Long and convoluted. Very little description until the end regarding why he was suspended from work or what the specifics of the court order was that got him jailed for breeching.
The irony is that he's not going to jail technically for not kowtowing to a troon kid.
He's going to jail because he kept reporting for work when they didn't want him there.
Scientology was also very successful in recruiting celebs and insulating themselves from taxation.
And even so, they managed to remain fairly insular without overt attempts to control the Overton window on anything other than perhaps clinical psychiatry.
It's crazy how the gender ideology was able to dominate the west in less than 10 year span
We were softened up by the metastasizing of so-called "anti-racism" which had everyone walking on eggshells worried about losing status or employment or access to social media for saying anything that might be twisted into "racism." The tranny fascist ideology came straight outta the university and dissenters are punished by the powerful and their lapdogs looking to save their places and worthless reputations.
I believe technically he was suspended with pay pending a disciplinary hearing.
The based teacher's argument for why he continued to show up is also fairly convoluted, arguing his love for teaching, a duty to continue as a Christian and the lack of a "gross misconduct" allegation allowing him to be put on leave.
I think part of his argument is that agreeing to stay home on suspension in itself is a personal admission he did something wrong enough to warrant it.
I think part of his argument is that agreeing to stay home on suspension in itself is a personal admission he did something wrong enough to warrant it.
That's not a sound argument, in my opinion. Showing up repeatedly sounds unnecessarily confrontational.
It is actually mentioned very early on, the issue is described very well in the first 6-7 paragraphs. It explains the case, the suspension, the injunction and the fact that the teacher did not comply with it and specifically mentions in paragraphs 6-7 that the judge was not putting him in jail do to the case but do to the teacher not complying with the order made by the court.
The judge said his concern was not with the fundamentals of the positions adopted by the parties. He was concerned only with the breach of the order made by the court.
So the entire thing you claim to have been put at the end is shortly summarized at the beginning of the article and then elaborated later on.
I see no problem in how it was framed.
The part you quoted doesn't elaborate on anything.
All it says is "this teacher is going to jail for defying the court".
I do concede that upon re-reading the top of the article a second time, there is some description of the events in the first 6-7 paragraphs now that I actually know the details of the story.
Burke's school, Wilson’s Hospital in Multyfarnham, Co Westmeath, was granted an injunction preventing Burke from attending or attempting to teach after he was suspended pending the outcome of a disciplinary process.
Burke told the court he could not comply with the order as it would be in violation of his conscience.
The court heard a disciplinary process was commenced after Burke publicly confronted the then principal to voice his opposition to a request to call a student a new name and use the 'they' pronoun.
But if I was going in cold again without the tipoff from the KIA2 link that this was about troons and pronouns, the article spends way more time repeating "injunction" and "breech of court order" without making it clear how he got there in the first place.
It does a short summary of the event and then it explains in details and while the Kia2 title is bait the article title is correct.
Is not clear at this time if the judge is tough on the teacher do to his believes and convictions or just follows the law. I tend to believe that judges in general are corrupt leftwing pawns but there is no way to prove as there is no mention of this in the article. I would have liked to know if the judge is more lenient in cases pertaining to left wing protected classes like troons or minorities before making any decision on this case. Without it the article as you pointed out is irrelevant that it involves pronouns. Is a defended willingly defying the court and being found in contempt.
You can make a case against the principles as she is clearly a leftwing activist that started all of this by blowing out of proportions the fact that the teacher would not want to deny reality in face of a mentally ill student. This should not have reached the courts to begin with. The fact that this is a serious case highlights how fucked up things have become. Acknowledging reality gets you to court.
So in a way the article does not focus on what I would have liked but still not a bad article.
Poorly written article.
Long and convoluted. Very little description until the end regarding why he was suspended from work or what the specifics of the court order was that got him jailed for breeching.
The irony is that he's not going to jail technically for not kowtowing to a troon kid.
He's going to jail because he kept reporting for work when they didn't want him there.
Scientology was also very successful in recruiting celebs and insulating themselves from taxation.
And even so, they managed to remain fairly insular without overt attempts to control the Overton window on anything other than perhaps clinical psychiatry.
We were softened up by the metastasizing of so-called "anti-racism" which had everyone walking on eggshells worried about losing status or employment or access to social media for saying anything that might be twisted into "racism." The tranny fascist ideology came straight outta the university and dissenters are punished by the powerful and their lapdogs looking to save their places and worthless reputations.
So they fired him and he kept showing up?
I believe technically he was suspended with pay pending a disciplinary hearing.
The based teacher's argument for why he continued to show up is also fairly convoluted, arguing his love for teaching, a duty to continue as a Christian and the lack of a "gross misconduct" allegation allowing him to be put on leave.
I think part of his argument is that agreeing to stay home on suspension in itself is a personal admission he did something wrong enough to warrant it.
That's not a sound argument, in my opinion. Showing up repeatedly sounds unnecessarily confrontational.
Good. The pronoun folx are cowards and confrontation is the only thing that works on them since they don't acknowledge logic or morality.
It is actually mentioned very early on, the issue is described very well in the first 6-7 paragraphs. It explains the case, the suspension, the injunction and the fact that the teacher did not comply with it and specifically mentions in paragraphs 6-7 that the judge was not putting him in jail do to the case but do to the teacher not complying with the order made by the court.
So the entire thing you claim to have been put at the end is shortly summarized at the beginning of the article and then elaborated later on. I see no problem in how it was framed.
The part you quoted doesn't elaborate on anything.
All it says is "this teacher is going to jail for defying the court".
I do concede that upon re-reading the top of the article a second time, there is some description of the events in the first 6-7 paragraphs now that I actually know the details of the story.
But if I was going in cold again without the tipoff from the KIA2 link that this was about troons and pronouns, the article spends way more time repeating "injunction" and "breech of court order" without making it clear how he got there in the first place.
It does a short summary of the event and then it explains in details and while the Kia2 title is bait the article title is correct.
Is not clear at this time if the judge is tough on the teacher do to his believes and convictions or just follows the law. I tend to believe that judges in general are corrupt leftwing pawns but there is no way to prove as there is no mention of this in the article. I would have liked to know if the judge is more lenient in cases pertaining to left wing protected classes like troons or minorities before making any decision on this case. Without it the article as you pointed out is irrelevant that it involves pronouns. Is a defended willingly defying the court and being found in contempt.
You can make a case against the principles as she is clearly a leftwing activist that started all of this by blowing out of proportions the fact that the teacher would not want to deny reality in face of a mentally ill student. This should not have reached the courts to begin with. The fact that this is a serious case highlights how fucked up things have become. Acknowledging reality gets you to court.
So in a way the article does not focus on what I would have liked but still not a bad article.
For real, the article reads like a mishmash of 18 different articles put together semi-randomly one paragraph at a time.