If you are pregnant , don't bother with MY school

MrTsSnickers

mr_edge_to_you wrote: »

The word you're looking for is "spelt". I know it's a bit late but I couldn't resist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/spell

It can be both.

dvpower

mr_edge_to_you wrote: »

The word you're looking for is "spelt". I know it's a bit late but I couldn't resist.

What's the wheat reference?

Robdude

Biggins wrote: »

Why?
Would it put you off having too much sex as a teen?
Maybe there SHOULD be one at every school? :cool:

Because there are certain realities of the world that we live in. It's not a magically, happy, wonderland.

The truth is that the vast majority of teenagers are unprepared to have children. They can't support them financially and most of them aren't mature enough to raise them. There are plenty of studies that show children benefit from two loving parents, and the stability of the majority of teenage relationships is unlikely to provide that.

The other truth is that teenagers (and to a lessor extent, adults) are not intelligent, individuals who make rational decisions based on what they objectively believe is right. A very large percentage of people are going to do whatever everyone else is doing. Something being socially acceptable does encourage it, particularly amongst teenagers. Look at how ridiculous fashion or music trends are from generation to generation or even year to year. A few kids do something, it catches on, everyone does it - even though it's retarded, then a year or two later everyone looks back and says, 'Man, I can't believe we used to do that!'

It's my personal belief that teenage pregnancies shouldn't be encouraged. At least the types that I feel are irresponsible. The standards I personally believe in are based around the parents ability to raise the children, if you show me a 15 year old couple who both want a child, both are financially stable enough to support themselves and child, and both mature enough to raise a child - awesome. Go for it! I support *that*. But it's virtually impossible to find someone who can honestly say they meet those requirements while still being in school.

Schools *already* have policies surround enrolment that are different than what the law says. At least, the schools I went to did. For example, they had dress codes. They wanted to encourage certain values that we, as a society, seem to value - so they made the rule and they enforce it. And, it kinda-sorta works. It works better than *NOT* enforcing it.

It's my personal belief that this country would be better off with fewer ill-prepared parents. And, while I can't speak to whether or not this particular girl and her husband/boyfriend/child's father are ill-prepared or not; it is my belief that the vast, vast, vast majority of students would not be.

I have no problem with teenagers or anyone else having sex. But I can't see an argument for why we should encourage teenagers to have children...and I do believe that having pregnant girls in school is likely to encourage other teenagers to think it is a normal thing. I'd rather send the message that 'Getting pregnant means you miss out on things and maybe you should think twice before doing it' than 'Getting pregnant is totally cool - Emily did it and got to miss like all her tests and still did just fine and everyone was super nice to her and gave her lots of attention and she told me that now she gets X euro each month and I could buy a lot of stuff with X euro!'

But that's just my opinion. I don't haven't seen a lot of hard evidence on the topic and I'm certainly willing to change my opinion in light of contradictory evidence. But I just don't see much of a benefit.

MrTsSnickers

dvpower wrote: »

What's the wheat reference?

Simply, I thought it was funny.

steddyeddy

What kills me about things like this is that when it comes to issues like single mothers the church are extremely vocal yet when it comes to the child abusers and rapists their organiszation fostered their no where near as vocal!

kincsem

No room at the inn, innit?

micropig

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.
She understood from this action that she had been accepted by the school





Since when is been given an enrolment form and acceptance of enrolment?



Principal is a header, the state department of education needs a massive overhaul

FoxT

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/vitalstats/2010/vstats_q42010.pdf

There are about 135,000 females in Ireland aged 15-19 inclusive.

There are about 2000 live births every year to mothers under 20.

I think that this is undesirable (Ability of parents in this age group to provide emotional & financial support for their children, etc etc) .

However, discriminating against young pregnant girls will not achieve anything, except perhaps drive some to the UK for abortions.

A publicly funded school, regardless of ethos should be prohibited from using a girl's pregnancy or parental status as grounds for discrimination.

I agree with the ombudsman's assessment that the school should apologise. I also think that it is in the public interest that the school be named, because citizens have a right to know.

http://bit.ly/KqAJEE

Finally I am gobsmacked that in the 2007 WSE it was found not to have a board of management. Reading the report it is hard to avoid the impression that the principla was running the school almost as a personal fiefdom. I find this incredible.

