nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

School patronage

equivariant

From today's indo

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/latest-news/parents-get-vote-to-take-schools-out-of-control-of-the-church-3233287.html

This is interesting. It is hard to assess this initiative based on the information in that article. Of course, personally I would prefer a complete removal of religious influence from state funded schools. However I am not sure that I am happy about this proposed survey. I can see many parents voting not to change purely based on "the devil you know" attitude. I wonder also is potentially divisive to make communities nail their colours to the mast publicly? I suppose it will depend on the detail of the survey.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

RainyDay

iguana wrote: »

The Board of Education..

Do you mean the school board? Or the Dept of Education?

iguana

RainyDay wrote: »

Do you mean the school board? Or the Dept of Education?

Sorry the Dept of Education. It is a system that encompasses all the schools in the city (Limerick) and is not decided by individual schools, though they can each have their own admissions policy.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes. That's what I said
They weren't asked those questions. Nobody asked those questions. Which makes them "strawman argument" questions.

Well.. certainly offering a ECtHR judgement on the States obligations under Article 3 as evidence that a school is responsible for the States obligations under Article 14 is something of a strawman, which was my point: the ECtHR found no such responsibility.

recedite wrote: »

Why do you think discrimination is prohibited if it's not considered ill-treatment? the fact that it has its own article/paragraph shows that it is considered quite a serious form of ill-treatment.

That's a bit of a reach, even for you! Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners, is that because not restricting them is considered ill-treatment? It's not a convention on ill-treatment, it's a convention on human rights. That discrimination is dealt with under Article 14 and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is dealt with under Article 3 demonstrates quite clearly that the convention doesn't consider them synonymous. Or to put it another way; a judgement one on is clearly not a judgement on the other.

recedite wrote: »

Your argument that "so long as a child is offered a place in a school no discrimination occurs" was concocted many years ago in an unholy alliance between the Dept. of Education and the bishops. While its important that people understand this argument, they should not accept it as a truth. Some day it will be challenged in a court, either in this country or in Strasbourg at the ECtHR, and IMO it will be found wanting.

Not my argument. But I will argue that the EctHR are very unlikely to find that a childs right to an education has been violated if they can't get the education they want where they want, as distinct from can't get an education. I'm sure we'll await the court case with bated breath.

recedite wrote: »

Its the same argument that was used in Alabama in the 1950's to discriminate against black kids wanting to attend white schools. The state provided black schools, ****tty ones, but still...

Nah, it's not.

But the old chestnut "it's just like racism even though it's not racism" certainly appears to be the go-to argument of desperation in this discussion.

recedite wrote: »

Again, you are left in the unfortunate position of trying to defend the indefensible. You are trying to be consistent with your previously stated position on religious schools, but now you are digging a hole for yourself.

I don't think so. There's nothing indefensible about saying a swimming pool funded by the State has no obligation to fulfil the States obligations; there's nothing whatsover that says they must, unless the State enacts legislation to place that obligation on them. And the State hasn't.

recedite wrote: »

If a public swimming pool discriminated against swimmers on the basis of religion, they would quite rightly be pilloried. The management would be forced to retract the policy and apologise, or they would be fired. The public body funding the pool (eg county council) would be obliged to do this, even if there was no specific relevant equality legislation relating to swimming pools.

Ah, but the public swimming pool is not obliged to not discriminate against swimmers on the basis of religion by any agreement the State has entered into, is it? It's obliged by legislation created by the State, which is my point. And it's that legislation that would force management to retract the policy, and the council to take action against them. Not any European Convention entered into by the State.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Not my argument. But I will argue that the EctHR are very unlikely to find that a childs right to an education has been violated if they can't get the education they want where they want, as distinct from can't get an education.

Yes, that is the govt. position, but its not quite what I was saying. I'm saying the child's right to be free of religious discrimination is being violated by allowing such policies in state funded schools. Not their right toaneducation.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think so. There's nothing indefensible about saying a swimming pool funded by the State has no obligation to fulfil the States obligations; there's nothing whatsover that says they must, unless the State enacts legislation to place that obligation on them. And the State hasn't..

I disagree, but I respect your argument. It seems to be identical to the point being argued by the govt in the O'Keeffe case, and if they can argue it, then there must be some merit, at least, in it. That argument seems very jesuitical to me, and so I prefer the ECtHR interpretation which establishes an ethical common law principle, instead of looking at the letter of the existing local law.

Still, if you want the High Court to rule in favour of a jesuitical argument, who better to appoint as its president than the chairman of the trust fund that hides the assets of the former Christian Brothers?

Do you think this guy is an appropriate appointment to the presidency of the High Court, given that he not only represents one of the parties involved, he is one of the parties involved, because he controls the trust fund that is being sued, along with the govt.

The State has asked the High Court to strike out a decision permitting it to be sued, along with the Christian Brothers, by three alleged sexual abuse victims following a European court ruling in the landmark Louise O’Keeffe case.

