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

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
43m

[missed]
NR She suggests u contact Adiba. What did she mean by filling in gaps
SN Might be about finding out about the account
NR I'd suggest SH wanted to ruin the Cs life
SN Neith SH or AS had that manner. That'd be wrong
NR They said they'd continue to psrticipate

Yes
NR Why not clled as witnesses
SN I donr know
NR Do u think u shld have said about her being anxious in yr response
SN Approp in that context
NR U call them complaints in yr Ws
Yes
NR I think that email was disclosed last night. What was yr understanding re AH and BY

NR U say you received BYs WS twice but we only have 1 disclosure
SN [missed]
NR As to whether was a Cx. It was framed as a convo w the C. Under 'report of conversation' [reading]
NR was it framed as a report
That;s the title

NR This statement was asked to be written by JJ
SN It came from him but I wasnt aware of the origin of the info
NR We had no disclosure about this statement until last night. Do u accept we only have disclosure that u received it
SN I think so w/out looking at it all

NR We dont have him as a witness. 1 Nov 2022: [reads re GG account] This all starts w SH sharing GG with AH
Yes and no. It was shared but seems AH started it by reading GG account
NR But SH found the account
SN It appears so
NR % mins later he forwarded it to his team
Yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
50m
NR Did u think it a coincidence that AS mentioned GG in mtg and then SH emailed you
SN Yes, I thought was a coincidence. I was surprised to receive SH's email on the 22nd
NR on p1376, SH says [reads re having 2nd twitter account] I dont think she mentioned this in her Cx
SN I dont recall
NR

NR We dont have the attachments she sent you. In yr WS, u refer to this email. U refer to her having - u mention various pages. If u look at p1178, SH is attempting to prove GG belongs to LY and taken a tweet about the death of her father
SN Yes
NR Do u think SH had gone a bit too far
NR In trying to bring the C down
SH Bringing down isnt correct but I think has gone too far
NR U appended these?
Yes
NR p1156: u refer to tweets on both accounts about their father passing from cancer. Did u go too far
SN Yes, was an error of judgement. it shldnt have been in the report

NR C returned on 4 Jan
SN I beleive so
NR We know y'd commited to share anything of relevance at yr last mtg
Yes
NR Yr invitation is on p1142, You didnt sent her any docs in advance?
SN It was a continuation of points we hadnt been able to cover
NR Was GG in the scope of yr
I cant recall if was on 10 Jan

NR So cld have been in the scope
I cant recall. It cld have been a discussion point
NR Was a disc issue
It cld have been. The C needed to be able to discuss the issue and us report on it
NR Only the GG account being discussed in Witenss Interviews from this point
SN Correct

SN [lonf speech]
NR All in 2022. From Feb was only about GG
SN Correct. I interviewed SH then, my 1st interview w her
NR Why her
SN I wanted to know how it came to light. wanted a sense of what she's seen/
NR Following this, On Feb 12 she sent u more material
SN Yes

NR U asked for her to share more twitter screenshots
SN Yes, was day after our mtg. I cant recall more
NR She says she's spent a distressing hour looking through tweets and categorised into 3. Had been v anxious. Is this odd to spend the time if so anxious?

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
55m
SN I didnt reduce the scope of the Ix. HR didnt suggest anything - nothing flagged by HR of concern
NR In para 10, she listed utterly trivial issues re laptop log in. The list goes on re toilet location. She thought a lot came nowhere near misconduct
Yes
NR

NR [read this last para on p1189] Do u accept is a reasonable concl
SN This corresp came in the day before but was the first contact I'd have w the C and planned to work thru things step by step. was v complex case
NR Did u find hard to manage
SN There was a lot to it and

NR Can u understand she'd find it even more challenging than u with her eye and MH issues
SN Yes, Can accept that
NR Yr response: on the am of the mtg, u recog saying it cld be overwhelming.
Yes
NR U didnt respond to her Art 9/10 rights or breach of the EA
SN No I didnt

SN They came in when out of office. No, I never engaged w them
NR U interviewed JJ on 15 Nov
Yes
NR U met the C for the 1st time. It took 2 weeks for notes to be sent to the C. Why?
SN I dont recall
NR [reading about sev sessions] How many sessions did u anticipate
SN Maybe 3 or 4 to ensure outcome and conclusions to the Ix, but cldnt be clear. An estimate

NR p1321: It was requested by u and LY that Qs be shared in advance of nect mtg and share WS knowing some parts might need to be redacted. U commited to share relevant info and Qs in advance
SN Share Qs w JS but yes anything of relevance
NR She sent u docs in advance
SN Yes

NR Then C had a chest infection
SN I dint know reason for being off
NR SHe did say
SN Sorry, dont recall. Yes, interveiwed AS.
NR She hadnt complained about ?
SN I cant recall but is what notes say
NR Then SH emails u about GG account [new doc]

Re, the playbook(s)

Definitely NOT to derail, but perhaps a timely connection to this other thread of discussion, especially Amaryllis' post

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5530420-fascinating-article-about-the-failure-and-complicity-of-the-bbc-regarding-transactivism?page=3

The collective capture needs weeding out!

ps. JaneDoe, many thanks for posting from TT.