-FoxT

analucija

It serves her right. She should have an abortion and follow good old catholic practice and pretend it didn't happen. She could be a perfect role model in the school then.

Ghost Buster

micropig wrote: »

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.
She understood from this action that she had been accepted by the school





Since when is been given an enrolment form and acceptance of enrolment?



Principal is a header, the state department of education needs a massive overhaul

See the bit in red? You left it out in the second part of your post

hatrickpatrick

Why in God's name (oh the irony) is this school not being named and shamed?
Seriously, what's all this "A school in Munster" crap? If this is how they behave, they effing well deserve to have their reputation trashed. If there are parents out there who don't mind such appalling discrimination they're still free to send their kids there.

hatrickpatrick

Abi wrote: »

While I agree with you, try telling that to a school full of teenagers. Even if the principal bit their tongue, she's subject to gossip and bullying as soon as she starts showing. Have to admit, that can't be easy for a teen mother. Then having to study and sit exams in between it all?

So the solution is to ban her from the school altogether?
Great, what's next? Banning openly GBLT kids from schools because they might get bullied? Banning kids with funny accents from schools because they might get bullied? Banning kids who are shorter than average, who have acne, whose parents have split up, whose parents have committed crimes and are known for such, who have ginger hair, who aren't good at maths.....

How is this example of discrimination any worse than those I have outlined above? Or do you actually believe that all of the above categories should also be prevented from getting an education "because they might be gossiped about and bullied"?

Absolutely BS attempt to justify this IMO.

micropig

Ghost Buster wrote: »

See the bit in red? You left it out in the second part of your post

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.


Copies of subject choices - so she could consider if she the classes she wanted to do were available to her

'advised to get uniform & books' - could also be interpreted as advised on 'what uniform & books she would require if accepted' - so she would be able to make an informed decision on how much it would cost her.

Has she a letter stating she was accepted?

omega666

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So the solution is to ban her from the school altogether?
Great, what's next? Banning openly GBLT kids from schools because they might get bullied? Banning kids with funny accents from schools because they might get bullied? Banning kids who are shorter than average, who have acne, whose parents have split up, whose parents have committed crimes and are known for such, who have ginger hair, who aren't good at maths.....

How is this example of discrimination any worse than those I have outlined above? Or do you actually believe that all of the above categories should also be prevented from getting an education "because they might be gossiped about and bullied"?

Absolutely BS attempt to justify this IMO.

there is no need to justify anything. Schools are allowed by the state to set their own admission policy and every school reserves the right to refuse admission. A school is not obliged to take any student.

FoxT

micropig wrote: »

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.


Copies of subject choices - so she could consider if she the classes she wanted to do were available to her

'advised to get uniform & books' - could also be interpreted as advised on 'what uniform & books she would require if accepted' - so she would be able to make an informed decision on how much it would cost her.

Has she a letter stating she was accepted?

To be fair, it is clear that she was given the impression that her enrolment was a formality. If there was a problem I doubt that they would have led her down the garden path in that way.

omega666

omega666 wrote: »

Schools are allowed by the state to set their own admission policy and every school reserves the right to refuse admission. A school is not obliged to take any student.

Could you give us a quote for that? Because I'm pretty sure the ombudsman statement said that schools are only allowed to discriminate in terms of a single sex school only accepting one gender and a religious school only accepting people of that religion.

Never said anything about being stuck up about not accepting single mothers.

dvpower

micropig wrote: »

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.


Copies of subject choices - so she could consider if she the classes she wanted to do were available to her

'advised to get uniform & books' - could also be interpreted as advised on 'what uniform & books she would require if accepted' - so she would be able to make an informed decision on how much it would cost her.

Has she a letter stating she was accepted?

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel of logic here.

Ghost Buster

micropig wrote: »

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.


Copies of subject choices - so she could consider if she the classes she wanted to do were available to her

'advised to get uniform & books' - could also be interpreted as advised on 'what uniform & books she would require if accepted' - so she would be able to make an informed decision on how much it would cost her.

Has she a letter stating she was accepted?

I dont know and neither do you. You use words like 'could' and 'if' a lot.
You also interpret the schools 'advising' her to get uniform and books as suggesting she check out the price of same. Your leaps of logic are amazing!

micropig

dvpower wrote: »

You are scraping the bottom of the barrel of logic here.

Surely it's central to the arguement if she was actually accepted in to the school in the first place

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I dont know and neither do you. You use words like 'could' and 'if' a lot.