I'm with the ECtHR on this one, and I have no confidence in the independence of the Irish High Court. I think its an ongoing scandal that every judge in the country is a political appointee, but this one is a new low.

recedite

iguana wrote: »

That is not likely to happen though. The feeder area comprises of the whole city and suburbs and an ET secondary is likely to give priority to children from the two ET primaries. The local parents want either the school to be big enough to take in all the local kids plus the kids from everywhere else who want to go to an ET school. And as that isn't going to happen, they would prefer their local school to not attract kids from other areas.

First of all you need to be very clear on your use of "feeder area" language if you attend any more of these meetings.
We looked at this point here earlier when discussing the new Fianna Fail policy.

1. Basically, the proposed new secondary school needs to have designated feeder schools, which would be the named local primary schools. Not a feeder area, and not a feeder ethos.

2. There was talk of ET secondary schools giving priority to pupils from ET primary schools, but that would have been made illegal under the new admissions to school bill 2015 which was shelved recently, but is likely to reapppear in some form under the next govt.

3. Notwithstanding point 1 above, a new secondary school in Templecarrig, Greystones opened 2 years ago in which the CoI was allowed to control the ethos, on the strict condition that the 5 local primary schools were designated as the feeder schools, with equal priority. Within a year, the newly established BOM had introduced a new admissions policy giving priority to active CoI members from a much wider area. So far, the Dept. of education has done nothing about this blatant violation of the original terms under which the CoI applied for the patronage. So, if there is no enforcement of these agreements, they mean nothing.

iguana wrote: »

In December all 6th class pupils in the area have to fill in the standard application listing their choices for secondary school in order of preference. This then goes out to the schools and the pupils are chosen based on each school's admissions criteria. Students are informed of which school they got into in January.
Interestingly, Minister for Education - Jan O'Sullivan, only learned of the specifics of this tonight ...

AFAIK this process and the exact date is something the local schools would have agreed to in order to make their admin easier. Its very sensible for them to co-operate like that. It just means that places are allocated in a preferential way (once the qualification criteria are met, which could be discriminatory) A bit like a mini CAO system.

Its completely separate to the official process for awarding the patronage of a proposed new school.

iguana

recedite wrote: »

First of all you need to be very clear on your use of "feeder area" language if you attend any more of these meetings.
We looked at this point here earlier when discussing the new Fianna Fail policy.

Feeder area was the term used by O'Sullivan both orally and on her power point presentation. If that's not the correct term I'm not overly surprised as the whole thing was a shambles in a lot of ways.

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK this process and the exact date is something the local schools would have agreed to in order to make their admin easier. Its very sensible for them to co-operate like that. It just means that places are allocated in a preferential way (once the qualification criteria are met, which could be discriminatory) A bit like a mini CAO system.

Its completely separate to the official process for awarding the patronage of a proposed new school.

The problem in this particular case is that the patronage of the school won't be decided until early in 2017 despite one of the schools opening in September the same year. This means that the 6th class pupils will have to fill out their forms this December without knowing if they actually want to go to this school or not. Something that had not occurred to anyone at the Department of Education. And once this was pointed out to O'Sullivan by some of the parents, she conceded that it is actually a big problem which hadn't occurred to them when they set out the timeline as they didn't know about the application deadline being in December 2016.

recedite

iguana wrote: »

Feeder area was the term used by O'Sullivan both orally and on her power point presentation. If that's not the correct term I'm not overly surprised as the whole thing was a shambles in a lot of ways.

"Feeder area" is OK if it is a definite line drawn on a map to define the local area, within which all the primary schools become the feeder schools. And all have equal priority. This needs to be explained to the parents.

What you need to beware of is weasely use of words, as in the FF document I linked to, so that feeder area changes seamlessly to "catchment area" which then becomes a parish boundary. Even ET cannot be fully trusted on this, ie they could try to redefine the catchment area to include all the ET primary schools in the city (which is what the parents sitting beside you at the meeting were concerned about).

Once the local area primary schools are defined as the feeder schools, then in theory the local kids will have priority access regardless of the ethos of the new secondary school.

BTW I'd say those parents who were against the ET patronage "because they don't want their kids to commute a long distance" might actually have RC baptismal certs in their pockets. They might be thinking that if the new school had an RC ethos they could avail of priority access based on their living in the parish catchment area. But as already pointed out, this is not necessarily correct if the feeder area schools are defined as above. They would not then get any more priority than a hindu or an atheist attending one of the local primary schools.

iguana wrote: »

This means that the 6th class pupils will have to fill out their forms this December without knowing if they actually want to go to this school or not.

I suspect the minister has given you an over optimistic completion date, and the school will not actually be finished until the following year. In which case the problem will resolve itself. But if the ethos was not decided until the summer of the year the school opened, and the pupils had already accepted places the previous December, then I agree that would be bad handling of the process. I'm sure the Dept. could just speed up the patronage tendering process if it looked like the builders were going to finish on time.

iguana

recedite wrote: »

"Feeder area" is OK if it is a definite line drawn on a map to define the local area, within which all the primary schools become the feeder schools. And all have equal priority. This needs to be explained to the parents.

