Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

hoodie6029

Anyone here have an idea of what 6 figure sum Enoch has just added to his bill (that he’ll never pay anyway)?
https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2024/07/18/enoch-burke-must-pay-newspapers-costs-of-successfully-defending-his-defamation-claim/

L1011

One advantage (for everyone else, not the debtor) of having a pile of unpaid court debt is that someone you attempt to sue in future can ask the judge for surety against costs; and on failing to get it, have the case kicked out.

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122397395#Comment_122397395

Well, he'll just appeal the amount, whatever it is,and on we go again.

hoodie6029

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122397398#Comment_122397398

So when he is dismissed eventually and inevitably appeals that decision to Court, the Department or Wilson’s can ask for surety and very possibly end this farce? Nice.

Babyreignbow

https://www.thejournal.ie/devoid-of-merit-enoch-burke-loses-high-court-order-against-order-to-stay-away-from-school-6441570-Jul2024/

Nicely summed up

“As it happened, I released Mr Burke from prison on 28 June 2024 notwithstanding that he had continued to refuse to purge his contempt. I reminded him that the order of Owens J remains valid, and that he must comply with it.

“He has been imprisoned because he chooses not to obey the order of the court – the very same court which he now expects to come to his aid and uphold his allegations of breach of his constitutional rights, notwithstanding his refusal to contest the original trial or to appeal the judgment of the court.”

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122397395#Comment_122397395

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122401789#Comment_122401789

He's not having a good week, is he?

Hotblack Desiato

He's not having a great life, is he?

Hibernicis

Mammy Burke’s in-house barrack-room lawyering service isn’t having a great 2024, all things considered

“Journalist” Jemima’s public order conviction at an “emergency” sitting of the District Court in Ballina following another episode in her rather bizarre targeting of Mayo University Hospital

Sacked solicitor Ammi running out of road in her action against the WRC (and indirectly Arthur Cox) when her appeal to the Court of Appeal was thrown out after noting that her behaviour was “utterly appalling and egregious” and despite professing to take her duties as an officer to the court very seriously she “repeatedly indulges in the most contemptuous conduct when before the court in a deliberate and premeditated manner”. Ammi was also ordered to pay the legal costs incurred in the Court of Appeal by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and her former employer Arthur Cox. It remains to be see whether or not Ammi decides to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, no prizes for guessing how far that will get.

Enoch’s ongoing crusade against Wilson’s Hospital not going his way in any shape, make or form with sequestration of his assets looming

Enoch losing his defamation case against Mediahuis and having costs, include reserved costs and the costs of the court dealing with written submissions, awarded against him

The one ray of light was Simeon getting his 2023 conviction on a public order offence overturned, albeit having been despatched from the high court in a most unbecoming and undignified manner, before his career as a barrister ever got off the ground

At this juncture that’s at least three of them virtually unemployable in this country with at least Simeon, Dr Isaac and Josiah also “tainted” by their various interventions. Which just leaves Elijah, Esther, Keren and Kezia staying out of the limelight at present

What a sad waste of talent and intelligence with precious little either temporal or spiritual to show for their carry-on apart from contempt and ridicule

Ezeoul

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122402223#Comment_122402223

Maybe he'll get his reward in the next one.

salmocab

as far as they are concerned I’d say they think everything is going great they get exposure, the aul one gets to shriek like a banshee on the telly occasionally and everyone knows who they are, despite the obvious intelligence of them they are too stupid to see they have thrown their lives away to do mammys bidding, something I’d suspect a god would actually be annoyed about if they have given them gifts.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122402613#Comment_122402613

If they belive that this is God's kingdom why are they so contemptuous of it?

