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

I know, it is most damning. The inability of the witnesses to be specific when answering questions about the reason(s) for Lorna’s dismissal stinks of a lack of integrity in my view. They know what the true principal reason for Lorna’s dismissal was.

Having worked in HR in the public sector, I would be astounded if there wasn’t an email and/or other electronic documents trail about Lorna’s case. I think it’s safe to assume the contents are very prejudicial to the Council (along the lines you described). I also wouldn’t be surprised if they haven’t been disclosed due to professional embarrassment it would cause some individuals who are obviously quite high up in HR for the council.

Of course not. Frankly, women are at the bottom of the pile in terms of equality issues and the decision on this matter had already been made before the investigation started. So what was the point in asking ‘difficult’ questions?

If substantial parts of different team members complaints are identical then there is a high likelihood that they have been shared electronically between LY's team
If the evidence for this electronic sharing is not included in the respondents submissions then is there is a strong suggestion that this information has been deliberately withheld or destroyed
Were LY's team members questioned about the similarities in their complaints? Did they have any explanation?

don’t forget the Maria Kelly decision …that still has me floored.

Wasnt it 2 tweets and 2 likes from an anonymous account?

I think the Met having had to apologise to Glinner this week about overreactions to tweets surely should be highlighted here?

amazing coincidence isnt it?

Since the bizarre efforts of EJ Sandy Kemp and his tribunal panel, frankly I trust nae fucker.

But I do have hope that the Kemp Conundrum is unrepeatable.

Surely the tribunal will see through this bullshit.

Thanks to @Mmmnotsure for the thread, @JaneDoeKeepsReceipts for the pasting, and Tribunal Tweets as always.

I’m finding this case quite horrifying. I think it’s the idea of Lorna Young’s colleagues hunting down her private account and discussing it behind her back, and that the whole situation having such a terrible impact on her mental health. All this over four tweets, expressing legally-protected views that many (most) people hold. It’s really sinister. Imagine, god forbid, if she had taken her own life, no tribunal had taken place, and this shower of bastards carrying on with their agenda and smugly assuring each other that it was nothing to do with them 😞

The thing about the WhatsApp group is bonkers. I’ve lost my phone before and restored chats from a back up - I didn’t have to tell it to do that, it just reinstalled all my chats when I logged into the app on a new phone.

What are the chances that absolutely everyone in the chat not only lost their phone or otherwise lost access to WhatsApp but also didn’t have automatic back up enabled, when it’s the default setting?

I guess a few more weeks of stress for Lorna Young count for nothing?
All seems a bit one sided

Come back here and remind us too ;-)

Thanks, I have added a reminder in my calendar

A reminder on how to get access to view in September.

A couple of days prior so Thursday 17 September or so (it starts on Monday 21st September) take the following steps.

Contact the Tribunal at [email protected]

Include Lorna Young v MCC in the subject & body

"Request to observe remotely” in the subject heading to request a remote link.

Yes back in late September. Due to witness availabilty. And then its the witnesses birthday so she doesn't want Lorna and her GC ways to spoil her very special day. So the barrister asked if they could delay for a few weeks. For a birthday. And it wasn't even likely she'd still be on the stand for her birthday. But you know she might be. And its her special day.

The remaining witness for the respondent is on sick leave so not available for cross-examination this week.

Sorry, I just cut and pasted 'Court adjourned until 21/22 September.' to be helpful! that's all I know - maybe somebody else can give the details.

Why was it adjourned? The case was supposed to run 11 - 22 May 2026 but finished early yesterday afternoon with over two days left this week. It's not as though they have set aside more than two days in September.

Court adjourned until 21/22 September.

Sorry, I've missed some of the thread but have been trying to catch up. Has the rest of the hearing been postponed to a future date?

I think we can gather what is really behind the late disclosure.

Most damning of all is non-disclosure of anything from HR. An obviously difficult case like this should have generated a huge e-mail trail. HR disclosure will either be "we've done what???" or "burn the witch"; or possibly both.

Similarly the difficulty all the witnesses had in saying what the reason was for Lorna being sacked.

I completely agree. It’s been… enlightening to read about the way Manchester City Council’s HR conducts things and the sort of people it employs. To borrow from a comment I gather one of Lorna’s former reports came out with, I’m ashamed to be in the same profession as some of these people. They’re a disgrace.

Very telling about the repeated disclosure issues by MCC. In my opinion there should be something similar in employment tribunals to the adverse inferences a judge hearing a divorce case can draw from late disclosure. I can’t believe a Council would have been unable to have compiled all documents for the bundles in time. I think we can gather what is really behind the late disclosure.

Very happy to watch that again, thanks!

Oh it wasn’t a criticism, just an observation about the difference between reading the posts and actually witnessing the proceedings.

I have no idea how you manage to keep up with what is being said. I am regularly shouting out my own responses.

I mean it’s pretty standard in Christianity to suggest something is a sin. Also he’d said he was inspired by God to be gender queer and I think Lorna said it wasn’t God it was the Devil as if it wasn’t one it’s likely the other.

There are Christian blogs saying he is a sinner for being gender queer and shouldn’t have been ordained from Anglian theologian. Not far off Satan inspired.

https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/2023/01/04/can-a-priest-be-non-non-binary/

Because denying the exclusively male or female sex God has given to us is a form of sin it follows that it cannot be right for the Church of England to ordain those who identify as non-binary. As the 1662 Ordinal declares, those who are ordained are called to provide ‘wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.’ That is to say, they are not only to tell people how God wants his human creatures to live in their sermons and other teaching, but also to model it in the way that they behave. Those who are living openly and unrepentantly as non-binary cannot do this since the sinful manner of life they have chosen to adopt is contrary to how God wants human beings to live. Consequently, it is not right for them to be ordained so long as this state of affairs persists.