What you need to beware of is weasely use of words, as in the FF document I linked to, so that feeder area changes seamlessly to "catchment area" which then becomes a parish boundary. Even ET cannot be fully trusted on this, ie they could try to redefine the catchment area to include all the ET primary schools in the city (which is what the parents sitting beside you at the meeting were concerned about). Once the local area primary schools are defined as the feeder schools, then in theory the local kids will have priority access regardless of the ethos of the new secondary school.

Afaik, the catchment area is the entire Limerick Metropolitan District which is the city and all of the immediate suburbs. There are only 2 ET primaries in Limerick. One in the city centre and the other in the same suburban village that this new secondary school will be in. So all children in the LMD will have the same priority.

recedite wrote: »

BTW I'd say those parents who were against the ET patronage "because they don't want their kids to commute a long distance" might actually have RC baptismal certs in their pockets. They might be thinking that if the new school had an RC ethos they could avail of priority access based on their living in the parish catchment area. But as already pointed out, this is not necessarily correct if the feeder area schools are defined as above. They would not then get any more priority than a hindu or an atheist attending one of the local primary schools.

I was sitting next to a very vocal group of locals and they don't want their local school to be an ET school because it will attract children from the whole district. If the school patron is Catholic then parents of non-Catholic children throughout the district will have no special reason to apply for this school as number 1 on their list of schools. So local children will have a higher chance of getting a place.

recedite wrote: »

I suspect the minister has given you an over optimistic completion date, and the school will not actually be finished until the following year. In which case the problem will resolve itself. But if the ethos was not decided until the summer of the year the school opened, and the pupils had already accepted places the previous December, then I agree that would be bad handling of the process. I'm sure the Dept. could just speed up the patronage tendering process if it looked like the builders were going to finish on time.

I know better to trust a politician but O'Sullivan stated repeatedly that the school was guaranteed to be opening in September 2017. But that the classrooms would largely be temporary accommodation. There is a second secondary also guaranteed to be opening in September 2018 and both will be going through the same process to award patronage. As in literally the one process for both schools. So parents have to state which of the two schools they are "voting" for to be awarded which patron. By chance O'Sullivan showed up canvassing at my house today and spoke to my husband. She wanted to privately reassure him that one of the 2 school would definitely be awarded to Educate Together.

It's only just started but I find the whole process disheartening and all I can see is parents being pitted against one another. Locals vs ET and possibly ET supporters vs ET supporters as those living nearest each new school lobby hardest for their nearest area to be the ET. Homeschooling is looking more and more attractive.

expectationlost

iguana wrote: »

I'm just back from a meeting about a new school opening and I found myself sitting quite near some local parents who are adamant they don't want an ET school because they want their children to go to school locally and they know that the odds of them getting places diminish significantly if their local school is the only multi-dom in the city/county/surrounding counties..

huh don't understand

Let2ndlevel ‏@let2ndlevel 23h23 hours ago
https://twitter.com/let2ndlevel/status/690628567978381312
Speaking about difficulties with common application process for parents in the catchment area, parents afraid to put 1st choice

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Yes, that is the govt. position, but its not quite what I was saying. I'm saying the child's right to be free of religious discrimination is being violated by allowing such policies in state funded schools. Not their right toaneducation..

And the State has not enacted any legislation which confers a right on children to be free of religious discrimination in schools admissions, so schools are under no obligation to uphold the notion of such a right.

recedite wrote: »

I disagree, but I respect your argument. It seems to be identical to the point being argued by the govt in the O'Keeffe case, and if they can argue it, then there must be some merit, at least, in it. That argument seems very jesuitical to me, and so I prefer the ECtHR interpretation which establishes an ethical common law principle, instead of looking at the letter of the existing local law.

Are you suggesting the ECtHR has offered an interpretation of Articles 2 or 14 establishing an ethical common law principle? If so it would be interesting if you could post a link; I'd be fascinated to see how it squares with their obligation under Article 14 to limit the prohibition on discrimination to rights specified in the Convention and in national law, which would specifically exclude notional rights such as a right to the education one wants, wherever one wants it.

recedite wrote: »

Still, if you want the High Court to rule in favour of a jesuitical argument, who better to appoint as its president than the chairman of the trust fund that hides the assets of the former Christian Brothers?

Well, i never said I did,though I don't doubt they do their best to rule in accordance with the law. And I can't imagine there are many better qualified Judges to do so, than one who (per your article) prompted "general acknowledgment he was eminently suitable for the job". Didn't they quote someone as saying "“He is fiercely independent and apolitical and has crossed swords with the Government a number of times over the years. Yet he is widely respected and his integrity is recognised,”? In fact Ken Murphy of the Law Society noted: “He is a fearlessly independent judge with a ferocious work ethic, a first-class legal mind and an utter commitment to the highest of standards from himself and others.” Whereas on the other hand, I doubt your opinion that the Edmund Rice Schools Trust he is chairman of 'hid' anything at all would gain any traction in court... I suspect it's a purely speculative smear, to be honest. Unless you're planning on presenting some evidence? Otherwise we should agree it's a bit of petty slander and move on, what do you think?

recedite wrote: »

Do you think this guy is an appropriate appointment to the presidency of the High Court, given that he not only represents one of the parties involved, he is one of the parties involved, because he controls the trust fund that is being sued, along with the govt.