Monday 18 May 2026
Morning - session 2

All material from Tribunal Tweets - please subscribe and support!

[I am playing catch up so if I miss any tweets - all errors my own]

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1h
NR We were on the invitation letter re disc Ix. U told her [reads re gross misconduct that cld lead to summary dismissal] U didnt explain which alleg was gross misconduct
SN I said discrim comments re Pcs and the council's policies and the policy says cld be gross misconduct

NR Not my question
SN As a manager she shld understand discrim views cld be gross misconduct
NR All of it cld be gross misconduct
SN I clnt say until done the ix. I needed to speak to her
NR U knew were 100s of complaints including trivial things

NR why didnt u remove them
SN There cld have been management actions that came out of it even if not gross misconduct
NR WHereas JJ removed the onboarding u retained them
Yes
NR why did u do this
SN Cos of management actiosn

NR WHy didnt u say some of these wld likely not be gross misconduct?
SN [missed]
NR Let's go through. Y've redacted the impact statement
Yes
NR SH's complaint - all these redactions are u redacting the email evidence and the witnesses

SN I cant recall. I know are WSs but cant recall it all
NR U redacted SH's log of events
Yes
NR U sent her on p1168 the attach of 20 Jun email from SH to JJ w the supposedly incrim tweets
SN Yes, this info was shared
NR So the C wld have thought being Ix for being GC
SN

NR P1193: The C says in her email to u in response she discusses her eye issues and diff finding emails
Yes
NR SOme of these refer to my PC of GC beleif which is complicated
SN Yes, She refers to it
NR P119: another email from p1190 and her eye condition has flared Asking for a mtg?

SN Yes
NR p1182: she's sent u an email on 21st Nov re her concerns about the Ix using dictation software.
Yes
NR She wanted the scope of Ix to be revisited
SN Yes
NR She alleges breaches of Art 9and qoa dn discrim and harassment due to perception shes' GC
Yes

Yes - good summary.

These cases have the same play book.

What a mess MCC have made of this - that's independent of any of the actual issues involved.

If I'm reading it right, they can't even say who/when/why the matter became a disciplinary matter leading to dismissal.

There are some significant issues here - reconciling strong personal beliefs with organisational policy and legislation; social media activity by people in positions of authority; management styles; support given to employees with disabilities - but they are hidden under an avalanche of lack of process, poor record-keeping, lack of objectivity amounting to intolerance and prejudice, disregard for the law etc.

Liking a tweet, stocking a book... doesn't take much for the Stasi to blacklist you, does it? "I have witnessed first hand how such attitudes harm people within our communities"

"Harm" is doing some heavy lifting... we need some actual definitions here.

Off on a tangent here, but I was just reading a news item about violence in Scottish schools, which everyone agrees is a big problem and is increasing massively. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy02p7d4eyeo However, "The official definition of violence in the workplace includes verbal abuse, threats or harassment. This means that incidents of 'violence' recorded in Scotland's schools could include anything from swearing at a teacher right up to a very serious assault." "Aberdeen ... could not provide the data as they don't record physical assaults separately from physical injuries." "Stirling Council said its health and safety system did not differentiate between assaults on pupils and assaults on teachers until it made a change earlier this year." It beggars belief that on something so important they do not record the details so that they can assess and address what is actually happening here. Basic common sense, surely?

Thank you @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts

I'm already angry about whatever the result of this court case is because I know like Jo Phoenix's case or any of the others there will be zero repercussions for the people responsible. They spout absolute mince in the witness box, are presented with hard evidence of their bigotry (whatever they spout about inclusion), show themselves and their organisations up but just walk away.

The only explanation is, were their bosses to sack them or even just carry out any sort of disciplinary action, they fear that they could retaliate by uncovering precisely how pervasive and approved of this ideology is. Not that it is much of a secret at MCC. I hope someone asks Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester and PM hopeful, about this.