Something something OT bible quote something something valley of tears something something.

aloyisious

Here's a UK high court ruling on a case brought against a teacher there for his personal actions against a transgender pupil at his school based on his personal Christian beliefs. On the way court cases decided on in other jurisdictions can be taken and accepted as guidance [precedence-wise] it POSSIBLY could have a relevance to Enoch Burke's continuance in his profession here. It would be helpful if some-one with proper legal professional knowledge took a long look at the UK ruling to see if it could be seen as such by judge/s here when they are obliged to make rulings on similar cases here. Click on the MSN tag below for the newspaper ruling report.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/teacher-banned-over-misgendering-pupil-loses-high-court-appeal/ar-BB1qCru1?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=c3b5ba0c219a4bd29652868ec23d5a0c&ei=90

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427757#Comment_122427757

For the millionth time. Burke wasn't sacked for his views on transgenderism. It was for public harassment of his principal followed by refusal to engage in the disciplinary process and then jail for contempt.

Hotblack Desiato

He said Mr Sutcliffe did not accept “that his right to manifest and express his religious convictions might have to be balanced against his professional duties to treat children with dignity and respect and to safeguard their wellbeing”.

This one is much futher down the line though - Enoch hasn't been definitively dismissed yet, never mind sanctioned by the teaching regulator.

However Enoch hasn't done anything of this sort, afawk:

"Rather, it is about a teacher who deliberately used female pronouns to refer to a transgender male pupil both in the classroom and then on national television in such a way that he would be “outed” without any apparent regard for a vulnerable child who was thereby caused significant distress.

“Further, it is about a teacher who told his class that homosexuality is a sin and implied that homosexuals might be cured through God without any apparent regard for the gay and lesbian children in his class and who made them feel that their teacher regarded them as worthless."

It must be emphasised yet again though that Enoch was not disciplined and ultimately dismissed (subject to appeal) because of his views on transgenderism, or his use or non-use of pronouns or names, but his conduct at a school religious service towards the then principal and his refusal to remain away from the school premises when suspended as a result of that conduct.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427822#Comment_122427822

The question then is: was not his abuse of the school principal a direct continuance by Burke of the row over his refusal to comply with the school instruction to use the pupils chosen pronouns when he was addressing the pupil [on the basis that his religious beliefs forbade him doing so] - that his indiscipline began with his refusal to comply with school policy?

That is what I understood to be at the centre of the row between Burke and the school from the start. I took it to be a taken that Burke would have to use a/some pronoun when [as needed] he was addressing the pupil other than the pronoun chosen by the pupil [the school having agreed with the pupil on that].

Without us rowing amongst ourselves about the origins of Burkes sacking, it seems to me that the similarity between the two cases is that the teacher in both cases decided to use the pronoun he chose when addressing the transgender pupil concerned, instead of the one chosen by the pupil as agreed to by the school and included in instructions from the school to the schools teachers on how to address transgender pupils.

The UK court has simply taken away from the UK teacher his teachers licence because of his treatment of the pupil in refusing to address that pupil as required by the school. They seem to have found an alternative legal route for the law to resolve the problem created by the teacher with his claim that his personal religious beliefs trumped his requirements to comply with and obey the schools policies on matters transgender and on discipline in the school.

1. Does Ireland have a teaching profession regulator and 2. can it legally sanction Burke and remove his teaching licence until such time as he chooses to comply with the legal staff obligations he has towards Wilsons Hospital School policies towards its pupils - let alone the teaching profession here itself [conduct bringing the profession into disrepute] thereby removing from him any legal grounds to being present at any time within the school property and grounds?

Pardon the number of edits I've made in the first hour as I've had thoughts on the topic due to your inputs in your posts above and below…

sydthebeat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428249#Comment_122428249

Enoch has already used the pronoun to describe the student.

A student he didn't teach, by the way

erlichbachman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427822#Comment_122427822

The are both entwined, to portray otherwise is just ignorance.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428293#Comment_122428293

He shouted at the principal at a school event... So nope, that's the issue and he failed to approach the issue in the correct way. He wanted it to be high profile basically so got himself in as much trouble as possible...