You know it's not a trust fund, right? It's a Trust. And the Chairman doesn't control it; the Trust has 8 members, and Justice Kelly is Chair. It also has a Board of Directors (of whom Ms Patricia McCrossan is Chair), and an Executive management team (the Chief Executive is Gerry Bennett), so I hardly think he exerts sole control over the Trusts supposedly nefarious activities. And isn't it the Christian Brothers Order, not the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, that's being sued? Even so, what makes you imagine Justice Kelly would sit in judgment on the case? There are over 36 Judges on the High Court, I don't see why Justice Kelly would get involved in a case already being heard before Justice Noonan.

recedite wrote: »

I'm with the ECtHR on this one, and I have no confidence in the independence of the Irish High Court. I think its an ongoing scandal that every judge in the country is a political appointee, but this one is a new low.

Really? When did the ECtHR say they had no confidence in the independence of the Irish High Court? Still, surely the appointment of Justice Kelly (a fearlessly independent judge, remember?) should assuage your concerns, given his negative comments about the Government removing judicial independence brick by brick.

recedite

iguana wrote: »

Afaik, the catchment area is the entire Limerick Metropolitan District which is the city and all of the immediate suburbs. There are only 2 ET primaries in Limerick. One in the city centre and the other in the same suburban village that this new secondary school will be in. So all children in the LMD will have the same priority.

The basic problem here is that the feeder area is far too big. If I'm reading you correctly, they are talking about building two new secondary schools, plus presumably several existing ones that all share the same feeder area. That would effectively make a nonsense out of the notion that local primary schools could have any priority.
In effect then, the newly appointed patron could choose a subset population within that huge area to give their own priority to. If catholic, then it would be local parishioners (the very vocal people sitting beside you). If ET, then it could include kids attending the ET primary school on the other side of the city.
I don't know what you can do, other than protest that the feeder area is too large and lobby for it to be reduced in size, so that the school does in fact give priority to the local area. I think an area containing 5 or 6 primary schools is appropriate, certainly not much more than that.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Are you suggesting the ECtHR has offered an interpretation of Articles 2 or 14 establishing an ethical common law principle?

I'm saying that they established in principle that the state bears a responsibility (vicarious liability) for ill treatment of pupils in schools, even though the state does not run the schools directly. Which is something that the state had previously denied. The Irish High court backed the govt. position, but they were proven wrong by the UCtHR in 2015. Now in 2016 the govt. is going back to the High Court (having appointed the guardian of the Christan Brother's assets as president of that court) asking them to rule that the ECtHr which is binding on Louise O'Keeffe, is effectively irrelevant to anyone else in Ireland. So each individual person would have to take their own case to EctHR. Which is a cowardly position to take, because they know that very few ordinary people will spend that many years of their life seeking justice.

Now you're saying religious discrimination in schools is not a form of ill treatment, and I'm saying it probably is. But we are not going to resolve that unless somebody goes to ECtHR with a case of religious discrimination.The disadvantage that would have occurred to that person could be for example; the extra travel time and costs endured, psychological damage growing up due to being segregated from the neighbouring kids, attending a school with lesser facilities etc..

Absolam wrote: »

I doubt your opinion that the Edmund Rice Schools Trust he is chairman of 'hid' anything at all would gain any traction in court...

I'm sure he/they have done a very good legal job in locking away the Christian Brothers assets into the trust. We know the trust was formed around the same time the full extent of the abuse scandals was being revealed. We also know the religious orders never paid up their full share of redress costs. Whether the money is now untouchable is not for me or you to say. It has happened in the past that trusts were cracked open, where it was found that the funds were established for nefarious reasons. Trusts are only untouchable if established "with clean hands".

And isn't it the Christian Brothers Order, not the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, that's being sued?

Are they completely separate?
As above, it depends on how well the assets have been hidden.

Absolam wrote: »

Still, surely the appointment of Justice Kelly (a fearlessly independent judge, remember?) should assuage your concerns, given his negative comments about the Government removing judicial independence brick by brick.

In hindsight, I think its fair to say he was proved wrong on that. It was more a "fingers in the greasy till" sort of issue, not some high minded crusade for the separation of powers, as he tried to portray it. The govt. were forced to hold a referendum on the issue, and the public agreed that judges should be subject to a public service pay cut/levy, the same as everybody else.
When he took early retirement then, in order to get the larger (pre-cuts) pension, he didn't exactly cover himself with glory. Now he is back, presumably still drawing that fat judicial pension on top of whatever he gets for being the newly appointed president of the High Court.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I'm saying that they established in principle that the state bears a responsibility (vicarious liability) for ill treatment of pupils in schools, even though the state does not run the schools directly.

Sooo... no they haven't offered an interpretation of Articles 2 or 14 establishing an ethical common law principle?

recedite wrote: »

The Irish High court backed the govt. position, but they were proven wrong by the UCtHR in 2015.