Just delurking from a SM break to say thank you to Lorna Young, TTs and JaneDoeKeepsReceipts.

I was HR manager in a local authority and knew that my GC beliefs would ultimately trip me up in the #bekind council. So I took early retirement. My heart goes out to Lorna because that could have been me. I am following the case with great interest and will plant as many seeds as necessary to get Lorna a result.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

NR on p1007, and email from her to u about her screen and reading restrictions Yes NR She was off sick for 6 wks over Oct/Nov. From yr disc guidance. This was yr 1st Ix SN Yes, but done at prev employers. And had had the training NR Can u see part on the letter and specific allegations

SN Yes NR [new page] Allegations relate to yr management of staff and inapprop comments judged discriminatory. Do u agree that not specific? SN Gives enough detail and had supporting info NR Do u honestly think breach of personal data is specific. It doesnt say describe the cataegory but be specific

SN [missed] NR There were about 100 allegations... Is this a good time to stop J You cannot discuss your evidence and the clerk will being you back in about 15 mins

COURT ADJOURNS

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR In the changed impact statement, the only change I can spot is the last paragraph where has moved from saying is a capability case to a conduct case. Do you want to compare them? [gives page nos]

SN Can I read these?
NR Yes, It's just the last paragraph
SN Yes
NR Do uaccept she's changed what it shld be
SN Yes, she has asked for a change

NR Did u ever consider it was a pile on on the C
SN I didnt think anything untoward. They had their experiences. Yes, it was a complicated Ix, very much so

NR [new doc re access to work] One aspect of the case is how info was given to the C. This job description is about the Cs support worker
SN I didnt know she had one previously

NR The C had adjustment cos of reading
SN I dint know about 7 and 8 in this doc although knew she had eye issues. I was aware of eye surgery.

NR And following this, an email of 1043 and using adjusted technology to read

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
SN I cant recall what that new info was
NR We cant work out what it is due to poor disclosure, U interviewed Alfie Hewett on ?
Yes
NR He was named by SH as a witness
SN [missed]
NR Accompanied by Barry Young
Yes, I dont know if new mwmber to EDI

NR Both reported to C
SN Yes
NR Its meant to be a confid Ix
Yes
NR Do u accept Mr young being privy was underminding to C
SN A tricky situation. Is part of Ix process to be able to bring someone in

NR AS submitted updated Cx on 23 Dec as she thought 1st was too emotional
SN Yes, so I understand
NR [reads out re adding more examples and her impact statement] So no less emotional, just more egs
SN Think was sent to JJ. That was the reason provided re changes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR So we dont have anyone to say who made the decision for it to be disciplinary. U both deny this
SN [missed]
NR Inpara 18 of yr WS, I dont think we have disclosure on this even now
SN The letter templates?
NR Yes. I might be correted but I dont think we do have it
SN I shared it previously and sent it again last week

NR We really dont think we have it even now. U contact C on 26 Oct to arrange an interview. She asks for adjustment of more reading time. U confirm 14 Nov mtg
SN Yes, yes, yes
NR U change to Nov 21st for yr convenience
SN Yes
NR U email C on 2 Nov: [reads fast]

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
SN [missed]
NR JJ sent u the notes, after starting the Ix and a summary of the Cx. Were u sent the email about Cs GC beliefs on p886?
SN [reading] i cant recall seeing it but it may have been linked to previous docs
NR Look at the summary u were sent. Do u agree on p1099 JJ
had already removed onboarding Cx
Yes

NR What sort of Ix was it to be
NS Mainly management issues and comments
NR I meant what process
SN understood to be disciplinary
NR She said it wasnt at handover point
SN That was my understanding

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
NR So did she send the tweets and establish whether are offensive or misconduct
Yes
NR As IO u have an open min
SN Yes
NR But u said was so offensive that cldnt send but purpose of Ix is whether is offensive or not
SN [repeats]
NR U have already made a conclusion. U had a closed mind re GG Ix

SN No. I need to find out the owner of the GG account
NR This will now be chronological afaic [new page in WS] This was about unisclosed info?
SN It has now been disclosed last night but also previously afaik
NR So already given in other searches
SN Yes

NR The legal team told us they sent everything. Someone is incorrect here
SN Theres been a no of searches and I'm sure it's been provided to the Rs lawyers is my inderstanding
NR We didnt have a single doc from Hr re yr Ix until last night. Do u accept

Why couldn’t she send a link to the Twitter account saying we are investigating this account and is it you?