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.

She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.
She understood from this action that she had been accepted by the school

Maybe she also assumed too much. Does she have a letter of acceptance?

omega666

true-or-false wrote: »

Could you give us a quote for that? Because I'm pretty sure the ombudsman statement said that schools are only allowed to discriminate in terms of a single sex school only accepting one gender and a religious school only accepting people of that religion.

Never said anything about being stuck up about not accepting single mothers.

nope, there was a case of a traveller a few months ago in clonmel who was refused admission because priority was given to students who had a parent in the school. they took it to court on discrimination and lost.

google admission policies and you will see there are many wierd and wonderfull
ones.

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

Maybe she also assumed too much. Does she have a letter of acceptance?

I don't think I have ever seen a school give a letter of acceptance. If they said get a uniform and books I would take that as an acceptance.

dvpower

true-or-false wrote: »

Could you give us a quote for that? Because I'm pretty sure the ombudsman statement said that schools are only allowed to discriminate in terms of a single sex school only accepting one gender and a religious school only accepting people of that religion.

Never said anything about being stuck up about not accepting single mothers.

That falls under the religious ethos banner.

plein de force

Deleted User wrote: »

This young girl can't get into school and yet the bankers who ruined the enonomy can send their kids to any school they want, some justice !

Why do bankers get introduced to EVERY SINGLE THREAD

micropig

hondasam wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen a school give a letter of acceptance. If they said get a uniform and books I would take that as an acceptance.

You would assume to be accepted, before you even filled out and handed in the application form?

She reports that she was given an enrolment form

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

You would assume to be accepted, before you even filled out and handed in the application form?

what parent is going to spend money on a uniform and books for a school unless their child was accepted?
btw you question was about an acceptance letter or the part I replied too anyway.
Enrolment form you bring with you the day you start.

crucamim

Some people cannot accept that a Catholic school has the right to remain a Catholic school.

Why can the anti-Catholics not establish their own schools? Their schools could accept this young woman.

hondasam

crucamim wrote: »

Some people cannot accept that a Catholic school has the right to remain a Catholic school.

Why can the anti-Catholics not establish their own schools? Their schools could accept this young woman.

This woman is a catholic afaik.

steddyeddy

omega666 wrote: »

there is no need to justify anything. Schools are allowed by the state to set their own admission policy and every school reserves the right to refuse admission. A school is not obliged to take any student.

Ah listen south africa used that admissions bs to deny blacks entry to their schools, the australians used the same for aborigines but when it comes to ireland's particular prejudice seems to lie with single mothers. Throughout our history the way the state has treated single mothers based on some outdated catholic dogma has been an embarrassment. Wheter it be the magdaline laundries, this inept principal or some of the posters on here.

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. When it comes to admission policies my primary concern would be that schools do not discrimnate not whatever their regressive ethos says about one group or another.

FoxT

crucamim wrote: »

Some people cannot accept that a Catholic school has the right to remain a Catholic school.

Why can the anti-Catholics not establish their own schools? Their schools could accept this young woman.

1 - A Catholic school that is FUNDED ENTIRELY BY THE TAXPAYER, should not have the right to discriminate. They are being paid for by people of all religions & none, and should behave accordingly.

2 - Why cant the Catholics who wish to discriminate, establish their own schools? The existing publicly funded school system must remain open & non-discriminatory.

And finally, Catholic school or not, policies which discriminate against students based on their being pregnant, or already a parent, are simply unchristian.

micropig

hondasam wrote: »

what parent is going to spend money on a uniform and books for a school unless their child was accepted?
btw you question was about an acceptance letter or the part I replied too anyway.
Enrolment form you bring with you the day you start.

She attended for an interview with School A.She reports that she was given an enrolment form, copies of subject choices and advised to get a uniform and books.

She understood from this action that she had been accepted by the school. Her parents thought the school should know that their daughter was pregnant and contacted a member of staff to advise of this.

She attended a meeting with the principal. We only have her word against the principal that a definite offer was made. there is no mention of her parents being at the meeting. Later they contacted a member of staff.

She told her parents she had been accepted. She still hadn't returned the application form.

Giving uniform & books lists - to be able to consider the expense involved with going to the school.

