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

This is giving me the rage. And yet not one of these 'be kind' cowardly weasels is prepared to stand up for their cult and admit responsibility for what they have done to the claimant. What an absolute bloody shower.

Is Mary Sutton the constant legal advisor going to be called?
She's my current pick for going right under the bus.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR: p1704 - You said -
SK: Yes
NR: Meantime p1708 - letter to C signed by Ms [] Rimmer but she declined in evidence to say it was her decision to drop almost all the issues. Did not say who. Was it you?
SK: No

NR: Letter with the IX report. Did you write?
SK: No
NR: p1809 finally reply to solicitor, agreeing most allegations are misconduct. Can you read the rest of the paragraph?

NR: I do not understand what it means. What is this paragraph communicating?
SK: I think that we had had OH report into C ill health, what effect it might have had on C's conduct.

NR: Says you'd had OH report, had looked at C social media, but 'nevertheless' needed to look at her suitability for role. Meaning what exactly?
SK: I really don't know, this is why it was silly for me to be post-box, had no knowledge of IX report etc.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
9m
NR 1698 - C writes to you re an OH referral, says she wants to consider RtW. MCC refused OH referral before the SOSR?
SK: Pretty sure that's right.

NR: Even though the C's absence was part of the SOSR meeting?
SK: Don't know.

NR: You wrote the letter.
SK: Just the postbox
NR: You don't know whose decision?
SK: I can't remember, I asked for advice here.

NR: p1667 - queries re the SOSR that there seem to be misconduct allegations instead?
SK: Yes

NR: Asks for details of the misconduct re tweets?
SK: Yes

NR: You were only post-box?
SK: Yes and I wasn't comfortable with that and I think after this I left it to legal to correspond directly.

NR: Your WS [ref] we have had no disclosure of HR response to your relay of request for OH referral.
SK: OK

NR: [ref] C is chasing an answer?
SK: Yes
NR: A month later still no response - C submits grievance re the delay?
SK: Yes

I am between two employers. I can't be validly investigated.

I was a line mangager but I didn't want to look at the tweets or see anything. So I signed off on all these letters and sent them. But I promise I didn't pay any attention to the contents. Post boxes don't read the letters.

I am a rainbox postbox - I spout only rainbows and sprinkles. Not truth or any work activity. Post it in my postbox. I will deny all knowledge.

NR: I think it's what the words say.

😀

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR: AP replies, C knows the tweets context best?
SK: Yes
NR: p1659 - Ms [HR person] finally sent the tweets?
SK: Yes

NR 1698 - C writes to you re an OH referral, says she wants to consider RtW. MCC refused OH referral before the SOSR?
SK: Pretty sure that's right.

NR: Even though the C's absence was part of the SOSR meeting?
SK: Don't know.
NR: You wrote the letter.
SK: Just the postbox
NR: You don't know whose decision?
SK: I can't remember, I asked for advice here.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
8m
NR: But you knew very well how fragile the C's MH was. And then she gets this enormous and broad and vague letter.
SK: Yes I agree there's a lot to consume there
NR: Do you accept, "bad news" for the C?
SK: Well it's not good news.

NR: The SORS mtg didn't happen till June.
SK: Didn't know that.

NR: In March you ask for the tweets. You knew report not ready until April.
SK: Yes

NR: So there was no need to tell the C all this 5 days before Christmas?
NR: She had asked when and how, not what.
SK: Agree timing not great, but was triying to give C relevant information

NR: Going to take you thru letters named from you, but if they were written by HR do say.
SK: Or by legal department.
NR: We haven't seen any HR docs at all 2023-24.
SK: I wasn't involved.

NR: Leigh Day (Annie Powell) tells you C has still not seen the tweets that are being claimed as gross misconduct, in spite of requests.
SK: Yes

NR: You reply yes you will correspond via C's sister, and you don't send the tweets but say they will come in IX report. Not your decision not to send?
SK: Not my decision.

NR: Leigh Day respond - say you have them, why can't you send them?
SK: Yes
NR: You respond, reluctant to share bcs out of context. What was the relevant context?
SK: I think the broader IX, and legal advice not to share outside that.

Jesus wept. “It wasn’t me, I was just passing on information, I didn’t know anything, I can’t comment”.

Any minute now someone is going to claim they were reversing into a bin.

