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

https://x.com/barry_yorkshire

https://democracy.manchester.gov.uk/documents/s36373/Appendix%201%20-%20Anti-Poverty%20Strategy%20Equality%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf

Barry had the good sense for a total data wipe.....

Well done Barry you have hidden your harassement of those with protected characteristics.

So inclusive. So equal. So diverse.

Absolutely, but the witnesses are also not answering any of the yes or no questions with a yes or a no. I realize there must be some legal strategy underpinning all of this, but what's the point of requiring people to take an oath to tell the truth if they cannot be compelled to actually answer the question?

I know this is not Law & Order, but this kind of evasion, which seems to be tolerated in every tribunal we've seen on here, is just rife.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
AH - that's one approach but if there had been a formal complaint from the team

NR - there wasn't a formal complaint was there
AH - no

NR - in any case, the team is a red herring, no impact at work, not about reputational impact, because if she'd move to another team, no one would have known. What this letter is really saying is that her views are incompatible with employment at MCC.
AH - her views as expressed

NR - it's not about reputational risk
AH - it didn't create reputation risk but it could have

NR - none of that is in your letter
AH - no, its not

NR - now referring to ill health may have impacted judgment, do you agree that for something to mitigate it must have an impact
AH - what do you mean

NR - do you agree that there was no mitigation here, because MCC made the same decision
AH - it was taken into account

NR - it had no impact on the decision therefore no mitigation
AH - reasonable to take account of mental health of C over period

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
10m

NR - I'll come on to the team. But no one coming on this account would think these were the views of MCC
AH - no
NR - the only people who knew were her team
AH - I don't know, didn't do the interviews
NR - do you accept that the ix did not establishwho was the owner of the account.
AH - yes

NR - the team's views were based on speculation, based on tweets about dead father and Trevi fountain
AH - I understood she had told team GG account was hers
NR -no one in the team said that she had shared it with them
AH - okay

NR - team was told to stop discussing matter, reminded that people could hold different views.
AH - yes

NR - no way that members of team could believe that the views expressed were views of MCC
AH - it would be clear to them private views

NR - BY's approach would be to have an informal discussion.

AH - I don't recall that.

NR - takes to BY witness statement, reads out para. Refers to a telephone call, that was not part of process.
AH - the phone convo was not part of process.

NR - wasn't there an alt option to Rs tell team 'mind their own business, stop trawling anon accounts, you need to work with people of different views'

It will be interesting to see the Judge’s comments on the credibility of these witnesses.

Agreed - not sure what the answer is but something around the idea of majority opinion and dissent… ?

If we don't, then from here on in, every question will be answered "well, we were justified because she shouldn't have said it like that."

I guess that simply asking the witness how they should have said it is pretty high risk strategy. A very open ended question that seems to break the 'always know the answer to any question you ask' rule

The Judge will see through this.

Its standard wording they've been trained into - but the barrister has picked that apart by inserting gay where they say gender critical etc.

There was no way to say it that MCC would have accepted.

thou must not suffer a witch to live

It's starting to become crystal clear that this "it's the way they are saying it" is now the standard response to "but gender critical views are protected, aren't they?"

We will see a lot more of this as the tribunals mount up, and someone is going to have to develop a solid, standard, legal-based rebuttal to this trend. If we don't, then from here on in, every question will be answered "well, we were justified because she shouldn't have said it like that."

Translation: "If she'd just kept her mouth shut, she wouldn't have been in this position in the first place, and we wouldn't have been forced to dismiss her."

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
7m
AH - it's how she said it
NR - are you aware that the EA does not apply to Twitter
AM interrupts, discussion of whether and when EA applies to Twitter
NR - put it this way - did you think that the EA applies to what C had said on Twitter
AH - I think some parts of it gender reassignment is a PC

NR - do you think her conduct on Twitter breached the EA
AH - I think it breached MCC code of conduct

Judge interjects, we move on.

NR - doc 'your ill health was a contributory factor, would have been unfair to reach a decision of disc process' is it your understanding that it would have been unreasonable to dismiss her as a disciplinary. Is it saying that it is unfair to see it as an act of misconduct because of ill health?
AH - in my view it's saying its not clear cut

NR - not clear cut its misconduct
AH - yes

NR - does the letter actually say that no one with GC views can work in EDI, there's no focus in the letter of the harm caused by the tweets
AH - it says GC views okay but must be careful about expression
NR - can you find the analysis of the harms

AH - not there
NR - what is the alleged harm. Shall we agree that the C's behaviour at work was in no way discriminatory
AH - in terms of this letter

NR - perception, this account was anonymous, not in her name, no connection to council
AH - her team knew

I have had some contact with Bingo in a different context. Entitled and overbearing.

