Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Orange is the new Burke

1697698700702703714

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    TC are about as useful as a chicolate teapot. My guess is that they give this one a miss and keep their heads down. I doubt the school will refer him as it will just prolong their engagement with him. No parental complaint has ever succeeded at the TC - so no incentive for any WH parent impacted to refer him either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,588 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    So what course should be followed to go abour cancelling his teachers licence as he is using his licence to portray himself as a teacher at WHS, during the times he is not incarcerated, when he is not teaching anyone there?

    Are the people at WHS to continue suffering the indignity of a person making false claims as to why he is at WHS under the flag of him possessing a TC licence?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,212 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    if I was the government I’d be worried. Some people on FB think this is great news and he can now sue for unfair dismissal and bring it all the way to Europe. They seem in the know to the point where they don’t need facts to help their arguments.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,130 ✭✭✭adaminho


    They're dopes, met one the other day IRL. Asked him did he hear the story about yer man up the country?

    He arrived in the area with no ties, got sacked from his job, harassed his female boss so badly she had to get a court order against him, cops called when he started stalking her place of work and breaking into schools when Kids were there, he's now getting a €100's a week from the government and his accomodation paid for, went to to court cause he didn't like the new accommodation he was in even though he was the only one to get a room to himself all for free. He even got some of his family into free government accommodation! Keeps taking high court cases to prevent removal all for free. Yer man was ready to march on the Dail and blamed Main Street Media for a cover up! "What's his name and I can do my own research?" Mustapha Burkha!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭youtheman


    I wonder what impact yesterday's antics has on Simeon's legal career?. This is the second time (at least) that he has been dragged out of court. Not a great look for someone who wants to be a Barrister. Or indeed anyone remotely connected with him. The pool of potential litigants/clients who are also religious nut jobs must be fairly small. Can't see how he'll make a living representing them!.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,588 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Hopefully they are wrong. At this point what EB and his family are engaged in is misuse of the law and constitutional right to impose the Burke family set of religious beliefs on others at large regardless of cost and effect. Looking at what they've been engaged in on the basis of religion, it [IMO] hasn't been on an ecumenical question or manner as they, coincidentally, haven't taken their "deprivation of religious rights" complaint to RC doors, choosing to focus their attentions on Protestant [as it were] establishments. If others seeking to become persons of influence get on the Burke bandwagon, as seemed likely a few weeks back, there's no knowing where the road would go.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,130 ✭✭✭adaminho


    An interesting part of his appeal against the latest DAP makeup was in The Times.

    He claimed the conflict arose from Callanan’s purported links to the Church of Ireland, including her sitting on a church disciplinary panel. He submitted that Callanan’s husband was a legal adviser to the Church of Ireland and held other senior roles in the church.

    Noting Wilson’s Hospital School’s Church of Ireland ethos, and submitting the church was “intrinsically connected” to the school, he claimed Callanan could not be an objective and impartial decision-maker in the appeal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,588 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Josiah has a video out, to the effect that the chair of the DAP hearing is biased and her husband, the legal rep for the DAP in the hearing, is biased as they are both C of I, therefore the hearing is biased. The family matriarch was shown on the cleverly edited video at the DAP hearing. He is also complaining about been violently [his words] removed by a named Garda from the court after he tried to speak about his brothers situation in the court. He made no mention of the judge standing up and instructing the Gardai to clear the court.

    Points to note: in his short video, Josiah was carefully wedding the DAP hearing and the separate court hearing together to make it seem they were a single sitting, not separate events, held in completelly separate locations and establishments at diofferent times.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭BestWestern


    How much has the tax payer spent on all of this, and more importantly, how much precious court time was wasted when far more important things could have been adjudicated on.

    The whole Burke family have debased themselves over an issue of little or no importance to 99.9% of the population.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭csirl


    What should happen is that the TC should be completely restructured so that it actually performs what is a very important regulatory role. Unfortunately the council itself (equivalent of its Board) is mainly teachers. As we all know, self regulation = no regulation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,849 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Maybe if any of the Burkes actually occasionally left the house and interacted with people on a regular basis who aren't also a Burke, they might realise that even out in the real world, sometimes people know other people.

    The basis of every accusation of bias and need for recusal that they've put forward, even in the Burke members' previous cases, is always just "These people have met before".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,008 ✭✭✭French Toast


    Very true.

    I suppose in all the ranting and raving we’ve seen from Martina et al they’ve rarely resorted to sly, personal gibes. To see her doing so in the latest video proves that she’s plainly an arsehole, completely aside from their mad beliefs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Hibernicis


    Article from Newstalk outlining what they see as Enoch burke's options to draw this out further:

    https://www.newstalk.com/news/enoch-burke-4-2262161

    “There's a couple of avenues that are still potentially open to him.”

    Potentially, Mr Burke could take make a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission or he could initiate a judicial review the Disciplinary Appeals Panel. 

    He could also seek leave to appeal yesterday's Court of Appeal judgement to the Supreme Court, but the grounds for being granted leave are extremely narrow (basically overwhelming public interest or error in law), and the likelihood of being granted leave to appeal is remote. And that's only to get into the Supreme Court, the likelihood of the actual appeal being successful and the Supreme Court overturning Court of Appeal judgement has to be close to none.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,968 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Looking at what they've been engaged in on the basis of religion, it [IMO] hasn't been on an ecumenical question or manner as they, coincidentally, haven't taken their "deprivation of religious rights" complaint to RC doors, choosing to focus their attentions on Protestant [as it were] establishments. 

    I would expect that's because they regard catholics as irredeemable hellbound heretics, but protestants are salvageable - if they become evangelicals like the Burkes are. They're not members of the CoI, but seem to regard them as co-religionists who should be flocking to the Burke banner.