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428272#Comment_122428272

I had read somewhere in the distant past that he had done so but most of what has passed since then seemed to centre on the religious rights aspect [as defined publicly and advantageously by the family Burke to the waiting READER] not to have to do so. What was the specific item of disagreement he had with the principal then that lead him to have a row with the principal at the school assembly - apart from the principal standing on a point of principle that the teaching staff must comply with the schools board policies - leading to his being dismissed from the school teaching staff and all else since then….

I do suppose that Burke may have started a snowball rolling that he cannot stop now due to pressure from the family to stand by what he started. Can it all be down to a disagreement between two parts of one belief?

Again. pardon my editing….

Morris Garren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428249#Comment_122428249

There a regulator of teachers: it's called 'The Teaching Council' set up around 20 years ago. It's reputation as a regulator gets mixed reviews.

It has the ability to remove teachers from the register of qualified teachers, although the journey to have somebody 'struck off' is long, arduous and at times bordering on ridiculous. Some appalling actions by deeply unprofessional individuals have taken numerous years to see a conclusion. And I'm not speaking of violent or sexually malicious actions, which have criminal components. It's actually quite rare for a teacher to be sanctioned but it does happen.

As for EB, I can't see the Teaching Council revoking his licence to teach actually--- contemptible behaviour and acting like a religious maniac or zealot is unlikely to see him removed. Personally, I woukd kick him out fairly quickly given his nonsensical, hubristic and disruptive carry-on outside the school, but I don't run the Teaching Council.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428249#Comment_122428249

thereby removing from him any legal grounds to being present at any time within the school property and grounds?

Having been ordered by the Courts already to stay away from the school, he has no legal right to be there at any time regardless of the decision of any Teaching Council Inquiry, which would be a separate matter -

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/8/section/47/enacted/en/html

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428249#Comment_122428249

No similarity and if you want to know why it has been answered on this thread over and over every time some "I'm not a fan of Burke but" poster tries to make this about him being sacked over pronouns.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122427822#Comment_122427822

Exactly - at no point is ANY of the proceedings thus far has there been any discussion about the limits of Religious freedom vs. Equality legislation etc. because rather than follow that path via the official Grievance process available in the Department of Education , Enoch decided it would be better to just roar abuse at his boss at a public event and then stage a sit-in/ stand outside protest when he was suspended for that behaviour.

None of those other cases have the slightest relevance to the Enoch Burka case.

His case is EXCLUSIVELY about a guy who publicly abused his employer and then refused to accept the subsequent disciplinary actions.

aloyisious

I googled for info on the row between Burke and the Principal and found this excerpt of high court proceedings over the row. This is from an RTE report of the evidence given by the former principal on the events at the school including the particular mass service at the school where it was interrupted by Burke and she was directly addressed by Burke at the time on the issue of the instruction issued by the school to it's teaching staff on the issue of transgender pupils and what Burke called transgenderism….. This a is the RTE link to its report…. https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=70a11cb2304b7e2eJmltdHM9MTcyMTk1MjAwMCZpZ3VpZD0wNGY1NWYyZi1lNDBjLTYxMDgtMTM3OS00YjlmZTU0MTYwOWUmaW5zaWQ9NTUxNQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=04f55f2f-e40c-6108-1379-4b9fe541609e&psq=what+was+the+row+enoch+burke+had+with+his+school+principal&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucnRlLmllL25ld3MvY291cnRzLzIwMjMvMDMyOS8xMzY3MDAxLWVub2NoLWJ1cmtlLw&ntb=1

I've copied and pasted the first few paras of the reporters report below to give the gist of the spoken words given in evidence by the school principal in/to the court….. To do so with the entire report would take up too much space here so the link is above for the full length report….

The former principal of Wilson's Hospital Secondary School in Co Westmeath has said she was embarrassed for herself and absolutely horrified for a student when teacher Enoch Burke publicly accused her of trying to get teachers in the school to "accept transgenderism".