Ah now... talk about re-interpretation! The Irish High Court didn't back the governments position; it ruled that Louise O'Keeffes team had failed to make a prima facie case for negligence, and that the State was not vicariously liable for the actions of an employee not directly governed by the DoE. The Irish Supreme Court also ruled the State had no vicarious liability as it did not manage or administer the education system at the point of delivery. The UCtHR didn't prove either Court wrong; it ruled differently. By doing so, I don't see how you've managed to imagine establishment of an ethical common law principle; the ECtHR found the State vicariously liable because it held that the State had failed to put in place sufficient protections as it was already required to do.

recedite wrote: »

Now in 2016 the govt. is going back to the High Court (having appointed the guardian of the Christan Brother's assets as president of that court) asking them to rule that the ECtHr which is binding on Louise O'Keeffe, is effectively irrelevant to anyone else in Ireland. So each individual person would have to take their own case to EctHR. Which is a cowardly position to take, because they know that very few ordinary people will spend that many years of their life seeking justice.

He's not the guardian of the Christian Brothers assets though is he? Nor is he hearing the case, is he? As to your opinion of how cowardly the States position is I'll leave that up to you; I don't think it in any way relates to creating an obligation on the State to provide exclusively secular education as you want, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up......

recedite wrote: »

Now you're saying religious discrimination in schools is not a form of ill treatment, and I'm saying it probably is.

Actually, I'm continuing to say what I already said; that the Convention doesn't include discrimination as a form of ill-treatment or abuse. Discrimination has it's own Article 14, which prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the Convention and legal rights provided for in national law, and ill treatment and abuse (per the Louise O'Keeffe case you've offered) are dealt with under Article 3 as inhuman or degrading treatment. That you think discrimination is probably ill treatment isn't going to change the Convention.

recedite wrote: »

But we are not going to resolve that unless somebody goes to ECtHR with a case of religious discrimination.The disadvantage that would have occurred to that person could be for example; the extra travel time and costs endured, psychological damage growing up due to being segregated from the neighbouring kids, attending a school with lesser facilities etc..

And if someone brings a case of religious discrimination before the ECtHR it will be under Article 14 which deals with, well, you guessed it... religious discrimination. Not Article 3, as in Louise O'Keeffes case.

recedite wrote: »

I'm sure he/they have done a very good legal job in locking away the Christian Brothers assets into the trust.

If you're sure you must have some evidence you based that certainty on that you can provide us? Or do you mean you're speculating, but that doesn't sound strong enough?

recedite wrote: »

We know the trust was formed around the same time the full extent of the abuse scandals was being revealed.

Well, we know it was formed in 2008. the Laffoy (later called Ryan) Commission was set up in 1999, so 'around the same time' seems pretty broad; it encompasses a heck of a lot that happened in those 9 years.

recedite wrote: »

We also know the religious orders never paid up their full share of redress costs. Whether the money is now untouchable is not for me or you to say. It has happened in the past that trusts were cracked open, where it was found that the funds were established for nefarious reasons.

Though it has to be said that part of the Christian Brothers deal was that they would transfer properties to a Trust jointly held by the State and the Edmund Rice Schools Trust. Bit tricky to imagine they're 'hiding' assets in a Trust they're supposed to be transferring them to, isn't it? As to whether or not the money is now untouchable.... are you speculating that your assertion that Justice Kelly did a very good legal job in locking away the Christian Brothers assets could be wrong? In the very same post as you made the assertion? That's a pretty quick about-face!

recedite wrote: »

Trusts are only untouchable if established "with clean hands".

We did cover the clean hands doctrine in detail before. Have you forgotten?

recedite wrote: »

Are they completely separate? As above, it depends on how well the assets have been hidden.

Have you and demonstrable reason to think they not completely separate? Nor have you yet managed to show that any assets have been hidden at all.....

recedite wrote: »

In hindsight, I think its fair to say he was proved wrong on that. It was more a "fingers in the greasy till" sort of issue, not some high minded crusade for the separation of powers, as he tried to portray it. The govt. were forced to hold a referendum on the issue, and the public agreed that judges should be subject to a public service pay cut/levy, the same as everybody else.

Hmm. Did he object to government interference with the judiciary? And did you not try to portray him as disinclined to independance of the judiciary? I'm not sure your speculation about his motives for disagreeing with the government helps you make your case that he is likely to agree with the government, but it's certainly a novel approach.

recedite wrote: »

When he took early retirement then, in order to get the larger (pre-cuts) pension, he didn't exactly cover himself with glory.

Though he didn't say that was why he was taking retirement though, did he? Is that a bit of speculation about his motives again? I'm starting to get the feeling you have something against this guy...

recedite wrote: »

Now he is back, presumably still drawing that fat judicial pension on top of whatever he gets for being the newly appointed president of the High Court.