This doesn't make sense to me and I think the Ombudsman, in my opinion has ulterior motives with the release of this information. The department of education carried out an inspection in the school in 2007 and knew about the situation re: the BOM. Rurari Quinn gave a sketchy answer at best on the radio earlier regarding introducing legislation. In his opinion it is needed, but he'd have to wait what the experts say.

crucamim

crucamim wrote: »

Some people cannot accept that a Catholic school has the right to remain a Catholic school.

Why can the anti-Catholics not establish their own schools? Their schools could accept this young woman.

Having a child is not against Catholicism.

Even if you wanted to take the whole "sex before marriage" route, plenty of students her age are having sex, and her case should surely fall under the banner of the Catholic ethos of forgiveness? Almost any story I heard in mass as a child was about how outcasts should be embraced, those in need should be helped and sinners should be forgiven. She's certainly been outcast, she's certainly in need, and according to Catholicism she's also a sinner, so from what I can see she's the perfect candidate for a Catholic school.

hondasam

micropig wrote: »

She attended a meeting with the principal. We only have her word against the principal that a definite offer was made. there is no mention of her parents being at the meeting. Later they contacted a member of staff.

She told her parents she had been accepted. She still hadn't returned the application form.

Giving uniform & books lists - to be able to consider the expense involved with going to the school.

This doesn't make sense to me and I think the Ombudsman, in my opinion has ulterior motives with the release of this information. The department of education carried out an inspection in the school in 2007 and knew about the situation re: the BOM. Rurari Quinn gave a sketchy answer at best on the radio earlier regarding introducing legislation. In his opinion it is needed, but he'd have to wait what the experts say.

Regardless his replies which we have read are pure ignorant and I would expect better from a school principle tbh.
I don't think any school gives a book list to see what expense is involved or suggests buying a uniform either but maybe her parents were not there but I would imagine one parent would have to be at the meeting.

MagicSean

FoxT wrote: »

1 - A Catholic school that is FUNDED ENTIRELY BY THE TAXPAYER, should not have the right to discriminate. They are being paid for by people of all religions & none, and should behave accordingly.

2 - Why cant the Catholics who wish to discriminate, establish their own schools? The existing publicly funded school system must remain open & non-discriminatory.

And finally, Catholic school or not, policies which discriminate against students based on their being pregnant, or already a parent, are simply unchristian.

You do know that most schools were established by Catholics don't you?

jen84

eviltwin wrote: »

I hope they name and shame the school. I was a teenage parent 15 years ago and never had to deal with any crap like this. I would have thought those attitudes were long gone.

I don't get it, okay so its a "sin" to have sex outside marriage, its not a sin to have a baby though, the sin is in having sex so in theory anyone in that school who is sexually active should be booted out.

And nowhere does it say in the bible or is it preached by the church that people who commit sin should be treated like outcasts.

She is entitled to an education. People give out about single parents claiming benefits and here is a girl who wants to get on in life being told NO. Beggars believe.

I completely agree, I actually can't believe that people are siding with the school in this case. I can't believe that a school principle in this day and age would make such derogatory comments about a young 16 year old girl (or child even!).

I have no children myself but as with most people I know I was sexually active as as a teen and I can't believe people are so judgemental about someone who falls pregnant. I have the upmost respect for young single mothers and to be honest any of my friends who fell pregnant young are fabulous mothers! Being mothers has pretty much been our role as women since time began so to condemn women for doing just that boggles the mind!!

Fair play to the girl for wanting to get herself properly educated. I mean people give out about single mothers on benefits and here she is been shunned from education so she can better her circumstances in the future. I really don't understand some of these religious people! God wants us to be kind to each other for gods sake!

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

i haven't filled in any gaps nor do i have any prejudices in regard to this situation. As I've said, we don't know the full story so i don't think it's right to judge anyone..

Yet we do have the principals correspondence as referred to in the report. We do not have any information regarding the girl. Going against the declared reasoning of the school principal, and disregarding the lack of any claim whatsoever about the young woman you come out with the following -

"We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse."

"The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78422800&postcount=278

Actually the reasons only say she could not settle. This could easily mean she was being bullied or she was a pyromaniac psychopath. ....

"Well if she dropped out because she got involved with a violent drug dealing gang the principal would be right to use any means to keep her out of his school...."

"You wouldn't think that if you had a child in the school and the new girl sitting beside her had a very dark past..."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78426166&postcount=360

....you might do well to sample your own advice. And no, the little caveats do not cover it.