SK: I think that's an interpretation
NR: I think it's what the words say.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
6m
NR: We were told, Mick McM, David Regan, Ella [earlier witness] and you.
SK: And mary Sutton

NR: My question is, are we going to hear of any witness giving evidence about who and why took the decision to widen all this to the SORS process
SK: Can't comment

NR: Do you accept this re-opens the IX effectively
SK: Wasn't involved - didn't see tweets until saw the bundle.

NR: Someone at MCC knew IX was being re-opened, but not you?
SK: Correct
SK: Communication was going through me, but not my decisions.

NR: Do you accept this is all very vague?

SK: I repeat, I didn't know what the allegations were.

NR: If you couldn't work that out, how was the claimant supposed to?
SK: [missed]

Monday 18 May 2026

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

This is the second part of the day 6 afternoon session in Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council at employment tribunal. Part 1 is here

The court is currently taking a short break; after which Nathan Roberts barrister for the C will continue cross-examination of MCC witness Sharmila Kar.

[We resume]
NR: p1456 This is another OH report?
SK: Yes

NR: Last para b4 'conclusion' - advises advance notification for discussing things with C?
SK: Yes

NR: I am pausing here, because this [ref missed] is first disclosure of anything from HR. And only disclosed bcs appended to the DX report.
NR: My next Q is re AMR 14/11. Your WS185

NR: Para 45. Your understanding leaving the meeting was the C had asked for no negative news before Christmas?
SK: I may have been a bit generous there, recording says "positive news welcome, negative not so much".

NR: But your WS is your impression?
SK: Yes

NR: p1633, email chain. C asks when and how she will hear MCC's intention?
SK: I think that's an interpretation

NR: I think it's what the words say. When and how re intentions
SK: Yes

NR: p1650 - dated 19/12 but sent 20th. Now it's an SORS process, various headings - tweets, OH, sickness absence, breakdown of trust. You don't in your WS explain how this decision was made.
SK: No

NR: YOu say MCC decision not yours
SK: Yes

NR: Whose decision are you communicating?
SK: It was a collective decision, discussion meetings

NR: List for me.
SK: Mary Sutton, Mick McMillan, Ella & Alice (HR). Mary Sutton was the constant legal advisor.

NR: David Regan?
SK: Has retired now.

Either they don’t understand or their understanding was given to them by someone who had their own interpretation of the law.

On an entirely unrelated note, according to Google, MCC are closely aligned with Stonewall.

Two weeks ago she is still widely spouting her gender ideology

But all good! You're offensive in the right way. Erode women's rights Ms Kar - you go girl!

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharmila-kar-a2b5957/recent-activity/images/

Thats offensive to young children. They might have a trans age identity.

They have more wit.

Well clearly not an issue because she was asked about an investigation and nothing to see here as her other boss sorted it.

Total way to pass the buck. She's a misogynist since she doesn't support womens rights to single sex spaces. Aint no one going to address that lack of inclusivity.

Yes in the flesh

Just pondering, this witness was sitting in a local authority EDI Team, partly paid by the LA but HR employed by NHS.

Firstly, why is the NHS funding this function for the LA and secondly, what if there was a conflict between the LA & NHS HR policies & procedures?

So neutral, so supportive.

See also TERF is not a slur. Ok hun.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharmila-kar-a2b5957/recent-activity/images/

https://www.queerwell.org.uk/team-member/sharmila-kar

Is this her?

Worry? Yes. Surprise? Not in the slightest.

Does it worry anyone else that in pretty big organisations like NHS Fife or Manchester City Council, the people whose job it is to know the law don't actually know the law? All these tribunals have come out with pretty spectacular examples of people who don't even understand the basics of the Equality Act.

Sadly, the proceedings from today suggest that many officers at MCC are not aware of the EA and what it actually covers. What troubles me most is that its seemingly ok for Head of DEI to be publicly calling people terfs on social media and saying that SC judgement was “transphobic”. If I worked for MCC and had recently asked this person for advice on an issue directly impacted by SC in terms of single sex provision, how can I now trust that advice is impartial and within the law? Hypothetically speaking.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/sharmila-kar-a2b5957

Joint Director Equality & Engagement NHS GM Integrated Care (Manchester Locality)/

Manchester City Council

Seems like she worked out how to censor her hateful views against the Supreme Court then as this is pretty locked down.