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

Yes, as have the kids. They wrote a letter to him which the coward refused to read. Can you imagine how the poor child feels? Afraid, intimidated, distressed?

He has been arrested before for criminal trespass.

Again, this is very very simple, we have a cult member with a history of aggression and the cult he is member of a history of violence and intimidation who has spent 400+ days incarcerated trespassing serially in a school with 100s of children.

Our child safety particularly around schools are over engineered for a reason. We have no idea what he is capable of, therefore he should be nowhere near any school.

This is not tough to understand, anyone else would have been dragged out there.

I am surprised a parent hasn't done it.

Have you a link to where the DPP published and explained their decision not to prosecute?

There isn't any. This isn't a very hard law to understand.

The reason not to prosecute was cowardice. Pure and simple.

The process of confirming his sacking needs to be completed. If he doesn't show up, tough.

Then the school need to withdraw their civil case. Make this criminal like it should have been in the first place.

Then the DPP need to their job. By not doing it they are given Burke exactly what he wants.

ah I caught Josie boys video on FB, they sure do mention constitution a lot. Odd for a crowd that want to put their god before everything.

Google is your friend.

You went to the trouble of linking the legislation, you have explained how the DPP errored in their interpretation, and their opinion that the ingredients for a prosecution don’t exist.

Trespassing laws, how they are implemented and interrupted is certainly relevant considering Burke was literally arrested for it.

Burke was arrested but the DPP decided not to prosecute and despite what you or I think about their decision, they are invested with the authority to make those calls. That's their job.

At the time of his arrest, Burke hadn't yet been sacked and the injunction against him wasn't a permanent one, which may also have been a factor in the DPP's decision.

Once the dismissal process is complete, the game changes, and (as I understand it) he could then be charged with an offence of trespass if he breaks the permanent injunction again.

Moving on.

oh god yeah the DPP is I’m sure terrified of Burke.

I mean they’ve directed charges at criminal gangs and their leaders but Burke family? Too scary.

Is it likely perhaps that they just didn’t find there was enough evidence to pursue charges?

What makes you think he would be acquitted?

By the time it got to trial it would be multiple arrests for trespass plus a revoking of bail.

On what grounds would a judge not find him guilty?

His defence will be his family screaming like banshees and he blurting out transgender nonsense, you do realise who we are dealing with here right?

Jesus wept, it’s not me who doesn’t think the ingredients are there to convict him, it’s the DPP’s opinion/decision.

they just didn’t find there was enough evidence to pursue charges

Yes. It is a very simple question. What evidence would they need to "find" to pursue a conviction for trespass?

Again, here is the legislation. It's not complicated.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/13/enacted/en/html

Why do I think he would be acquitted if tried for criminal trespass?

Because the DPP have said the ingredients aren’t there to bring a prosecution for criminal trespass?

Was that not obvious?

No. It's contempt of court, and punishable as such, but it's not inherently a criminal offence.

(Obviously, depending on the circumstances, the particular act that breaches the court order may also be a criminal offence in itself — e.g. if there's a court order telling me to stay away from you and I violate it by breaking into your house and assaulting you, those acts are crimes. But they would be crimes even without the court order.)

Following a case and understanding a case are clearly very different.

WHS followed A procedure, that doesn’t make it lawful.

In order to follow a procedure there needs to be a policy, one that has been shared with and understood by employees and it needs to be lawful.

There was no pronoun policy in place. Why? Because there was and is no law in Ireland that provides for suspension from a workplace for refusing to use pronouns.

There was no just cause for disciplinary action initially and the original suspension was unlawful. Refusal to follow orders from the head in this instance isn't applicable, no more had he refused to clean the toilets.

They did not follow procedure, because there was none. He had done nothing unlawful at that stage.

Collete Colfer - why was she not suspended even WITH a so called gender pronoun policy in place?

Cue silence…….

Burke wasn't suspended because he refused to use pronouns. He was suspended because he interrupted school events —specifically, a church service — to air his grievances and proclaim his views, and because, separately, he pursued and harassed the school principal for the same purpose.

The substantive content of Burke's views about transgender issues and the appropriate way to relate to, and speak to, transgender people is irrelevant to his suspension. No employer needs a "pronoun policy" in order to discipline an employee behaving in this fashion. if Collette Colfer every did anything remotely like what Burke did, I never heard about it. This answers your question as to why she was not suspended.

The statement that "the original suspension was unlawful" is without foundation. No court or tribunal has found at any state that it was unlawful. On the contrary, the High Court has found that . . .

The school principal and Board acted in accordance with their obligations under Enoch Burke’s employment contract in initiating and conducting the process which led to suspension of his employment as a teacher.

. . . and that . . .

The Board is entitled to a declaration that the decision on 22 August 2022 to put Enoch Burke on paid administrative leave was lawful.

I don't know who has told you that the suspension was unlawful but, a wild guess says that it was the same person who told you that he was suspended because he "refused to use pronouns". Whoever it was, you should definitely stop listening to them; they are lying to you.