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

I’ve been thinking Stasi too. These people seem oblivious to what they’re doing.

Our very own Stasi, the level of vindictiveness, spite and sheer malice shown by fellow workers is hard to understand - the trans ideology truly does destroy everything it touches.

I'm not sure you'd be safe in your own home if you had a visitor who was a tra. At least one of Sandie Peggie's 'friends' was extraordinarily vindictive. Rosie Kaye's ordeal started at her dining table.

I agreed right up until your paragraph in the past tense. It still is all-pervasive in some environments.
Nightmarish. I really hope this tribunal goes the right way and makes some people think a little bit.

Thanks for posting today - are we still able to request remote access and if so can someone post how please?

JO - at time staff were expected to follow policy and motions at time so saying TWANW cuts across what council stated at the time.

In other words, everybody who worked for the council had to uphold TWAW/TMAM, even if they didn't believe it, or found it morally or ethically unacceptable.

They could not express disagreement, even anonymously on SM.

They were allowed express their opinions in the privacy of their own homes.

Expressing your opinions anywhere else would have been unsafe, as your conversation might have been overheard by a council staff member, at the next table at the pub or the restaurant, or sitting in front of you on the bus, who would denounce you to the council..

What a nightmare!
But worth noting as an example of just how pervasive transgenderism was in settings like that, how out of control it was, and what damage it did to 'non-compliant' individuals .

From the transcript

NR - refers to new doc. "We attach copy of council's statement on trans inclusion (SoTI) that appears on our website..." Your letter - SoTI - we recognise TWAW, TMAM, NB individuals are NB

Also from the transcript

NR - TI is the most evil homophobic and mysoginist ideology of my lifetime. Which words object to?
JO _ TI being evil. Well
NR - do you accept that think TI is H & M sits at teh core of GC belief. Are you saying they are not allowed to say that?
JO - need to be very very careful at the council so as not to cause offence to wode spreadreviews, particularly in EDI>
Jo no- you have to be exceptionally careful.

A council stating TWAW, TMAM, NB individuals are NB is extremely offensive to people with protected GC views. Worse still that this is a statement made by a council's website - a body that it supposed to represent all of the people, businesses and communities within their area

How is it that a council need to be very very careful and have to be exceptionally careful when representing one viewpoint and yet free to offend at will a group of people who have a different protected viewpoint?

Also DQST = Drag Queen Story Time - I think

NR _ Big neon light with lick me and men walking around with plastic covering their ballsacks. Are people entitled to object? [missed]

But I think the Bananarama gets probed a little more than usual

EJ - If OK to hold view that TII is homophobic and mysoginistic, how do you express it without using those words?
JO I see what you are saying. I can see you can articulate it in that way.

Is this an admission that expressing these views is in fact OK as it is the only way they can be expressed?

Thank you for posting @RoseInAPot

Thanks, @RoseInAPot. Appreciate your TT input here.

Yep, a couple of hand-maidens looking to get pats on the head went out of their way to try and identify Lorna ‘s connection to an anonymous X /Twitter account.

Am I right in remembering that also there was evidence that someone had gone to a lot of trouble to track down and identify what should have been anonymous posts?
( AKA -a witch hunt )

Abolutely! 'Cometh the tribunal, cometh the TT poster', this time it's RoseInAPot who stepped up, thank you very much!💐

Good to see the Bananarama defence appearing again

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
Jo no- you have to be exceptionally careful.
NR - can someone say H & M in personal capacity when working at council?
JO - not in that way. Language used is not approp for an officer. You can hold views - way that epressed.
JO Entitled to hold views
NR - yes or no - are you saying cannot hold employment if in private capacity say TI is H&M?
JO - O. Yes you can hold those views. How you express them.
EJ - If OK to hold view that TII is homophobic and mysoginistic, how do you express it without using those words?
JO I see what you are saying. I can see you can articulate it in that way.

My thanks also

That’s the impression I got from following the TT posts.

It was JOs interpretation and she didn’t ask Lorna to explain, read the relevant article or watch the related video. If I was a cynic I would assume that the decision was predetermined.

Thank you @RoseInAPot for bringing the TT posts over here

I've only just joined the thread. Would it be fair to say that a lot of the first session was involved with discussing the 'interpretations' that were made about the claimant's posts?

@RoseInAPot

thank you for posting - I and I suspect many others are grateful.

TT

NR has in mind exchanging written submissions at 4pm today to start again midmorning.
AM - something nearly ready - and had anticipated overnight. Ready by say 4.30pm.
EJ - hopes to start at 10am

NR - doesn't think need long orally.
AM - lengthy submission - lots of claims. Almost 80 pages. Not much to say [orally].
EJ - better if we say 6pm [exchange of written submissions]? And send to tribunal at 6pm.

