Orange is the new Burke

The twisted replies to selective cut and pastes from my post shall deflect and fool a few people, is a bit of a pain but are simply incorrect. Why do you do this?

"Early in the proceedings, Mr Justice Cregan observed that Mr Burke had raised “substantive” and “credible” issues in his court filings.

But on Friday the case was struck out when the judge said Mr Burke had got the main reliefs he was looking by for virtue of the resignations and the fact an entirely new DAP would have to be constituted."

So yes it was struck out because Burke got most of what he was looking for. In other words he won this part.

It also shows that the delays on this part up to this are on the School/Dept - waiting for this new DAP panel and not on him. BTW, the panel resigned on “legal advice”, again not Burkes fault.

Have you some skin in the game? Why do you wish to twist these things?

Nobody’s asking you to support Burke, but it is futile and destroying your credibility not to accept simple facts and that he has won some legal battles within the overall War.

I’ll post separate on the perjury part.

Jeez, read two posts up from yours. Or someone else please explain this.

Please read the published accounts in any of the main papers, and you will discover that the School/Dept have convened two panels at this stage, both of which collapsed, the last one of their one legal advice.

So I'm happy to respond to sensible posts but please check a few basics.

My skin in the game - I just want to see everybody/Burke getting a fair trial and and happy seeing the legal profession/ courts making a total boll*x of this and their incompetance and unfair bias being exposed.

And anybody who wants Burke done - without due processes / fair procedures / fair trial - I'd argue is worse than Burke.

I'll spell it out:

And I replied:

"Of course he is.
And the school already tried that in their favour and failed twice and they had to resign (and delayed the process).

It's an adverserial system - that's what sides do. But the Judge in the middle shall decide"

Any you then subsequently replied to that, with you knickers in a knot without any concept of the published history, which is:

The school (or Department) have convened two panels at this stage which failed because were not impartial - so in other words "they tried it in their favour". Actually I vaguely remember the first one, and I think one member resisigned because of their published stance on I guess transgenderism.

Enoch challenged this second panel and the Judge accepted that there was a serious problem, as per a few posts up.

"Early in the proceedings, Mr Justice Cregan observed that Mr Burke had raised “substantive” and “credible” issues in his court filings.

But on Friday the case was struck out when the judge said Mr Burke had got the main reliefs he was looking by for virtue of the resignations and the fact an entirely new DAP would have to be constituted." T

So call it whatever way you like, - but the school/dept populated both these panels in a way that was unfair to Burke. The Judge accepted this as per above and two of the panel resigned on their own legal advice.

So twist or put on your own slant whatever way you like , but the school/dept tried to "populate both panels in their favour"

But, read my quote again, I do not suggest anything improper by this - "It's an adverserial system - that's what sides do"

But, a consequence of this is that that delays to this appeal is on the school/dept - not on Burke.

So above are the rough facts spelt out a bit, even thought it's all in the posts - already - but finally it's a fairly cheap and desperate shot to accuse me of either being one biased towards the Burkes - and again many posters on this thread have sank to Burkes level with intollerence, inability to understand facts or law, and twisting to suit some unstated agenda.

"But on Friday the case was struck out when the judge said Mr Burke had got the main reliefs he was looking by for virtue of the resignations and the fact an entirely new DAP would have to be constituted."

It's pathetic that people cannot read or understand simple facts as reported and and are so desparate and scared of Burke that they can't accept that he has won a battle within the war, which is not over.

"Opposing the application, barrister Hugh McDowell, for the panel, said the legal challenge by Burke over the conduct of the panel hearing was struck out last Friday as pointless. That strike out order followed resignations by two panel members on legal advice last month, and acceptance by the third member she could not be part of a reconvened panel. "

So he challenged it (the panel) , and then and the panel resigned.
Or maybe it was a total conincidence! Twist what everway you want.

Again, its only the panel battle - don't cry, it's not the war.

How can one person still be so wrong. Its impressive Burkey-ness at this stage.

They weren't asked to purge their contempt, they haven't been found in contempt yet AFAIK.

Today, he asked Martina and Ammi Burke whether they wished to contest the characterisation of their behaviour as contempt of court, and whether they wanted to offer a defence or explanation for how they acted.

I imagine since criminal contempt seems to be such a high bar, unattainable when it comes to this mob, he needs evidence on record from the horses mouths.

Well to be fair to Enoch, he is doing the heavy lifting.

About time Mammy and Mini Mammy put some skin on the table.

Thats sounds a lot like Enoch when he complains about being sanctioned for having beliefs and views, which of course he never was.

I've read most of this thread, on and off, for the last few years. The recent postings of some, who claim mini victories for EB and cry about victimisation for those who try defend him, come across to me as desperation and straw clutching of the highest order. I know a number of people in my family and social circle who are STILL defending him, and no amount of factual analysis or reasoning will make them budge. Their narrative has shifted to 'corrupt judges' and 'biased teacher unions' and whatnot.

It takes enormous energy, patience and forebearance to deal with religious fanatics and their determination to prove everyone is wrong-- plenty folk are probably exhausted by the entire rigmarole. The Burke Cult - so-called 'christians' - are incredibly unchristian and anybody still defending him needs a serious reality check (not that it might make much difference)

I think you are splitting hairs calling any of the panel volunteers.

They are volunteers. Unless you are suggesting it's mandatory.

One was Department of Education NOMINEE so they are nominatef by the DOE and are probably paid or it may be considered as part of the work at the level they operate innthe DOE.

He doesn't work or has never worked for the Dept.

The second personnthat resigned was a child protected advisor with the Management Body for VoluntarSecondary Schools. Again something like making yourself available to sitnof disaplinary Psnels etc is probably of there thete remit.

If you have evidence this person has appeared on other panels, then share it. Otherwise you are just making up nonsense.

The other panel member was a former member of the ASTI.

Still a member for the ASTI. Former Vice President.

It's worth nothing that 2 men that resigned from the panel have been there from the start, so literally years dealing with Burkery.

Was Ammi supposed to be a solicitor?

I thought solicitors are supposed to work hard for their clients to mitigate their clients legal situation when faced with penalties or jail. Ammi just threw her family under the bus.