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

I like Nathan Roberts!
And thank you @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts

Fully caught up now - thanks @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts for your sterling work updating the thread! What a shower.

Nope this one plumbs the depths.

An anonymous account liking some gender critical material.

Witch hunt, dog whistle accusations, investigating officers who were witnesses, non disclosure, 100s of docs data dumped, sanctimonious DEI lead who does what ever they want because you know anything that isn’t sex realist goes.

They drove an employee of decades experience to the brink of suicide.

Over a few likes of EA 2010 protected views and confirmed as always have been aligned with the law by the Supreme Court.

And after all that not one can point to what actually Lorna did that was wrong.

She had a Twitter account under a random name (GalwayGirl, I believe). Other people who worked with her seem to have been able to identify her from a process of jigsaw identification.

This is an example of why you should always be aware of what you are posting on social media.

But, women who won't subjugate themselves to the Gender God aren't fully-human,really, so you can kind of see their point in completely ruining her career and nearly her life, can't you? I mean, it's not like she counts for anything anyway, in the wider Be Kind World Order. She's just In The Way.

ps. I think some of these "people" in charge really don't ever think that their actions have real-world consequences. Comes from living in a Magic Bubble Land.

I must admit I am being amused by the one identifying as a postbox.

It's not quite clear to me but I think she liked some tweets which is illegal in the Equality Act and someone said something or other that wasn't included in any disclosure but someone else is sure that something was said at some point even if there is no email trail because some people only use their inbox as a postbox.

If it wasn't so horrendous it would be hilarious.

One question if I may. Did Lorna post any tweets? Or did she just like tweets? This surely can not just be about liking some tweets?

FFS!! What is wrong with these people?!?! Driving a woman to suicide because she liked a few tweets?!?! This has to stop.

Love in all its forms.....
Errrr

It should be SOSR. Some other substantial reason.

A SOSR Dismissal Process is one way of getting rid of somebody.

I am speechless. Having read all of the Sandie Peggie TTs I thought I’d seen the depths of fuckwittery in the public sector. Lord have mercy.

Sorry, what does SORS mean?

'It was Christmas'! <dab>

The very same

They've been trying to pull this one since at least the time of Allison Bailey's case: "We accept you can legally have these views, but you can't express them in a way that upsets anyone."

Of course, expressing them in any way whatsoever is seen as upsetting by some, so it becomes the de facto position that you can't actually express the views at all ever, in any manner or context.

Therefore it's heads we win, tails you lose - they present themselves as compliant with the law while ALSO silencing the nasty TERFs.

They also seemed to have learnt to say that GC views are not offensive, or whatever, but despite being able to list the many ways in which one cannot express them they can't ever say how one can, apart from being kind, but it seems that everyone who does express GC views is not kind.
Here we go slithering round the mulberry bush, again and again and again.
Do these people live their lives permanently wrapped in great big puffy clouds of cotton wool?

This James Binks and Paul Marshall? https://manchestermill.co.uk/james-binks-has-resigned-as-ceo-of-rochdale-council/

Maybe shes just a postbox to contain their thoughts and letters.

Literal containment for people with mental health challenges.

Post it in my postbox and we'll keep it in the dark.

I know a few of the people mentioned and this is exactly what they and the working environment are like, you are bang on the money. Google the Big Boss mentioned here, James Binks and his pal Paul Marshall to get some idea of who exactly ran the circus in which this performance took place

Everyone does the bananarama defence

Except they don't know what was underlying offensive and what it was about the manner it was expressed that was offensive.

You can't like tweets more kindly. Unless there is a like and now a new be kind button provided by Elon Musk solely to be deployed in trans issues.

NR: [ref] Leigh Day ask exactly what is offensive about the tweets? And it was at this point you stepped out of 'post box' role?

SK: Yes

NR: Aware MCC did not ever say what was?
SK: Not aware

So here we are three years after these witch hunters drove a woman to suicide and not one can say what she did to deserve being dismissed?

Please Judge, please see this plainly.

NR: Council motion - TWAW, TMAM etc. Do you agree that if s/o says something that disagrees with that motion, even in private, it's 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, disagree, it's about how it's said.
NR: Saying TWAnW is 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, the view itself is protected.
J: Am not sure you quite answered the Q about the implication of the email as opposed to your own views?
SK: I don't think the email is saying 'grossly offensive' is related to the T&NB policy.
J: Disagreeing with the policy not offensive per se?
SK: No

And there we have it. Bananarama.

Bingo card complete

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
11m

NR: Attaches MCC statement on "trans inclusion" - "we" here means MCC? Says, "our view" - grossly offensive - mentions the Equality Act. The only attachment is p1822 - the T&NB inclusion statement.
SK: Yes

NR: Connects the "grossly offensive" to the T&NB policy?
SK: Don't think so. It's saying we are trans-inclusive.

NR: Council motion - TWAW, TMAM etc. Do you agree that if s/o says something that disagrees with that motion, even in private, it's 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, disagree, it's about how it's said.

NR: Saying TWAnW is 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, the view itself is protected.

J: Am not sure you quite answered the Q about the implication of the email as opposed to your own views?
SK: I don't think the email is saying 'grossly offensive' is related to the T&NB policy.
J: Disagreeing with the policy not offensive per se?
SK: No

NR: [ref] Leigh Day ask exactly what is offensive about the tweets? And it was at this point you stepped out of 'post box' role?
SK: Yes
NR: Aware MCC did not ever say what was?
SK: Not aware

NR: No more Qs

AM: [re-exam] you talked about advice from HR and legal - separate advice or intermingled?
SK: Intermingled.

J: [releases witness]
AM: One more witness - Ms Harrington
NR: Perhaps too late to begin today?

J: [Q re case conduct]
NR & AM we are in live discussions re this.
J: We will need to resolve Qs re any more disclosure, and list of issues. Needn't be very first thing tomorrow, but, with despatch please.

[END OF HEARING]

It does me too especially as the current witness works for a mental health organisation.