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

I'll be honest. If there was a minimum donation of 1c, I'd be tempted to donate it just so I could leave a message telling him where he can stick it.

looks like the school were the ones that wanted the they/them pronouns used, not the family of the student involved.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/parent-of-transgender-student-in-enoch-burke-row-expresses-safety-concern-for-their-family-42390736.html

Its entirely possible the child lied to the parents about all of this. Maybe the parents reaction might have been negative as well?

It's not unusual for the recollections of different people who attended the same meeting to be different — in fact it's pretty common. That doesn't mean that one of them is being "less than honest".

And the point about the parents of the student concerned "not having a problem with Burke" is not really relevant. The court proceedings and associated contempt order arise because the school has a problem with Burke and his behaviour Burke, I think, would say that his problem is first and foremost with the school and the instructions they gave him.

It's desparately unfortunate for the student and their family that they have been caught up on this, and quite possibly — I'm not in a position to say — the school could have done more to keep them informed and, so far as possible, protect them. But none of that is (as you point out) really relevant to the dispute between the school and Burke.

I can’t read the whole article, if they didn’t want to be called they, then what? He, she, it? Just a name change? 😳

It is entirely possible that the child never requested to be called they/them in front of the parents but did so separately.

Yeah but it has been clarified

There is no indication that the parents are in any way uncomfortable with their child’s gender, that there is any disagreement between them about gender, or that they are back-pedalling.

From the way I read it, the email is from one parent and not both and only one parent attended the meeting in question so it’s also possible that the parents are not being honest with each other? We won’t be privy to those details obviously but if Enoch had just followed the orders and let the courts deal with it, he wouldn’t be in this position. He was still being paid on suspension so he wasn’t losing out.

It’s just not adding up. If your child just wanted to change their name, would all these meetings be necessary? No, you change it legally and inform the school. Someone in this has been left out of the loop.

Only once in all our kids school years did both my wife and I attend the same meeting/ parents-teacher day, we both work, so only one took time off to attend.

You are making up your own narrative now to insinuate that both parents may not be supportive of their child.

Which is why post includes the word “meeting” as well as the parent-teachers. Doesn’t change the fact that if both parents work, both may not be able to attend. So reading anything into the fact that only one attended, or insinuating that it is an indication of strife, seems odd.

It’s not really odd to be fair. If it was just a name change as this parent is suggesting, why all the meetings? Also, a school would not take it upon themselves to decide the child is to be referred to as “they/them”. That’s a huge step and I would hope that it wouldn’t be done without at least one parent in agreement. The legal implications would be huge otherwise. It’s just not adding up!

Again, you are making your own narrative. The parent was clear about why the meeting was scheduled. If it was scheduled for the topic you claim it was, you would have to ask why the Principal didn’t make time for the student/parent at the meeting. Why you have now turned your focus on the parents and insinuations related to non support and marital strife is beyond comprehension.

”However, the parent said in the email to Mr Milling they wished to be clear that the purpose of the meeting was to “re-engage [their child] back to school”. The parent also said that while the child had requested to go by a new name, “the they/them pronoun came from Wilson’s” and there was no principal or deputy principal at the meeting.”

Does it matter who requested what? It's utterly irrelevant to the core of this case. Enoch Burke didn't agree with a request from his employer. It doesn't matter who said what in the run-up to the request. He disagreed with what was being asked of him, which he's within his rights to do. But instead of pursuing his grievance through the relevant channels, he chose to make his thoughts known to all and sundry in a very public way. I've read the court document which describes his outburst at the church ceremony and how he confronted his principal. If he didn't realise there and then that he'd blown up his career, he would've done once they suspended him and told him there'd be a disciplinary hearing. He was trying to stop it going ahead prior to the infamous "Where's John Rogers" incident, which suggests he knew his goose was cooked.