Orange is the new Burke

Would it then be down to the actual courts he and his family have been hectoring daily which would make a final call on his unfair dismissal claim against WHS

It was always going to be up to the courts to decide ultimately.

Whatever the appeals panel decide, it is purely and solely a recommendation. They cannot compel the school or BOM to do anything. As far as the school is concerned, Burke is a former employee whatever comes out of the appeal if anything.

What is happening in reality is, Burke has to request the review and then he more or less immediately applies for an injunction against his own requested review. It's absolute madness and a complete disregard for process.

The school has a few options in reality, they could apply for their own injunction against Burke lodging anymore requests for a DAP.

They could simply ignore him and drag it out for even more years, leaving Burke in prison.

They could grant his request and the DAP immediately refuse to conduct a review.

What they shouldn't do is what they have done, because the HC have been an absolute disgrace in the rope they have handed Burke, I see no reason to believe they won't keep doing it.

Edit:

Best case scenario is the DAP refuse a review, he comes off the cowardly Departments payroll, he arrives at the school, gets arrested and prosecuted for criminal trespass.

The rest of his family that hamper criminal court proceedings get arrested, charged and prosecuted.

The school will be firmly off the hook for at least a decent period, because the WRC won't entertain the nonsense as evidenced before.

Then it will off to the Labour court I imagine.

Not unexpected. A lot of time and energy is being taken up by this circus, which seems intentional. Exhausting stuff for that panel, I'm tired even reading about.

Isn't it amazing how we all these rules have to be followed while scumbags like Enoch Burke don't have to follow any?

Surely there is some bylaw or regulation like "your just taking the piss or out to waste time clause" which negates your stance and your case gets thrown out?

Biased? Maybe don't make a holy show of yourself, crave attention and have your family not kick up a fuss about ANYTHING. That might help things a tad.

Common sense, really isn't common.

You sort of her the feeling that the DAP members were kinda gombeens who didn't take Enoch all that seriously. The new panel, assuming one is formed, need to be squeaky clean throughout the entire process because of Enoch finds a "t" that isn't crossed, he'll litigate all over the place and scream bloody murder while he's at it.

I'd be interested in knowing the ins and outs of how the whole appeal is conducted. Is it like a trial? He mentions not bieng able to cross-examine witnesses. The fact that he can ask questions of the panel is bizarre. He's basically asking a panel member what they would do if a Principal asked them to use a certain pronoun of a student? And if the answer doesn't confirm to his ultra religious leanings, he calls bias and litigates. He's basically given himself a veto over who gets to be on the DAP. The whole thing is ridiculous.

The same morons would demand justice from the courts if they were victims of a crime. But until that happens they just rubbish the legal system and judges to fit in with their agenda.

There's a Virgin Media news report on F/B that, after he heard that two members of the panel had resigned, he…is seeking permission to file a late appeal against an order preventing him from trespassing at Wilson’s Hospital School. The High Court was told today that two members of the disciplinary appeals panel examining his dismissal have resigned.

Please excuse the different format. I copied and pasted the Virgin Media report script.

In other related Burke family business, a person identifying as Mike Garde who admins what they describe as the Burke Family group on F/B has had access to the groups page restricted by F/B on the basis of excessive commentating and spamming on F/B. I weep for them…

Given the latest announcement by the dept of education on the use of pronouns they/them etc not being legally binding

The school never consulted the Dept. because they have no clear guidelines.

When a different student was transitioning in 2021, the principal consulted with other schools, relevant bodies and the advice was framed around GDRP and Equality legislation.

Burke didn't have any issue at the time because his family were knee deep in Covid lunacy.

Whatever the Dept. said or haven't said since is moot.

He has surely been emboldened by this announcement and it may well have swayed the panel members into making their decision into resigning.

I imagine the panel members had to be convinced to join the panel with the proviso if Burke and Cult kick off they are out the gap.

Either way, no one was forcing Burke to accept anything. He didn't teach the student, who was soon to leave the school anyway.

Burke was fired because he aggressively attacked his boss at a public function which included upsetting people who were there including several children who left. Even before then he was becoming more erratic.

The reality is he is no longer employee of the school, he is clinging on to his pay packet because he is being inexplicably entertained by certain High Court judges and a department hiding behind their cowardice.

In the IT today it says "the issues giving rise to the resignations were legally privileged."

Thanks for sharing that. The departments guidance has only been recently published as is well known.

I would have thought taking advice from colleagues who themselves have received their advice from the same NGO with its own one sided agenda, and then unilaterally imposing their decision without consulting all stakeholders first, was unwise. Surely the reasonable approach would be to consult the teachers in the school also, and not just inform them of the decision by email. We will eventually see that play out.

How was the guidance framed around GDPR? There’s no mention.

Once somebody starts waffling about GDPR , you know they haven’t a leg to stand on !

I wouldnt argue any of that. My post isn't sympathetic to his cause. Just pointing out the legalities of the situation if it goes to court. His argument will almost certainly be that the directive him and other teachers received had no legal basis and he was entitled to stand up for his rights. And legally no one can be forced to do anything against their beliefs, including his beliefs as regards sexual persuasion. That argument can't be overridden by school policies is a very valid legal argument perhaps in a courtroom.

Just pointing out the legalities of the situation if it goes to court.

It's been in court for 3 years. He keeps injuncting the process because he has no interest in a final ruling.

His argument will almost certainly be that the directive him and other teachers received had no legal basis and he was entitled to stand up for his rights.

He was fired for Gross Misconduct.

He will have to argue in whatever court that it wasn't Gross Misconduct.

And legally no one can be forced to do anything against their beliefs, including his beliefs as regards sexual persuasion.

That's not true.

But again it's moot.

He wasn't fired for his beliefs.