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

Link to any tribunal results are welcomed :-)

This is de facto behavior when you know that you are on the right side of history

We all know that anything other than complete capitulation and genuflecting at the altar of gender woo is practically fascism.

Liking tweets? Burn the Nazi!

I am all ears for what MCC’s defence is going to be. £5 says it will be a smorgasbord of I don’t know/I don’t remember/Someone else told me to do it.

Some years ago pre GC content someone on the team knew so they followed her and she blocked all colleagues.

So they passed this onto the new TRA in the EDI team and they got to work. Screenshoted everything and passed it onto the bosses.

Said it was next to literal death I am sure.

The playbook.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
8m

NR: p1536 - you tell C there will be a DX, and it will take place without her for completion of the IX.
SK: I'm not sure it says "without her".
NR: But you didn't 'reconvene' with C before deciding this
SK: No
NR: And no further OH done re this.
SK: No

NR: This was sent 8th June. You say "we have decided ..." your decision?
SK: No
NR: Whose
SK: I think discussion with HR

NR: But it says "decision".
SK: Discussion with HR
NR: JJ said, HR advise, we decide.
SK: Slightly different for me as not actually MCC. More reliance on HR.
[NR asks who in HR, too many names]

NR: You say to C, we explored other options, you were not receptive - is that a fair description?
SK: If you look at recordings - letter isn't well worded, but, we were keen to move past the IX as C finding it so distressing.

NR: Your WS - you say not involved in any of the IXs etc, only there to support C as her line manager. But all the decisions etc were communicated to C by you?
SK: Not quite all I think.

NR: I am not clear whether you were just the postbox for MCC, or whether a decision maker?
SK: I think the former, but, lines were blurred.

NR: Can we agree, meeting ended with statement you would reconvene and the next thing C gets is notice of a disciplinary?

SK: Yes accept that
NR: It says DX, not SORS?
SK: Yes
NR: That was situatiojn at the time?
SK: Yes

NR: And was only social media use?
SK: Can't comment, wasn't involved.
NR: If you look at SN's WS [ref] we can see para98 there was meeting 30/5 and say, social media use only?
SK: Yes

NR: So by time of your letter, someone had decided only social media use?
SK: Probably yes.

NR: This is a good point to break?
J: We will take a short break

[BREAK]

Looking like they absolutely hounded her, doesn't it?

Well all she seemed to do was anonymously like some tweets.

So she didn't actually say anything. But maybe it was the way she liked it. Too firm with her finger?

I’ve often wondered how the Bananarama Defence is supposed to work in reality because no one has ever clarified how you ARE allowed to discuss GC views in a way that is acceptable.

So you mustn’t say anything that anyone finds upsetting, mustn’t discuss individuals (presumably only broad concepts) and - most importantly - you must BE KIND.

Also known as: “Shut up bigot”

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
5m

NR: Put it to you: You should have listed to C about her health at the AMR, or, you should have given her written notice you would be talking about how to progress the IX?
SK: Disagree. I had already mentioned the OH report.

NR: I say, you should have given her warning you wanted to discuss the IX.
SK: I disagree, it was in the OH report, your interpretation, and IX was a trigger for her.

NR: So you should have mentioned it in advance
SK: Probably.

NR: Letter 7/6 from the MH worker, says C had not expected IX to come up?
SK: Yes

NR: Meeting did not go well
SK: Can agree that.

NR: C was audibly and visibly distressed as soon as IX raised. In your WS.
SK: Yes

Hmmm... that'll be the "trans age" part of the EA at work, presumably?

J: You said to NR this morning, re GC views, you said you are quite neutral but there are ways of saying that are not acceptable.
SN: Yes
J: So what would it have been acceptable for the C to say?
SN: Um, nothing derogatory, no singling out of individuals, being kind.

If only you nasty TERFs would say that biological men aren't women in a less derogatory and more kind way.

BE KIND!!!!!

Pushing someone to suicide is not kind. BE KIND.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m

NR: If we look at the next OH report. Says in 4 weeks LY might be in position to re-engage with IX?
SK: Yes

NR: Next OH report after that. 27/4/23 - things seem worse - says any work contact is triggering MH issues for C, panic etc, you saw this?
SK: Yes

NR: This is a challenging absence management situation, but, you knew any work contact triggering for C?
SK: Yes

NR: Particularly anything to do with the IX?
SK Yes, but, OH had also said that the IX needed to be concluded for C's benefit. That's how I read the reports.

NR: p1490, your first contact with C - or first we have disclosed at least?
SK: Was the first.

NR: You invite her to an AMR. C replies that she isn't ready for that - not your fault but anything to do with work - she asks for a written AMR
SK: Yes

NR: p1484 you say you'd prefer Zoom or face to face but understand her situation, & you want to offer welfare / support
SK: yes

NR: She replies that she still finds work contact triggers suicidal thoughts and asks you to only write to a particular email address?
SK: Yes

NR: p1492 you say you've had OH report and want to discuss with her, she says not in person, cd do phone, wants to bring MH support worker.
SK: Yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m

NR: If we look at the next OH report. Says in 4 weeks LY might be in position to re-engage with IX?
SK: Yes

NR: Next OH report after that. 27/4/23 - things seem worse - says any work contact is triggering MH issues for C, panic etc, you saw this?

SK: Yes

NR: This is a challenging absence management situation, but, you knew any work contact triggering for C? SK: Yes NR: Particularly anything to do with the IX?

SK Yes, but, OH had also said that the IX needed to be concluded for C's benefit. That's how I read the reports.