That's a big presumption. If it assuages your ire at Justice Kellys dreadful behaviour though, he didn't retire. Following his announcement of his intent to retire, he went from being a High Court Judge to being appointed President of the Court of Appeal in October 2014. His fat judicial pension remains undrawn.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

The Irish High Court didn't back the governments position; it ruled that Louise O'Keeffes team had failed to make a prima facie case for negligence, and that the State was not vicariously liable for the actions of an employee not directly governed by the DoE. The Irish Supreme Court also ruled the State had no vicarious liability as it did not manage or administer the education system at the point of delivery. The UCtHR didn't prove either Court wrong; it ruled differently. By doing so, I don't see how you've managed to imagine establishment of an ethical common law principle

The EctHR overrruled the two Irish courts. The state is bound to EU law by EU treaties (Lisbon in this situation AFAIK) which means any EctHR ruling trumps the Irish court rulings.
To my mind that proves them wrong. But lets not be pedantic about it.
The common law principle established is that the state cannot wash its hands of all responsibility for what happens in schools that are managed indirectly, through a patron. It was established that the state is in a position analagous to the employer of the teachers, even if it denies that it is the employer. An employer is "vicariously liable" for the actions of their employees.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, we know it was formed in 2008. the Laffoy (later called Ryan) Commission was set up in 1999, so 'around the same time' seems pretty broad; it encompasses a heck of a lot that happened in those 9 years.

Lets look at the timeline;

1. Ryan Commission set up in 1999.
Various scandals drip-fed and leaked to the media over the following years.

2. Redress board set up in 2002.
It gradually became apparent that the church and/or the state was facing a massive Redress bill, much larger than was thought at first.

3. 2008; Christian Brothers and various other orders directly involved in the abuse shift their principle assets into the Rice trust in 2008. Where the assets are combined and effectively laundered so that the individual religious orders themselves can claim to be virtually penniless.

4. Ryan Commission releases its full report in 2009.

Absolam wrote: »

Hmm. Did he object to government interference with the judiciary? And did you not try to portray him as disinclined to independance of the judiciary? .. Following his announcement of his intent to retire, he went from being a High Court Judge to being appointed President of the Court of Appeal in October 2014. His fat judicial pension remains undrawn.

He objected to govt. interference in his taxation rate/net pay, which is not quite the same thing as govt. interference in the judiciary.
But if he never drew the pension, then he goes up in my estimation. If he declines to have anything to do with this latest request from the govt, including any conferring between judges behind the scenes, and he cites the possible conflict of interest, then there is no real problem IMO. Nevertheless, the timing of his appointment and the "optics" of the whole thing are bad.

Cabaal

Finian McGrath TD, talks to journalist William Campbell of [Irish current affairs podcast] Here’sHow.ie about the Independent Alliance’s 10-point statement of principles.

They believe in equality for all! (remember that)

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/01/25/equality-for-all-2/

Finian McGrath: “Absolutely, that’s stressed very strongly in principle five, we strongly believe in equal access to education, and that’s something that applies to people that work in the education service”.

Campbell: “And an equal admissions policy for non-Catholic children?”

McGrath: “I’ll have to consult with my colleagues.”

sigh
:rolleyes:

Daith

Cabaal wrote: »

Finian McGrath TD, talks to journalist William Campbell of [Irish current affairs podcast] Here’sHow.ie about the Independent Alliance’s 10-point statement of principles.

They believe in equality for all! (remember that)

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/01/25/equality-for-all-2/

sigh
:rolleyes:

I asked one of them and he said "Well we have different ideas on what equality means"

lazygal

Daith wrote: »

I asked one of them and he said "Well we have different ideas on what equality means"

What was his idea of what equality means?

Cabaal

Daith wrote: »

I asked one of them and he said "Well we have different ideas on what equality means"

The lolek Ltd approach then, equality is when you treat different people differently,

expectationlost

Cabaal wrote: »

Finian McGrath TD, talks to journalist William Campbell of [Irish current affairs podcast] Here’sHow.ie about the Independent Alliance’s 10-point statement of principles.

They believe in equality for all! (remember that)

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/01/25/equality-for-all-2/

sigh
:rolleyes:

ahyeah January 25, 2016 at 4:55 pm In fairness to McGrath, that’s [quoted above] not what he said. He actually said his personal view would be ‘yes’, but he’d have to consult with his colleagues as to whether it’s a “red line issue”. He also confirmed that it’s an ultimate objective of the Alliance.
Slightly poor form there, BS.

when Finian Mcgrath was on the people debate he said he was in favour of more choice, although he said everyone got along alright in his school

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The EctHR overrruled the two Irish courts. The state is bound to EU law by EU treaties (Lisbon in this situation AFAIK) which means any EctHR ruling trumps the Irish court rulings.

No, I think you'll find ruled differently is more accurate. Whilst the Supreme Court and the ECtHR do share some jurisdiction, and litigants such as Ms O'Keeffe may appeal some SC judgments to the ECtHR, a differing ECtHR judgement does not void the SCs judgement:
Supreme
Court decisions cannot be appealed, as such, to either court. The ECJ
hears cases referred to it by the Irish Courts by way of preliminary
ruling+ and while unsuccessful litigants before the Supreme Court can
apply to the ECtHR, the latter court's decision does not have the effect
of voiding the Supreme Court's decision. As a matter of Irish domestic
law decisions of the ECtHR do not automatically override acts of the
Oireachtas and may require legislation or perhaps even a constitutional
referendum to be implemented in full.

recedite wrote: »

To my mind that proves them wrong. But lets not be pedantic about it.