Niamh McShane was giving evidence in the case being taken by the school against Mr Burke.

Mr Burke is not present in court and it is not clear if he is listening to the proceedings online. He was ordered to leave the court yesterday by the judge after refusing to accept a ruling of the judge and continuing to disrupt proceedings.

This afternoon, Ms McShane was asked about a church service on 21 June last year. The service was to celebrate the 260th anniversary of the school and to honour those who had given service to the school. There was to be a presentation to former teachers and a dinner afterwards.

In the previous month, Ms McShane had sent an email to all teachers in the school asking them to address a student by a new name and with gender neutral pronouns. Mr Burke had said she was trying to force the teachers to "accept transgenderism" and had told her she should withdraw her request, which he described as a demand.

By the time of the church service Ms McShane had received emails from Mr Burke on the issue, and it had been discussed at a staff meeting, and at a separate meeting with Mr Burke and the deputy principal.

Ms McShane said the church service was attended by parents, pupils, past pupils, members of the clergy, teachers and former teachers. She said she had no notice that Mr Burke was going to say anything.

Morris Garren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428518#Comment_122428518

I've read all the above, all of which has more or less been repeated ad nauseum for about 2 years now. I don't see what point, if any, you are making. We can all use Google ourselves

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122366845#Comment_122366845

It is not that simple. We live in a predominantly Christian part of the world, so expecting it will not have some impact on social and political life is unrealistic. For instance here in Switzerland there is supposed to be not religion in state schools and so religious education is done outside school hours, but that does not prevent them from holding christmas concerts, Easter parades, learning religions and the big one - St. Martin's Day, where they make the turnip lanterns in school for the parade in the evening! …. so the education still has a predominant Christian flavour.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428565#Comment_122428565

The fact that, to Burke, what he terms transgenderism is at the centre of his dispute with the school as he is opposed to the acceptance by the school [amongst its policies] of pupils requested use of identity pronouns by staff when addressing said pupils, hence his approaches to the principal.

Some of the responses to my post about the UK court ruling against a UK teacher have included mention that Burke's refusal to comply with school policy of addressing a transgender pupil by the pupils chosen pronoun was not at the centre of the row Burke has with the school, that the row was about the way he addressed the principal publicly. There is enough evidence available to conclude that the issue of transgenderism [to use his own term] is at the heart of that row.

I posted mention of the UK court ruling to get a response [as I said] on whether a similar approach could be used against Burke here.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428692#Comment_122428692

What Burke thinks the reasons for his legal issues are; and what they actually are are not the same

The UK judgement is not relevant as his legal issues are not connected.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428692#Comment_122428692

It may be at the centre of his dispute , but his actions have meant that that substantive issue has never once been formally addressed.

He did indeed send some emails and have a meeting with his boss , but what he did not do was lodge a formal grievance which would have initiated a whole process to review the issue and arrive at a conclusion.

Instead he chose to disrupt the school event and then ignore the formal disciplinary process (which he would have signed up to when he accepted the post) and ended up where we are today.

Following those emails/meetings he could have chosen open a formal grievance with the Dept. and followed the road there.

He could even have acknowledged the suspension and disciplinary process that followed and used that formal process to have his position reviewed , but he didn't.

He simply decided "I'm right , everyone else is wrong, I'm just going to do exactly what I want and that's that".

Everything that has happened to Enoch Burke is as a direct result of his belligerent refusal to acknowledge the existence of any rules and laws that he does not like.

aloyisious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122428712#Comment_122428712

Agreed on first sentence: His legal issues of his presence at the school are with the courts as he was not complying with court orders to stay away and from the school and inform the court that he would comply with it's orders, in line with his train of thoughts of obedience to a higher edict, as he sees it.

On the UK court ruling, debate and feedback on the possibility about similar being applied here to solve the problem he created for the teaching profession here with his adherence to a higher authority over the rules used by the profession was why I posted mention of the UK COURT RULING.