MagicSean wrote: »

What I've said quite a few times now is that there is not enough information and background given to make a fully informed opinion on either of them and it isn't right to make a judgement on the situation.

So the Ombudsmans report is incomplete or unfinished? Or are you saying its inaccurate? Certainly as far as I can detect this is the finished document. If you've definitive evidence to the contrary, or have evidence that this report is in someway inaccurate, please do present it.

micropig

hondasam wrote: »

Regardless his replies which we have read are pure ignorant and I would expect better from a school principle tbh.

Agree, his approach and response to this situation is unacceptable, but who would of though, a teacher, out of touch with the real world....this comes as no surprise to me... the department of Education should have kicked his ass years ago, when they first discovered the set-up.

hondasam wrote: »

I don't think any school gives a book list to see what expense is involved or suggests buying a uniform either but maybe her parents were not there but I would imagine one parent would have to be at the meeting.

Maybe, maybe not..the report seems to indicate that only she met with the principal..which would be strange

omega666

MagicSean wrote: »

You do know that most schools were established by Catholics don't you?

not to mention owned and maintained by the RCC

k.p.h

MagicSean wrote: »

You do know that most schools were established by Catholics don't you?

Burn ..

PrincessLola

You better not kill that fetus its a real human life!!



Oh you didn't kill it?
Stop leeching off welfare and expecting equal treatment in education you little whore!!!!

Nodin

micropig wrote: »

She reports ....( ).accepted?

Did you bother reading the report? Because your posts don't reflect that.

omega666 wrote:

there is no need to justify anything. Schools are allowed by the state to set their own admission policy and every school reserves the right to refuse admission. A school is not obliged to take any student.

...a situation that will be changed by next year, by the looks of things.

However, Ms Logan said the spirit of the Education Act is about accessibility and access, and that the principal did not operate in adherence with that.
Ms Logan found that the school's actions adversely affected the girl in question, were improperly discriminatory, were based on undesirable administrative practice and were contrary to fair and sound administration.
The Ombudsman said the Department of Education has taken the response to her recommendations very seriously and said that the absence of legislation dealing with enrolment is being addressed.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0430/teenage-girl-refused-school-place-over-pregnancy.html

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

Some people cannot accept that a Catholic school has the right to remain a Catholic school.

Why can the anti-Catholics not establish their own schools? Their schools could accept this young woman.

HEEEEEEEres Crucamin with the usual persecution complex and paranoia.
How is being anti discrimination equated with being anti catholic exactly?
This school may be catholic but it certainly isnt Christian!

Cedrus

omega666 wrote: »

not to mention owned and maintained by the RCC

So what does the RCC do with the subvention from the Dept of Education if they're so generous with their own money?

micropig

PrincessLola wrote: »

You better not kill that fetus its a real human life!!



Oh you didn't kill it?
Stop leeching off welfare and expecting equal treatment in education you little whore!!!!

I'm not religious, but Irish people have brought these kind of situations on themselves

don't believe in religion / Not a practising catholic:
Have a baby.......get it baptised because you have to get your child in to school
Get married in a church...it's the culture (collect the monies)
first communions..collect the monies
conformation..collect the monies
Send you child in to a catholic school, instead of demanding the state provides you with alternatives
declare yourself a catholic on the census..so the state can see there is not need for alternative schools



But if someone points out the hypocrisy of your lifestyle in relation to your 'religion' and actually comments you behaviour is not in keeping with catholic beliefs and what the pope says...well, run them out of the country

Nodin

micropig wrote: »

I'm not religious, but Irish people have brought these kind of situations on themselves

......

Not if you're under 18, you haven't.

k.p.h

steddyeddy wrote: »

ireland's particular prejudice seems to lie with single mothers.

While this particular case is troubling and I don't think any school should be allowed to discriminate against anyone. I will admit to finding it hard not to fall into the trap of believing the single mother stereotype.

I think maybe the particular reason I find this hard is because I live in a town full of them. Estates full of them, ques of prams outside the post office with the obligatory fag hanging out of the mouth.

I do force myself to take every case on it's own merits, I have friends who are single mothers and I know plenty who do a great job parenting. Hopefully the girl in question will do a great job and her keeping education to the forefront of her life is admirable.

But the single mother stereotype like all stereotypes is grounded somewhere.

It's far from ideal, but again prejudice and discrimination are not the answer.