To my mind that proves they agree to differ, which may seem a pedantic distinction, but is more than a little relevant to the establishment of
jurisprudence...

recedite wrote: »

The common law principle established is that the state cannot wash its hands of all responsibility for what happens in schools that are managed indirectly,through a patron. It was established that the state is in a position analagous to the employer of the teachers, even if it denies that it is the employer. An employer is "vicariously liable" for the actions of their employees.

Well firstly, no ‘common law principle’ (or jurisprudence) established in Ireland, as the Supreme Courts decision has not been voided. So any reliance on the ECtHR decision for precedence occurs in the European court only. But lets be fair; the ECtHR didn’t actually say the state cannot wash its hands of all responsibility for what happens in schools that are managed indirectly, through a patron, did it? It said the State had failed to meet it’s obligation to protect Ms O’Keeffe from the sexual abuse to which she had been subjected in 1973 whilst a pupil in Dunderrow National School, in violation of Article 3. The Court considered that it had not been shown that any of the national remedies on which the Government relied (the State’s vicarious liability,a claim against the State in direct negligence or a constitutional tort claim)had been effective as regards Ms O’Keeffe’s complaint about the failure to protect her from abuse. There had therefore been a violation of Article 13.
That’s a pretty specific statement to my mind; I can’t see the ECtHR relying on it as a precedent for anything other than what is actually included in the judgement I have to say.

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at the timeline;
1. Ryan Commission set up in 1999.
Various scandals drip-fed and leaked to the media over the following years.
2. Redress board set up in 2002. It gradually became apparent that the church and/or the state was facing a massive Redress bill, much larger than was thought at first.
3. 2008; Christian Brothers and various other orders directly involved in
the abuse shift their principle assets into the Rice trust in 2008.
Where the assets are combined and effectively laundered so that the
individual religious orders themselves can claim to be virtually
penniless.
4. Ryan Commission releases its full report in 2009.

Didn’t you miss out a rather salient point?
1a. In 2001 the Christian Brothers obtained indemnity from the Government which left them with no liability for anything other than what they’d agreed.

The massive redress bill you say became apparent in 2002 made no difference to them; they didn’t have to pay a cent more than they agreed to if they didn’t want to. They certainly didn’t need to hide any assets in 2008…
Just for laughs though, which other orders directly involved in the abuse shifted their principle assets into the Edmund Rice Schools Trust?
And how do you know they’re effectively laundered? Weren’t you telling us that earlier that Trusts are only untouchable if established "with clean hands"?

recedite wrote: »

He objected to govt. interference in his taxation rate/net pay, which is not quite the same thing as govt. interference in the judiciary.

Really? My understanding was he was objecting to government reforms to the courts structure and the Government’s handling of judges’ pay and pensions. Didn’t the Association of Judges in Ireland support him saying all structures, both formal and informal, which existed for communication between these two branches of government had ceased, and it pointed out that not only had judges not been consulted in relation to pension arrangements, the personal insolvency proposal or any of the current reform proposals, noting particularly, that the abolition of the Seanad would mean that judges could be removed from office by a simple a majority resolution in the Dáil while at present a resolution of both Houses is required. That certainly sounds like a direct government interference in the judiciary.
Still, your issue was his independence was it not? It appears that whatever his motivations, he is inclined to be independent, contrary to your aspersions.

recedite wrote: »

if he never drew the pension, then he goes up in my estimation. If he declines to have anything to do with this latest request from the govt, including any conferring between judges behind the scenes, and he cites the possible conflict of interest, then there is no real problem IMO. Nevertheless, the timing of his appointment and the "optics" of the whole thing are bad.

Wow… he goes up in your estimation purely because you wrongly impugned him? Lucky him. I imagine you’ll be writing to him to tell how impressed you are that he didn’t wrongly interfere with a case as you imagined he would when it’s done? As for optics, have you considered that perhaps it’s the way you look at things?

Kiwi in IE

https://www.facebook.com/TeachDontPreach/posts/950593685017501:0

Have you guys seen this?

The link doesn't specify which year it is aimed at, but I imagine 6th class. These are learning outcomes!

Shrap

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/TeachDontPreach/posts/950593685017501:0

Have you guys seen this?

The link doesn't specify which year it is aimed at, but I imagine 6th class. These are learning outcomes!

Oh my :eek:

Kiwi in IE

Further to that link from Teach don't Preach, can anyone tell me what age kids are taught about human reproduction in biology? Are they being taught about abortion before human reproduction? If so that is appalling.

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/TeachDontPreach/posts/950593685017501:0

Have you guys seen this?

The link doesn't specify which year it is aimed at, but I imagine 6th class. These are learning outcomes!

They're possibly being taught that in 5th class Kiwi, and would have been taught about reproduction in SPHE in 3rd and 4th class.

Just looking at the Curriculum here and that particular piece in the photo in context comes under the heading "RSE in a Christian context", from the "Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland" (I have it here in hard copy, but it's available online too).