MCC is a horrendous place to work. Rife with bullying, toxic positivity and micromanagement that got worse when Labour got into government. There is a lot of control around comms and everyone must tow the Bev Craig line, where one must be relentlessly positive about “The City” (meaning the council policy, officers and elected members). I was on the cusp of bringing a grievance (not GC related) but I got out instead for the sake of my MH.I know of at least one other person who has won a tribunal recently, and another two who are in preparation. At one time there was a “we think TWAW” statement on the website so I’m not at all surprised this case has come along.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR: You became LY line manager around time of suicide attempt etc?
SK: I think formally, 1st March.
NR: p1481 OH assessment in March. You saw this?
SK: Yes

NR: So there is a section "current position" [SK reads] Makes it clear the IX had lead to C taking overdose?
SK: Yes
NR: if you read the next paragraph [SK reads]

NR: So advice was that C not in a position to make any significant decisions?
SK: According to OH report yes

NR: And in last para. Says C might re-engage in future, or cd consider delegating, but def not fit at present?
SK: Yes

Not only do they have absolutely no idea how the EA operates (but have taken the trans rights side anyway) but one employee was posting openly and vociferously on one side of the debate and that was absolutely A-OK, but someone who does the opposite (even from an anonymous account) is hunted down and fired.

And this makes sense…how?!

You know that fat that needs to be trimmed to reduce council budgets?
The stuff people have been searching high and low for?
I think I may have found some of it

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
NR: [Gives references to C requesting this, re SK and BY]
NR: This is the response [SK is reading]
SK: "Documents relating to the social media" of SK and BY

NR: Yes, and then "any docs re IXing". MCC says, none held. Were you asked at that time re any IX?
SK: By whom?
NR: Your legal team.
SK: [Explains that HR had the info]

NR: You were completely exonerated
SK: Yes

NR: C only made aware of the IX into you was when we saw your WS, you agree?
SK: HR had the info
NR: But C only first heard then?
SK: Could be.

SK: The IX was an NHS one not MCC

NR: MCC though quite happy to have an EDI lead who posts derogatorily about "TERFs"?
SK: I don't agree it's a slur.

NR: {missed}
SK: I think vaguely, came up that there was an IX into tweets when JJ handed over. But didn't know any real detail.

NR: Statement from AH re 'GalwayGirl' account. Says knowledge of this went all the way to you.
SK: No, I wasn't aware.

So they think Twitter is covered by the equality act, and if someone says they're trans age that's also covered?

Bloody hell. There are no words. These people are kindergarten level.

Interesting, it's becoming clear an EDI leader should

1. Not be GC
2. Not keep up to date with equity law

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR: We've heard a lot about whether an EDI leader can be gender critical. Do you think it's OK for an EDI leader to post something that appears to connect equality law to 'organised transphobia'?
SK: Don't agree with that interpretation

NR: Does this presentation link equality law to 'organised transphobia'
SK: Disagree [ longer explanation]

NR: Presentation equated gender critical views to 'anti-trans'
SK: Disagree, no it doesn't.

NR: I understand you searched for your own disclosusure?

[Oh here we go....disclosure alert]

SK: Yes

NR: C specifically requested any information about IXs into your own social media activity.
SK: Didn't know what.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m

NR: Says Supreme Court decision is the product of "organised transphobia"
SK: SW presentation covered many issues.

NR: Specifically the Supreme Court decision. "Triumph of organised transphobia"
SK: No I just posted the first slide from SW presentation

NR: "Triumph" can only be the SCourt decision?

J: Not sure that's clear from the images? I take your point but I'm not sure it's fair to SK to say that that is what she meant.

NR: I will keep on with the Qs, to see where we go. I am suggesting that any reasonable person might think I am right? Do you think an EDI leader should keep up to date with equality law?
SK: yes

just catching up. I'm astonished!

NR: Are you aware that the EA2010 does not cover what people say on Twitter? Do you accept?
SN: You have to show me the reference before I can say
NR: You didn't know the EA doesn't cover what ppl say on twitter?
SN: Need to see the reference.
NR: It's an open Q. Did you know it doesn't?
SN: Don't know

J: What did you think the EA said about tweets?
SN: About the way ppl say things.

J: So you mean you thought, if someone tweeted something racist that would be a breach of EA?
SN: Yes.

.

Oh good grief, this cannot be real, but, of course, it is.

Thank you for doing this @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
6m
J: [releases SN from evidence]

AM: Next witness is Sharmila Kar.

[Witness gives affirmation]

AM [takes witness through swearing to the WS]
AM: No Qs

NR: I understand you work for a NHS trust but are paid partly by MCC?
SK: It's a board not a trust but yes, part NHS part MCC

NR: You were responsible for MCC EDI team from 2023
SK: Yes inherited from JJ.

NR: Aware of debate gender identity theory / gender critical?
SK: Yes aware

NR: Both sides view the other as harmful?
SK: Yes, live debate.

NR: On LinkedIn you have liked an posted quite a lot of material that is on transrights side?
SK: Yes, trans-inclusive.

NR: Your LinkedIn shows MCC?
SK: Yes and other roles.

NR: p1951 Am sure you are aware of this tweet. You show your role with MCC here?
SK: Yes

NR: You've liked a tweet re loving Judith Butler's new book - JB "wants TERFs to wake up". You're aware TERF can be viewed as a slur?

SK: Disagree it's a slur, but, weaponised by both sides.

NR: p1953. Another piece you have liked - talks of TERFs again, and "first they came for this, then that".
SK: This was investigated but found no case to answer

NR: Will come on to that.

NR: p664. Photo you posted on LinkedIn?
SK: Yes

NR: Slide is clearer in p643. This is what you posted on LinkedIn?
SK: This isn't the same picture, with S Whittle in.

NR: I am comparing the slides
SK: Ah yes I see.