    That made the latest attempt to attack the DAP (slightly) interesting on the basis of CoI members on the panel - I mean Wilson's is CoI ffs so what did they expect?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,849 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    A wild swing from "The school shouldn't allow transgendered students because it's a CoI school and ethos" to "The DAP shouldn't allow any CoI members because it's a CoI school and ethos"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,588 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    I'd break out laughing if, in any complaint he made, he stressed the point that the DAP members were C of I and he wanted RC members on the panel as well to prevent religious bias in decisions on his future.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭macchoille


    I wonder could he go as far as the ECJ ? Appeal will fail there too but I can’t see Mammy dropping this until every possible legal route is exhausted.

    Her children’s (most of them) professional lives are ruined and are practically unemployable. Her children’s (some of them) personal lives are ruined, they’ll need to find someone with the same world view as Mammy (as well as being a match on a personal/physical/class level- maybe not important).

    We all have to work with people and situations we don’t like


    There are ways he could have handled this with malicious compliance ( “the student who is going by <insert name/alias>”, “you”, “that student (pointing)” , use surname (probably not PC these days) ; regardless he might have caused waves with that but the student has likely moved on now and this is still going on.


    it’s a bit sad really



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,155 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ECJ would not take a case from a screeching nutcase.

    He was never going to teach the student, so he was very unlikely to ever, ever have to address them to begin with.

    He had not raised an issue about a previous case of the same request for another student, but just picked this one to make a scene about.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 17,590 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Absolutely NONE of what has happened to Enoch is as a result of the request to use gender neutral pro-nouns etc.

    Everything that has happened is because he has behaved like a spoilt , entitled intransigent arsehole since day one.

    Instead of opening up an official grievance via the clearly documented process with the Dept of Education as soon as the request was sent from the Principal , he decided that he was special and instead he'd make a scene at a very high profile public school event where he screamed and shouted and chased his employer around the room hurling abuse.

    And when he was suspended pending a hearing for THAT behaviour and that behaviour alone he started the trespass nonsense leading to his incarceration.

    Not once in this entire shambles has the issue of the use of gender neutral terms vis-a-vis Religious beliefs etc. even been remotely discussed or reviewed.

    He has no case to bring forward as any legal challenge instantly ends with the answer to the question "Why were you suspended?"

    He wasn't suspended for refusing to "break" his religious beliefs , he was suspended for screaming and shouting at his boss at a school event.

    That's not a case for the ECJ or anyone else.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,130 ✭✭✭adaminho


    AFAIK he cant go to the ECJ. The way it was described to me was that by not following the correct procedures and skipping some appeals similar to yesterday's ruling ruled it out has he hadn't exhausted all remedies available to him. If he had challenged the original direction from the principal properly and lost he could elevate it all the way. Because of his actions he was dismissed for his behaviour not for his beliefs.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 46,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    His sacking has absolutely nothing to do with a transgender student. He was sacked because of his behaviour at a school event when he bullied his principal (& I think the bishop).

    His incarceration also has nothing to do with a transgender student. It is purely due to him not willing to purge his contempt of court.

    It is wrong to say that he could have done things differently. What happened Burke was purely down to deliberate and intentional acts. While their gullible idiot fanbase believe them to be victims based on their religious beliefs, the behaviour from Burke and members of his family are completely un-Christian and follow a campaign of hatred with zero compassion. However, I believe that I'm 100% correct to say that they chose to carry out each and every action they have performed in relation to this case. Absooutely none of their behaviour is accidental.

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭macchoille


    oh 100% agree with you on why he was sacked. But in his and Mammy’s head it’s their religious expression bla bla. And yes his behaviour was abhorrent and no better than some teenage thug on the street.

    my point was he never had to accept anything really, he could of found another way to deal with what he didn’t like.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 76,155 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    He never had to address the student at all, he didnt teach them.

    He made it an issue



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 46,223 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    My point was that it was always about getting attention - the original reason for it was irrelevant.

    Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/ .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭macchoille


    yup I agree 100% , never thought differently of it. As mentioned to another poster; in his and mammys eyes it was a religious matter. My point was he could have dealt with it by malicious compliance instead of behaving the way he/they did.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 175 ✭✭macchoille


    yeah I always wondered about that and as far as I know he taught the first student too, maybe Mammy didn’t know about the first one at the time 😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭BestWestern


    Father Ted and ecumenical matters come to mind. Although in saying that, it's not a bishop that needs a good kick up his arse in this case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,212 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    I don’t think him and his mammy think it was a religious matter. They are using religion as something to hide their bigotry behind while they garner as much attention as they possibly can while they destroy the lives of the kids in the family by rendering them unemployable. They are well educated and are well able to understand why these things have all happened but they are purposely hiding behind religion. Family of bigoted clowns and they will eventually reap what they sow. Once mammy curls up and dies in a fit of hatred one of them is going to realise what type of people they have become.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭For Petes Sake


    Plenty of people here that will say 'Jaysus fair play to him for sticking to his beliefs' despite the fact they would never apply that to anyone they don't agree with.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 11,253 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    It's very important to you, but you just don't appreciate it, but thankfully most of your 99% do.

    The Burke's are a direct challenge to our democracy and our rights including yours. We can't have situation were someone decides that they can ignore the law and impost themselves on others with impunity. And if that means that we need to keep tossing these people in jail for the next thirty years in order to send that message to others how would do the same then so be it.

    If your neighbour decided that the best place to store his farm year manure was in his front garden and you got an injunction to prevent him, you'd expect it to be enforced. You would not expect everyone to just let it go and allow him to continue or would you?

    It's not a waste of the taxpayers money nor the court's time. It is fundamental to the running of the state.



Advertisement
Advertisement