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

Created an environment where bullies were tolerated and empowered to go harass colleagues.

Gender ideology - push every boundary beyond reason. And then go farther.

Good point

TT is an amazing asset and I thank the team for their dedication to open justice. But sometimes it’s the gaping wall of silence after a question is asked that gives more insight than the words actually uttered.

Court adjourned until 21/22 September.

Email tribunal a few days before to get access.

Isn't a MCC's proclamation that TWAW, TMAM etc., a major factor in the team's belief that a witch-hunt is the right thing to do?

I find it awful that Lorna has been waiting 3 years and now she has to wait further because someone wants to celebrate their birthday.

She nearly died, she moved country but someone’s birthday takes priority.

I can identify with that!
I wonder if this experience might peak AH like NHSE witness who seemed to peak on the stand? AH might take a while longer but surely the penny is about to drop? She’s not giving Bumba vibes

There were a small group of us at MCC who wondered how this group of “leaders” coped in the outside world, without their snr leadership clique and protections, their positions as head cult members and their “holding the pen” and other such nonsense phrases. Profoundly self important in their little worlds where they could maybe talk a good ish talk but not much intelligence and analysis behind it all. Well, now we know for sure that they don’t actually cope very well at all.

This.

Failing to answer a question is often equally if not more revealing than giving a straight yes or no.

I hope to heaven that I remember this if I ever get quizzed on the stand by an opposing barrister.

So AH has never been to a company sponsored 'awareness training' session?

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
9m
AM - NR suggested to you that JO's letter of dismissal ended with ref to trans motion, and I think the reference there is to the penultimate point,
AH - problems with the bundle, can you read out
AM - NR asked you to agree that the point was the trans motion,

J interjects, my note of that evidence is different,
AM - I may have misunderstood
NR - I did take her to that doc
AM - I can leave that there. NR suggested that SN had found C guilty of gross misconduct, did you consider that, did you have it in front of you

AM - do you recall whether you were provided with SN's draft report
AH - I cannot recall
AM - if we look at it, did you have it in front of you
AH - I don't think I did but I can't recall
AM - that's fine, in terms of conclusions,

AM - there's a section for report summary and conclusions, says there is a case to answer, would you recognise that as a case of gross misconduct
AH - I would say of misconduct
AM - is it a finding of misconduct
AH - no, a case to answer

[Now can hardly hear the judge but discussion among NR/AM/J about that para].
J - further discussions need to be had, will it be short or will it be longer and involve medical evidence
AM - don't know what NR will say
NR - don't think it will

J - now discussing dates to continue the hearing
[AM/NR whispering about dates]
[witness is unavailable]
NR - prefer 10/11 September, but can do either
AM - it is Miss Osborne's birthday on 11th, but unlikely to be giving evidence on 11th.

Well it’s not policy but from the POV of the managers, I expect this team scared the shit out of them. If they can’t get Lorna out, then they’ll look for a bigger scalp. The question is whether any of them will break ranks to admit this - because that exposes them to the same risk/job loss… no safer to plough on and look like an idiot but keep your job

Well of course.....

"I read the Guardian of course so I am up to speed on what a nasty bunch these gender critics are."

J - you say a decision in a contested space, how aware of the debate online/offline were you
AH - I would describe myself as an interested observer, get my info from mainstream media

So completely in the dark then?
Reliance on mainstream media probably means that AH doesn’t have a clue other than that GC views are contested and it’s a “culture war” that nasty wims should give up….

NR - in fact the only way that GC people can work at MCC is if no one knows they are GC.
AH - not correct

The fact that her team found out she was GC, went searching online for an anonymous social media account, whipped themselves into a fury, got the support of higher management for their witch-hunt and pushed their work colleague to the point of suicide is entirely incidental and not representative of MCC policy

Advocacy itself is a skill. When a barrister is asking a question they aren't necessarily expecting an answer to agree.

They are building their case. The evidence they draw the witnesses attention to supports their case. They make that case in submissions.

If the witness evades - it goes to the evidence that they were evasive.

In this case they could have inverted Barry’s phraseology? He’s got a charming turn of phrase doesn’t he?!

Yes, it's the lack of clear answer, and no immediate follow-up that I find frustrating. And relying on the judge to "see" things is risky as well, although I understand that's the nature of the beast. I would rather not have to hope that this judge can see things more clearly than the Peggie judge did.
I am just feeling cynical about the whole thing today, I suppose.

NR - the essence of her ground of appeal was that she was treated differently than people without the GC belief
AH - I agree that she was treated differently

This seems like a bit of a bombshell admission?

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
5m
AH - that was not what I was considering in appeal
NR - you know that she brought this up to Miss Osborne, and her basic point as that she was being disciplined and others were not.
AH - I think there was an ix of SK

NR - yes, she was exonerated and indeed she was praised.

NR - in fact the only way that GC people can work at MCC is if no one knows they are GC.
AH - not correct
NR - no further qs

J - your background on disciplinary matters and ix
AH - at MCC 25 years, done many

J - a bit more granular
AH - done two in last year

J - was this a particularly difficult appeal
AH - yes in a contested space GC/GI, took a long time, and the SOSR grounds, and it's also easier to have the person in the room to answer qs

J - have you overturned cases on appeal
AH - yes, one of the last ones I overturned

J - do you look at the matter fresh or are you looking at what JO took into account and how she executed her work
AH - it was a bit of both, I needed to think through the grounds of appeal because that was new

J - you say a decision in a contested space, how aware of the debate online/offline were you
AH - I would describe myself as an interested observer, get my info from mainstream media

J - were you aware of the strength of views on both sides
AH - yes, aware, strong views, not prone to moderate language
J - all from me

I think the Judge asked one of the previous MCC witnesses something along these lines and didn't get a very clear answer (unsurprisingly).

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
8m

NR - looking at appeal decision, the C said you need to identify proportionate aim and legitimate grounds, first 2 paras set out ground, last 2 paras set out your response, all you do is agree with Miss Osborner.
AH - yes, I agreed with Miss Osborne

NR - no further analysis just a lot of words to say you agree
AH - yes

NR - did you give regard to C's right of free speech under ECHR
AH - throughout the case we gave regard to write to hold beliefs and free speech
NR - I'm not going to argue the whole case with you

NR - nowhere in the letter do you refer to 20 years of service, did you take into account
AH - no mention but did consider
NR - and clean discipline record
AH - considered but did not mention
NR - you understand the C said she was treated less favourably than other views expressed by team on social media. What about saying GC people in a cult and losers. Is that acceptable?
AH - no that's not good.

NR - it was expressed on LinkedIn and it is clear that he can be linked to MCC
AH - I haven't done that

NR - parking the link he expressed straightforward animus to people with a PC
AH - yes

NR - the essence of her ground of appeal was that she was treated differently than people without the GC belief
AH - I agree that she was treated differently

NR - you did not engage with her ground of appeal

Maybe suggest a series of rewordings to the witness and then show how each one could be construed by some as unacceptable
This might show that following EDI rules there is no acceptable way to express GC belief.
A bit like the 'you chose the nth best option' from the SP case

This has always been their tactic. It was part of both the Forstater and Bailey cases (and practically all others). What many genderists dont realise is that Forstater and Bailey said similar things in their cases that TRAs objected to, which were deemed a valid expression of GC views, and the threshold seems to be quite high for making the protected act of GC belief not worthy of EA protection. I’ve seen TRAs on Reddit claim that most GC beliefs are only protected in theory, it’s discrimination to express them.

The Judge is looking at the evidence, hearing the question and seeing the evasions.

She is fully aware of the evasion. Watching them its clear how they present.