PrincessLola

micropig wrote: »

I'm not religious, but Irish people have brought these kind of situations on themselves

don't believe in religion / Not a practising catholic:
Have a baby.......get it baptised because you have to get your child in to school
Get married in a church...it's the culture (collect the monies)
first communions..collect the monies
conformation..collect the monies
Send you child in to a catholic school, instead of demanding the state provides you with alternatives
declare yourself a catholic on the census..so the state can see there is not need for alternative schools



But if someone points out the hypocrisy of your lifestyle in relation to your 'religion' and actually comments you behaviour is not in keeping with catholic beliefs and what the pope says...well, run them out of the country

monies from relatives, not the Catholic Church. So irrelevent

The church doesn't do jack****, all the Catholic schools are funded by us, the taxpayer.

These 'Catholic' schools are the real hypocrites. God forbid they show compassion to a young mother, compassion, you know, what Jesus would have done. That might actually be a Christian thing to do :eek:

Nope can't have that, lets shame young women (no mention of the father of the child, and whether he's allowed to stay in school)

MagicSean

Nodin wrote: »

Yet we do have the principals correspondence as referred to in the report. We do not have any information regarding the girl. Going against the declared reasoning of the school principal, and disregarding the lack of any claim whatsoever about the young woman you come out with the following -

"We have no idea why this girl is looking for her third secondary school or how she got pregnant. She could be a career scumbag or a victim of bullying and abuse."

"The school might have a very good reason for not wanting the girl in the school and may only be using the pregnancy as justification because there are no other grounds for exclusion which apply."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78422800&postcount=278

Actually the reasons only say she could not settle. This could easily mean she was being bullied or she was a pyromaniac psychopath. ....

"Well if she dropped out because she got involved with a violent drug dealing gang the principal would be right to use any means to keep her out of his school...."

"You wouldn't think that if you had a child in the school and the new girl sitting beside her had a very dark past..."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78426166&postcount=360

....you might do well to sample your own advice. And no, the little caveats do not cover it.

From the posts you quoted I clearly give two completely different possibilities for what the girl might be like yet you focus on only the negative ones and say that I am making assumptions about her? Clearly I amn't as I am giving two polar opposite possibilities.

Nodin wrote: »

So the Ombudsmans report is incomplete or unfinished? Or are you saying its inaccurate? Certainly as far as I can detect this is the finished document. If you've definitive evidence to the contrary, or have evidence that this report is in someway inaccurate, please do present it.

There's loads of stufff it doesn't cover, particularly in regard to the girls past and circumstances. That's evident to anyone.

Nodin

MagicSean wrote: »

From the posts you quoted I clearly give two completely different possibilities for what the girl might be like yet you focus on only the negative ones and say that I am making assumptions about her? Clearly I amn't as I am giving two polar opposite possibilities.

Why do you presume that there may be some 'dark side' with no basis for it?

Why, for the love of all fuckery, would you introduce such derogatory speculation on no grounds whatsoever while at the same time urging people not to judge a party on statements that clearly indicate their line of reasoning? It defies all reason.

MagicSean wrote: »

There's loads of stufff it doesn't cover, particularly in regard to the girls past and circumstances. That's evident to anyone.

(...let's see...it doesn't cover whether the mother is a closet satanist...doesn't say she isn't one certainly....doesn't say the child wasn't convicted of murder carried out in a form consistent with ritual sacrifice....)

And by that "logic" you introduce the notion that there may be an invisible pink unicorn in the room, and that people should run off and prove conclusively it's not there.

The principal gave reasons why he did not want that student in the school. Do please give a reason why we should discount their own words, and why we should even suspect the teenage girl of being some form of 'dubious' character.

prinz

PrincessLola wrote: »

The church doesn't do jack****, all the Catholic schools are funded by us, the taxpayer.

LOL. Apart from in the vast majority of schools, provide the land, provide funds to build them, provide funds to help run them etc etc.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/education/primary_and_post_primary_education/going_to_primary_school/ownership_of_primary_schools.html

steddyeddy

omega666 wrote: »

not to mention owned and maintained by the RCC

Jesus is this a joke? Really is it? The same rcc who protected peadophiles in this country for decades? The very same who treated single mothers like animals in the laundries and the same ones that made our country a laughing stock. I dont care which organization runs what they have no right what ever to discriminate.