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

Seriously? Being arrested for an offence is not evidence of guilt of that offence. Being bailed on a charge of an offence is not evidence of guilt of that offence. Breaching the terms of that bail is not evidence of guilt of that offence. Having insane and disruptive relatives is not evidence of guilt of that offence.

Huh?

Being arrested multiple times for the same offence and having your bail revoked because you can't stop committing the same crime would lend highly to the possibility of a conviction.

No one suggested being arrested automatically means a conviction, you made that up for some reason.

Absolutely not; no amount of arrests for an offence are evidence that you have committed the offence. Nor is breach of bail conditions evidence that you committed the offence for which you were arrested and then bailed.

I'm not trying to refute the notion that an arrrest means an automatic conviction; I'm pointing out that an arrest isn't any kind of evidence of guilt at all.

The courts have strict rules for what is admissible as evidence. The fact that you were arrested for an offence is absolutely not evidence that you are guilty of that offence — it has precisely zero probative value. Nor is the fact that you were arrested for, or even convicted of, the same offence committed on other occasions.

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

Yes, you can follow the case and not understand it, as your post clearly shows.

I'm not trying to make the legislation complicated; I'm just pointing out that it says what it says, and you can't ignore it and hope to get a conviction on the grounds that the defendant has been arrested and his family are all mad.

And @Hoboo disappears without a trace when the lies are pointed out

Well, no - because WHS did actually have a policy in place, one of inclusivity for all students, and they did follow it. Again, to the letter.

You seem to be forgetting or wilfully ignoring the small matter of the student's legal rights under the Equality Acts and/or the Gender Recognition Act and the school's obligations to the student under those Acts, or should they have ignored them to satisfy Mr Burke's demands?

Notably, this also wasn't the first instance of a non-binary student requesting to use a different name or prounoun in WHS, or the first time the school's had issued such a request to staff on behalf of a non-binary student - yet it was the first time EB objected to it.

If you'd followed the case, you'd know this was all part of the testimony given by the then Principal at the case heard in March last year.

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

On this I agree. You clearly do not understand this case and what actually happened, if you still believe EB's suspension and dismissal is anything to do with "pronouns" or "transgender issues" or anything other than his own behaviour.

Several High Court judges have also made this very clear at this stage, but some, like yourself are still beating the "pronouns" drum.

His defence on a trespass prosecution will be that he broke no law, the DPP appears to agree with him, or at least is uncertain.

The pronoun Trans-ideology issue at Wilsons Hospital is an interesting one, (and I know this is not the actual reason for him being put behind bars), but if you listen closely to the rantings of the Burke family you will notice that their Christian views closely match the teaching of the Christian Church, with Mrs B 'megaphone 📣 in hand' shouting God created man & woman, there are only two sexes, male & female, non-binary doesn't exist, men cannot turn into women, neither can women turn into men, down with Transgenderism etc etc, etc, as we've all witnessed on the news …….

Now, iterestingly the School (CofI) also seems to fully signed up to the belief in Gender-ideology, and therefore you have a clash of beliefs, a clash of realities, a clash of Ethos between Christianity & Trans-ideology, which are not really compatible.

I can only presume this is where Enoch & Co are concentrating their efforts, not that it will do them any good, because (as I stated in the beginning), the gender pronoun clash is NOT why he is in trouble, and NOT why he was dismissed from the school, but its noteworthy nonetheless.

I think that's what she shouts about. A belief that you may have been "assigned" the wrong body, hence you become the opposite sex or non binary they/them, (neither male nor female).

… but you know this anyway.

Will he turn up at the school gates again in September? That is the question 🤔

I think you will find a Garda stating that he/she found one in the act of trespass would be evidence, as would the Garda statement that the person did not obey an instruction to leave in the first place, of the offence of trespass and not part of the crime of trespass. At/On/At/I was/I saw/I did.

A Garda would be silly to base statements of evidence given in court on opinion. Just small points in law.

Just on the aforementioned Collette Colfer, she is a South East Technological University lecturer.

She's also a religious scholar and anti-transgender activist who considers gender identity a religion.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/it-should-be-a-choice-setu-drops-legal-threat-in-gender-pronoun-policy-1716964

Basically, like Enoch, she had issues with her schools policy regarding the trans/gender identity issue.

However, unlike Enoch, she raised objections/concerns about it through the proper formal adult channels and the school amended the policy to take account of her views.

He did indeed. I don’t condone his actions after the initial suspension.

Which was for refusal to call a student by their new chosen name and pronouns.

Which had and has no basis in law for suspension of any kind from employment.

Burke was not suspended for refusing to call a student by their preferred pronouns.

REad that again and try very hard to understand it. Burke was not suspended for refusing to call a student by their preferred pronouns.

The actions you don't condone, the actions you refer as "his actions after the initial suspension", were not taken after his initial suspension. They were taken before his initial suspension. They were the reason for his initial suspension.

Somebody has told you that Burke was suspended for refusing to use a student's preferred pronouns. That person is lying to you. You should not be so credulous.

(For the record: we don't know that Burke ever did refuse to use the student's preferred pronouns. The student was not in any of Burke's classes; he was not their form master and had no particular pastoral responsibility for them. While there could obviously have been some casual interaction between them, there equally might not have been; there was no reason for it. SFAIK there have been no reports of any occasion on which Burke referred to the student by their non-preferred pronouns.)

See? I knew you hadn't read the legislation you quoted.

The elements of the trespass offence (in subsection (1)) are:

• trespass
• without reasonable excuse
• on a building or the curtilage of a building
• in a manner that causes or is likely to cause fear
• in another person

Not elements of the offence:

• being arrested
• being repeatedly arrested
• breaching bail conditions
• having mad relatives
• having a chaotic or disordered defence
• "guard's opinion" (about anything)

There's a separate offence (in subsection (2)) of failing to comply with a garda direction to leave a place, but an element of that offence is that the guard must have reasonable cause for suspecting that you have committed the first offence, so it all comes back to the elements of the first offence.

(The subsection (2) offence is designed to cover, e.g., a case where, when the guards arrive, the trespasser is behaving placidly and peacably, but those present say that he was behaving in a threatening or violent manner before the guards arrived. That gives the guards a reasonable suspicion that he has been committing the first offence and then (and only then) they can direct him to leave and he commits an offence if he does not. This saves them from having to hang around wating for the trespasser to start behaving in a way that causes fear.)

Based on what is publicly known or reported, the weakness a prosecution case would face is that there is no evidence that the manner of Burke's trespass was such as to cause fear in others, or that a guard could have formed a reasonable suspicion that it was, and this is the cromulent explanation for why he was not charged with either offence. Simply being present on premises without permission isn't, in itself, enough to cause fear; "causes or is likely to cause fear" is an additional element of the offence that the prosecution has to prove over and above the fact of the trespass. It's usually proved by producing a witness who says "I thought he was going to hit me/to steal my stuff/to break things", and supplies credible corroborative detail as to why they thought that. If the only accounts of Burke's demeanour during the trespass are to the effect that he was an inconsiderate attention-seeking arsehole, that doesn't cut it.