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Further to that link from Teach don't Preach, can anyone tell me what age kids are taught about human reproduction in biology? Are they being taught about abortion before human reproduction? If so that is appalling.

Just commenting on my own child's sex education, but they were learning about human reproduction in 3rd class, gets further developed as they go on, and they're now being taught about abortion both as part of SPHE and as part of religion in 5th class.

The reason I said I can only comment on my own child's sex education is because schools are given a template policy document on RSE from the DES and can develop their own policy with input from the parents, teachers and the BOM.

Perhaps knowing that is why I wasn't too fazed by what teachdontpreach were trying to point out there.

Kiwi in IE

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They're possibly being taught that in 5th class Kiwi, and would have been taught about reproduction in SPHE in 3rd and 4th class.

Just looking at the Curriculum here and that particular piece in the photo in context comes under the heading "RSE in a Christian context", from the "Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum for Ireland" (I have it here in hard copy, but it's available online too).

Just commenting on my own child's sex education, but they were learning about human reproduction in 3rd class, gets further developed as they go on, and they're now being taught about abortion both as part of SPHE and as part of religion in 5th class.

The reason I said I can only comment on my own child's sex education is because schools are given a template policy document on RSE from the DES and can develop their own policy with input from the parents, teachers and the BOM.

Perhaps knowing that is why I wasn't too fazed by what teachdontpreach were trying to point out there.

Is all RSE done from a Christian perspective or is there regular RSE as well? I don't want him taught about abortion, marriage, families, sexuality or anything like that from a Christian perspective, so will I need to opt him out of RSE or will opting him out of religion cover it?

Shrap

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Further to that link from Teach don't Preach, can anyone tell me what age kids are taught about human reproduction in biology? Are they being taught about abortion before human reproduction? If so that is appalling.

Well.....I just asked my eldest (who admittedly wasn't well known for paying any attention in school) as I couldn't remember him having learned about human reproduction until 1st or 2nd year in secondary school. He reckoned the same, so unless we both have very poor memories then the "Grow in Love" bollixology will definitely get there first.

I've found this. It won't make you happy. I'm sorry

http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/religious-education/re-curriculum-for-ireland.html

Level 4 is 5th and 6th class. Pages 129 and 130 are a bit of an eye-opener. I am actually shocked.

When I think of the hand-wringing about "introducing children to sexuality" you hear from some religious bigots people over the primary schools RSE programme (the booklet "Busy Bodies"), I can only think they are IGNORANT about exactly how disturbing the "RSE in a Christian Context" section of the curriculum really is?

I wouldn't let any child of mine anywhere near it, FFS.

Shrap

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Is all RSE done from a Christian perspective or is there regular RSE as well? I don't want him taught about abortion, marriage, families, sexuality or anything like that from a Christian perspective, so will I need to opt him out of RSE or will opting him out of religion cover it?

No, the RSE curriculum is different. Our school brought in a facilitator to teach it as they felt it would go over better than if their regular teachers delivered it, but otherwise it was factual, non-biased and purely informative. I had one question for the facilitator before hand about something it said about exploring sexuality preferably in marriage (or something like that), but otherwise it was fine. Check it out yourself: https://www.healthpromotion.ie/hp-files/docs/HPM00478.pdf

Then make sure your school uses this in RSE. AFAIK, they have to.

Kiwi in IE

Shrap wrote: »

Well.....I just asked my eldest (who admittedly wasn't well known for paying any attention in school) as I couldn't remember him having learned about human reproduction until 1st or 2nd year in secondary school. He reckoned the same, so unless we both have very poor memories then the "Grow in Love" bollixology will definitely get there first.

I've found this. It won't make you happy. I'm sorry

http://www.veritasbooksonline.com/religious-education/re-curriculum-for-ireland.html

Level 4 is 5th and 6th class. Pages 129 and 130 are a bit of an eye-opener. I am actually shocked.

When I think of the hand-wringing about "introducing children to sexuality" you hear from some religious bigots people over the primary schools RSE programme (the booklet "Busy Bodies"), I can only think they are IGNORANT about exactly how disturbing the "RSE in a Christian Context" section of the curriculum really is?

I wouldn't let any child of mine anywhere near it, FFS.

Yeah I saw that Shrap, Teach Don't Preach posted a link on their original post because people had questioned which year it was aimed at. When you opt out of religion, is RSE 'in a Christian context' automatically included or is it part of regular RSE and will we have to opt Little Kiwi out of that?

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason I said I can only comment on my own child's sex education is because schools are given a template policy document on RSE from the DES and can develop their own policy with input from the parents, teachers and the BOM.

Oh yes, that's actually the case I think. Which would be bad in a school with a strong Catholic ethos, but certainly wasn't the case in mine.

Shrap

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yeah I saw that Shrap, Teach Don't Preach posted a link on their original post because people had questioned which year it was aimed at. When you opt out of religion, is RSE 'in a Christian context' automatically included or is it part of regular RSE and will we have to opt Little Kiwi out of that?

No, in my school it wasn't part of the RSE curriculum at all. But you'll have every opportunity to discuss what way they teach it when Little Kiwi comes to it.