pronoun”.”

Gript.

Enough said.

Parent's email. Singular.

Presumably the one who wasn't in attendance at the meeting with the school.

Read all the way to the end of the article. The affidavits to the court are on record, including who was in attendance.

This is all old ground. I really see no need to go over all this again.

Agreed. Mr Burke was suspended from school for the same sort of carry-on shown by his family in America and here in Ireland.

He was imprisoned for not agreeing to obey court order to remain away from school premises. Agreeing to court order would have allowed him immediate exit

The garnishing of his wages (which school still pays while suspended) is for courts to recoup unpaid fines accrued during this dabacle