Not oh it’s so offensive and shocking 😳 I couldn’t possibly sully my email account.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR Is the real reason u treated her differently to HR..
SN I wanted to know it was her account as contained swearing etc. HR already knew abou tthe info. There'd been a Cx
NR U took against the C due to her beliefs
SN I deny this. It was because I wasnt sure were her tweets and didnt want to distress her, Not 100% sure

NR Y're saying to avoid distressing her?
SN [repeats]
NR Y're saying so offensive so cldnt send yrself
SN [repeats offensive language and not sure if account was the Cs]
NR U regarded the tweets as v offensive
Yes as swearing and the views

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
SN No I sont accept that. Looked at as a package. Afaik these tweets were freely available on the internet
NR How was C to receive them
SN It's complicated. I wanted to meet her to discuss the GG account but wasnt sure it belonger to her. That was my intention and maybe I shld have made it clearer

NR Y've changed yr reason - too offensive. Y'd already shared w HR by forwarding things to HR.
SN Yes HR were copied in. Those attachments and WT files were downladed on MCC system
NR So u cld sent to C
SN Wasnt sure belonged to her. So wanted to meet her and discuss.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
SN SH came across these and she thinks some of these are GC.
NR Is that a Yes
SN Yes
NR p2036: [reads about Cs faith and her workplace bullying] Is this inapprop?
SN [missed, I think no]
NR [p2045]

NR A tweet re genocidal GCs and daring to tweet re GC beliefs which breaks PSED. This next batch looks like prepared by someone else. read this tweet. ANything offensive about that?
SN No, I dont think so

NR Do u accept that some of these tweets just support GC beleifs
SN Yes, on rereading can accept that

NR Equating them to something so abominable they cant be sent yr equating GC views as abominable

So the package of information was so offensive you couldn’t send it on email except….

It was presumably sent to you via work email
And you haven’t identified anything offensive in the package

Oh ok hun 🤯

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
NS Varying degrees of views [sound glitch]
NR p2033 was sent to u by SH. Chris Musson is quoting Rishi Sunak [reading] about GI in Scotland. The C says dont cave into the activists. Isnt it simple views
NS I was looking at the whole package and not single phrases
Tribunal Tweets

NR Do u think GC views are inherently discrim
NS No but I think some ways of expressing unaccep though
NR Atweet by JKR. What's yr problem w it
NS Again, it's the whole package
NR Do u have any objections to her tweet
NS It's how some ppl might view it

NR Is it yr view its offensive
NS I dont understand the Q [replies agains about package]
NR Asks Q again
SN It depends on the context
NR There is no context
NS It potentially is as infers re certain views. I'm no expert on these matters.
NR These just show she's GC. It;s an exercise to show she is GC

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

1m
NR [p1446] Above this is your email to the C. Please read to remind yrself of the start of this. Then u said "given the nature of the content I wld like to avoid sending by email, as dont want to send via MCC email" You regarded as too offensive to send
NS I wasnt sure were the Cs and concerned it wld set off flags in the R's email system
NR All the tweets
NS Yes, lots of swear words. Was my decision.
NR Did it amount to hate speech
NS Yes, thought was discrim
NR Not all was offensive
NS Didnt know all was hers.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR Are these the 23 Dec ones
SN I think are we transfer and not the attachment ones
NR So from WT email
SN Yes
NR An undated doc of unknown origins
SN I think from WT download as well
NR Theyre formatted differently

SN Yes but think came from same place
NR p1670. I still cant find these attachments. Wat is this
NS I dont recall where they come from
NR These tweets were sent to C. Were the generated by HR
SN They might be WT. I cant recall
NR We have no emails to work this pout

NS we have email chains and not indiv ones so hard to work out
NR We do know she sent u 2 batches: 23 Dec and WT (we transfer). On p1347 she refers to sending by WT. Presumably u forwarded to HR
NS HR were sent a link of my download at some time

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

SN They're in the pack attached to my IO (Ix report)
NR We dont know this. This might be the 3rd cat of tweets. The ones in the Ix pack - the one the C sent a yr later
SN It shld be this. An Appex to my IO. All the info is diclosed there. Some info is disclosed elsewhere tho
2m
NR Are these the 23 Dec ones
SN I think are we transfer and not the attachment ones
NR So from WT email
SN Yes
NR An undated doc of unknown origins
SN I think from WT download as well
NR Theyre formatted differently

SN Yes but think came from same place
NR p1670. I still cant find these attachments. Wat is this
NS I dont recall where they come from
NR These tweets were sent to C. Were the generated by HR
SN They might be WT. I cant recall
NR We have no emails to work this out