Lorna Young v Manchester City Council, Employment Tribunal, May 2026

😳

let me see if I can find it

but in the meantime, can someone remind me who Angela Harrington is please?

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
5m
NR - on to what you knew about C's mental health, all of the 4 dismissal tweets were sent in period October to February
AH - accept that

NR - the C was asked to write something during Covid that was sent to all staff, did you read it
AH - I may have
NR - can I invite you to read first 3 paras.

[AH reading]
AH - I have read this

NR - were you aware of isolation challenges C had experienced during lockdown
AH - yes
NR - now to OH report, I believe you did have this, this was advice that R expressly sought about connection between health and tweeting, can I ask you to read the 4th para and the 2nd para after that.

NR - you had this info when you made this decision
AH - yes

NR - by Oct 2022 the C also had the stress of the dx procedure and her LM responsibilities were removed from her, you knew this
AH - yes

It is only because Lorna is well funded and represented that this cover up is being pulled down a brick at a time.

If she was on her own she wouldn’t have got to the scale of the non disclosure and ‘reprehensible conduct of litigation’.

The Judge should take this into account as continuing behaviour of the respondent.

Shame on you MCC. You can’t tell what a woman is, you don’t know what the law is and all your bias runs one way.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m

NR - Am I hearing this for the time - was she dismissed for things she might do in the future
AH - no, we didn't have confidence that she would modify behaviour, the dismissal doc was around how she expressed her view
NR - you just told us it was about what she might do

AH - it's not the primary reason, a secondary reason
NR - why did you refer to it
AH - because it's background
NR - so let's go back to the main reason, it was about her conduct, why is that not a conduct dismissal
AH - [now turning head away from microphone hard to hear]

NR - you are now telling me that C was dismissed for conduct, shouldn't that have been a disciplinary (dx) process
AH - I was simply hearing the appeal,
NR - because it was labelled SOSR the C was denied the right to a secondary appeal to council members
AH - that is the policy

End 2024 - link to the LBC please. Keep receipts!

Haven’t watched this yet but did wee Stephie produce this before or after she got so frustrated during an LBC interview that she put the phone down

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR - 'I also considered.....uphold original decision to terminate on SOSR' so you agreed with the entirety of the dismissal letter
AH - yes
NR - you say dismissal was for SOSR, not misconduct what was that reason
AH - breach of trust between C and other employees

NR - so a breach of trust caused by LY conduct
AH - continuation of employment in LY roles was substantial enough
NR - I didn't understand that
AH - the conduct of how LY expressed her views and her role as EDI manager, and the fact that she had already expressed those views

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
AH - yes
NR - only other doc we have is outcome letter from you
AH yes
NR - is that the extent of disclosure we have on appeal
AH - yes

NR - is that because remainder of docs are asserted to be covered by privilege
AH - I don't understand
J - explains privilege to AH
AH - yes, although I relied on the original bundle for the appeal

NR - we, the C, don't have any record of what docs you were sent
AH - I'm not sure
NR - we have 3 docs, none show what docs you looked at
AH - yes
NR - was your outcome letter looked at or reviewed by lawyers

AH - no..
NR - no legal review
AH - HR looked at outcome letter
NR - that would suggest that there are more docs not covered by privilege but that's to take up with your team. The appeal was to be conducted in accordance with ACAS guidance, speedy, why did it take 3 months

AH - the outcome letter was provided shortly after the appeal was heard
NR - your appeal outcome was not rec'd until after the claim was brought so your appeal outcome is not an act of hx or discrim, just laying out the chronology here
NR - let's to last para

NR - good morning can I take you to all of the docs related to the appeal

J - are you okay with electronic bundle

AH - yes

NR - doc 1, and then the next on page X, [discussion of how e bundle works]

AH - what was that again

NR - an email chain about the email, you can read

Fabulous work ⭐

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
6m
Participants are entering the meeting room, we will begin shortly.

J - good morning, sorry about the delay, relates to more disclosure
AM - sorry, more disclosure
NR - I regard all this as completely reprehensible conduct of the litigation but I'm going to crack on nonetheless. If I'd had the docs I would have used in xexam.

NR - but not proportionate to recall witnesses.
J - how many pages
NR - about 90 pages
J - when provided
NR - about 9:30 am
J - we often have unrep'd Cs in tribunals and this would be a big disadvantage, Ms Y is rep'd but it still may be a disadvantage to her

I will hear motions on this as and when relevant. It is important and I don't want to minimise. AM - your witness.
[AM calls Angela Harrington (AH), affirms, judge explains timetable, breaks available, AM takes AH to wit state, confirms truthful etc]
AM - I have no qs but NR

I read something recently in favour of allowing Tommy Robinson to speak at Oxford, rather than cancel him, because it would allow opposers to argue their case - it might change some people's minds (in either direction, I guess), but importantly, it would allow the opposers to test and develop their arguments.

And I thought, "No debate" has not helped trans people and their allies at all, as they now have feeble critical thinking skills and no arguments that stand up to ours.

AFAIK there are at least another 3 cases in various stages.