Court resumes at 11.30am tomorrow. Observers should join at 5 or 10 minutes past 11am.

ENDS

TT

AM - put to you that C dismissed for her views rather than what she had said or done. You implicated you agreed with that
JO _ SOSR - unable to conclude the disciplinary investigation, period of sustained absences and the views she exressed that I considered discriminatory that led to breakdown in trust and confidence.

AM - Need to e acreful and not lead you. CX was about the expression of views. Is it about the views?
JO - it was the way her views were expressed. I've been under scrutiny for some time and thought I'd made that clear, She's entitled to her views. It was the manner in which she articulated her views.

JO _ [BY tweet] was not part pf any paperwork at the time.
AM - no express reference to C's articulation of regret. para 4.2
JO - quotes reference to regret and remorse re NB thinker

AM - NR corrected you re GG account disclosed to other members of staff. Note re BY.
JO - [looks at it] yes - appended to briefing AM - where would you have had that info?
JO - in the bundle I was given.

AM - asks JO to read the paragraphs
JO Yes, BY replies. Yes - even made aware of an alleged Twitter account. BY says yes by EDI team members.

JO - quotes - [name missed] LY herself made me aware of another account used to debate with Tara Hewitt. Sopha Higgins was aware the account was called GG and sent her the link.

EJ - give opportunity to NR to go back.
NR will stick with that answer. One follow up q.
JO did not have any of BY's tweets in front of her. She agreed. 1846.
EJ - as you have [asked the question] , Miss Osborne do you want to comment on that?
JO - looking at clip from an X twtter account - Annie Wallace. can't see anything from BY.

JO - don't see anything with BY's names. I see the point you are making.
EJ - did you Id the dates the tweets were made.
JO - over 4 or 5 months.
EJ releases JO from her affirmation.

TT

JO - clear mental and physical health was poor for sometime and she said it had impacted her decisions. I took that into account. I didn't accept the fact that MH condition that she couldn't make other choices.
NR Do you accept reduced capacity?
JO - yes OH report - accept.

Nr so saying because of yr ill health, unfair to dismiss you on misconduct?
JO - no - never concluded.
NR - think it was misconduct?
JO yes around her conduct

JO _ SOSR case.
NR did not ID that the misconduct had caused any harm?
JO no determination. We'll never know, will we?
NR - that C's continued employment would cause harm?
JO - missed.

NR - did not Id any past or future harm if continued employment?
JO - No.
NR 19 years no warnings. Evidence that has worked well with transpeople.
JO I didn't take it into acount.

NR - alternatives to dismissal - dismissed for her views?
JO - yes she was.

H & M = "homophobic and mysoginist" ?

TT

NR - the DQST says "lick me". Do you know the phenomenon of DQST?
Jo - No
NR - Important?
JO - take a snapshop.
NR - dismissed the C after 20 years without looking at teh video?
JO - no

JO - [missed din't know what DQST is]
NR _ Big neon light with lick me and men walking around with plastic covering their ballsacks. Are people entitled to object? [missed]
JO - association with CSE, grooming children association most people will make.
NR no evidence that C said TWAP>
JO agrees

JO - would have been really helpful too have a discussion about these matters. NR - Reasonable adjustment - you could have written to her.
JOO - Yes.

NR - you seem to suggest that immoderate to say that TI is M&H.
JO and evil.
NR is it immoderate to say TW are not women?
JO - how does that relate to info in here?
NR judge will stop me, please answer.

JO - before Supreme Court judgment.
NR so immoderate?
JO - Council had zero tolerance policy
NR no language that is moderate enough for GC belief.
EJ - Yr question is in present. I'd like to understand from JO if there is a difference in time and if so what that is.

JO - at time staff were expected too follow policy and motions at time so saying TWANW cuts across what council stated at the time.
NR C was on an anon Twtter account. What's yr remit? What people say in privacy of their own homes?
JO - No - public forum - social media policy

NR - aware account was anonymous. Nowhere do you engage with fact not was an anonymous account?
JO - No.
NR duty to protect free speech rights.
JO [deep sigh] - if views can be identified and associated with council - have to express respectful.
NR - right to shock and offend

JO - Accept that. Judgement as council officers as to what is respectful and treats people with dignity.
NR C's views were not in association to the council. You can tweet in yr personal capacity. And are responsible for private account.

JO - media policy and code of conduct - must express in line with council policy whether or not account IDs you are associated with the council.

NR - [reference] this was yr thinking at the time
JO - I disagree
NR - what was relevance of C's ill health to yr decision?