Here is a table of key links related to Bev Craig's trans-inclusive and broader LGBTQ+ advocacy activities.

thepinknews.com

Date / Context
Description
Link
February 2022
Manchester City Council meeting minutes including the "Trans Rights Are Human Rights" motion (affirming "trans women are women", etc.)
Council Minutes PDF
May 2023
PinkNews interview: Craig discusses supporting the trans community in a "toxic national environment" and the 2022 trans rights reaffirmation
PinkNews Article
October 2025
Council Leader statement on Manchester Pride (ongoing support for LGBTQ+ events)
Manchester.gov.uk Statement
2020
Manchester Labour statement on Trans and Non-Binary Rights (mentions Craig as LGBT+ lead)
McrLabour Statement
August 2023
Pride in Leadership conversation with Bev Craig (LGBTQ+ leadership and inclusion)
Pride in Leadership
Ongoing
Bev Craig's X/Twitter (@bevcraig
) – posts on Pride, LGBTQ+ rights
X Profile
Pride-related
Instagram content and statements supporting Manchester Pride and trans inclusion
Example Instagram
Greater Manchester
Pledge to End Conversion Therapy (signed by Craig as Leader)
LGBT Foundation Pledge

"I can't remember a case where Stonewall, who seem instrumental in building the echo chamber, have ever been called upon to explain their actions"

There has been one. Alison Bailey v Stonewall

Alsion Bailey failed at the Court of Appeal (December last year) but the Supreme Court has recently announced that it will hear her appeal. I have no idea when the actual hearing will take place.

The Judge has been clearly perturbed by the lack of disclosure and the impact on justice in this case.

If this is a new disclosure issue I wonder if the case will be stayed. Nathan Roberts, Lorna's barrister seems keen to press on.

If Manchester City Council are so righteous and Lorna is so offensive surely disclosing all their judgments and bullying of her will be a breeze.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1h

Abbreviations
LY/C - Lorna Young, claimant

MCC/R - Manchester City Council, respondent

NR - Nathan Roberts, barrister for C

AP - Annie Powell, solicitor for C

AM - Aileen McColgan, barrister for R

EJ/ - Employment Judge Dunlop

GC - gender critical beliefs, sex realist
GI - gender identity or gender identity belief, a person’s internal sense of gender: male, female, both, neither, or another category.
DD direct discrimination
SS same sex or single sex
WESC Women & Equalities select committee

TRAHR trans rights are human rights
LM line manager
BC Bev Craig, council leader
Hx & D - harassment and discrimination
Ix - investigation
RTW return to work
OH occupational health
TU - trade union
GG - GalwayGirl (C’s anonymous X account)
SC/SK - Sharmila Kar, C's line manager

JO - Jenny Osbourne
Dx - discrimination
SW - Stonewall or Stephen Whittle
BY - Barry Young
AMR - absence management review
HMD - Hella Monroy-Dominguez HR Officer
SOSR - Some other substantial reason
PCP - policy, criterion or practice

Message from the clerk this morning - delay to proceedings because of late disclosure to C. Unclear if additional late disclosure or included in the bundle delivered late on Sunday evening.
Mentioned half past 10, then quarter past 10.

Clerk is back, clarified half past 10.

In a previous case covered by this reporter we learned about barrister time. Barrister told the judge that she needed '10 minutes' to complete with a witness. The judge replied 'is that 10 minutes in barrister time or 10 minutes by the clock'.

Offered without comment.

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2056649617089970642?s=20

https://x.com/tribunaltweets/status/2056649501704646817?s=20

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1h
The ET of Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council is expected to resume this morning, 19 May 2026, at 10 am.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1h
Our complete coverage of the hearing to date can be found on our Substack here: open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltweets/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council?r=1gxdhb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Ms Young is taking her former employer, Manchester City Council, to employment tribunal for unfair dismissal on the grounds of religion or belief. Ms Young is a Catholic, holds gender critical beliefs. She was dismissed, among other grounds, for social media activity.

We are a collective of volunteer journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (link in bio above) which funds our digital & some travel costs. We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings.

1h
A motion adopted by Manchester City Council has been frequently referred to in proceedings. It is included on our Substack in full and in the following tweets.

• Stonewall and Mermaids

It seems like members of EDI staff within these organizations, following the advice of Stonewall et.al., build themselves a nice echo chamber, where things like trans-age protections make complete sense.

Court cases like this tear open the echo chamber and expose the occupants to fact and reason. Members of staff are hung out to dry, trying to 'style out' their actions in court.

I can't remember a case where Stonewall, who seem instrumental in building the echo chamber, have ever been called upon to explain their actions

I had problems when I clicked or copy/pasted so I manually typed in the email address. That worked and I've now had a reply from the ET.

The server can't be found when I just tried to get a link

You can be trans-Jewish, trans-Christian, trans-Muslim, trans-age, trans-disability, trans-pregnant etc etc.

I'll take one of each please

Yes I was online at that stage. It was a yes.

She was clearly resentful to be there and presented as quite a thick person.

It wasn't what the tweets said she found horrific, just that they were many and some had swear words. Come on love.

Ms Kar was a piece of work. Her grey controlled demour belied a quiet rage for the proceedings and Lorna's view (probably Lorna herself). She did a lot of personal damage but to distance herself she called herself a postbox so manhy tumes.

Cheaper just to have a forwarded email account and save everyone her costs of employment.