True.
https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/member/nathan-roberts/

• R (Good Law Project & Ors) v Commission for Equality and Human Rights [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) – representing the Minister for Women and Equalities in a challenge to guidance produced by the EHRC on use of toilet facilities
• .W v Gender Recognition Panel [2025] EWHC 2685 (Fam) – Advocate to the Court in an appeal of a refusal of a gender recognition certificate on the grounds that the applicant wanted to become pregnant.
• AD & Others v Georgia [2023] 57864/17 – assisting the applicants in the European Court of Human Rights on the requirements for legal recognition of transgender men’s gender.
• Christian Concern v Fitzwilliam College [2023] – representing a Cambridge college in a religious belief case brought by a religious organisation.
• H v United Kingdom [2022] 32185/20 – European Court of Human Rights decision on whether the UK’s statutory scheme for parenthood in the case of assisted reproduction is compliant with Article 8 ECHR in the context of a surrogacy arrangement.
• R (FDJ) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] 1 WLR 5265 – whether the prison service’s arrangements for the location of trans female prisoners violates the sex-based rights of non-trans prisoners.
• R (H) v Secretary of State for Health [2019] EWHC 2095 (Admin) – claim seeking a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to Articles 8 and 14 ECHR regarding the statutory bar on the genetic father of a child born pursuant to a surrogacy arrangement being named as the father on the child’s birth certificate.
• Grand Chamber advisory opinion [2019] (request P16-2018-001) – the first advisory opinion of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, issued under Protocol 16, concerning surrogacy and the rights engaged under French law.

Usually I object to anything over 100% as inaccurate but in this case im entirely in agreement with your 110% 🤣

They absolutely started with the intent of dismissing her.

“If you don’t have the word for it, then you can’t really own it for yourself”

Yes Bingo. Never a more true word!

And just look at the size of the fella next to the wee Phil & Holly?!

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m

[From previous tweet
NR - do you accept that however moderately C expressed herself, it was not going to be]

enough for the EDI because they took exception to the fact that she was GC
AH - no
NR - interview - Michelle objected to purple/green/white and Barry called GC people losers. Nothing would have been moderate enough.
AH - not my team, I don't know them and don't know what there views might be in the round.

NR - GC views not necessarily incompatible with holding a role in the EDI team, replace that with any other PC, 'gay not necessarily', etc. Makes it a very weird read.

AH - I don't think 'not necessarily' is important, just the way it's written.

[some problems with electronic bundle]

NR - review of evidence 'expressed views that were discriminatory views', is that under the EA
AH - no, it was under the trans inclusive motion MCC adopted
NR - so views in contradiction of MCC motion are not acceptable

It seems NR has in the past represented both sides in the gender debate, so he's simply doing his job here, rather than picking a specific side like other GC KCs.

We can’t see the observers but there have been photos of her with WRN at the hearing.

I hope she is watching and feeling fantastically vindicated.

Operation let them speak has incredible power. But great cost.

Do we know if Lorna is in the room watching this? I think I saw a reference to her being asked about whether the lights were too bright.

It must be equal parts devastating and exhilarating to watch these senior colleagues wriggle obfuscate there way through their evidence. After everythign they've put her through.

All over 4 tweets.

Nathan Roberts is doing an excellent job imo

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
AH - I don't agree that the indiv tweets are inoffensive
NR - let's look at your witness statement, you put particular weight on the number of tweets, how many were there
AH - I understood that there was a number of tweets from the IX
NR - but you didn't read them
AH - no

NR - you held the number of tweets against the C, but you didn't read them
AH - yes, I considered the number
NR - if you only considered the 4 tweets was that enough for dismissal
AH - yes, the manner in which C expressed self was not acceptable

NR - 4 tweets enough to end a 20 year career at MCC
AH - yes
NR - your letter says that C had opportunity to put out case in detail at dismissal and appeal, but where do you address her detailed explanations
AH - I didn't address
NR - back to dismissal letter

NR - 'allowed to have GC views but must be expressed in a respectful and moderate way' , who made the MCC the police of moderate language in employee private life.
J - asks to rephrase
NR - do you accept that however moderately C expressed herself, it was not going to be

My Barrister heart ❤️ list is

Naomi Cunningham
Nathan Roberts
Niazi Fetto

The mammoth weight of the totality of FOUR tweets.

Two likes and two comments.

Push her to the brink of suicide. She is guilty of not BEING KIND!

poor Lorna :( honestly the worst thing is I'm
not remotely surprised at what is coming out. It's everything we've hard negotiate other tribunals

the be kind side of history bullying people unmercifully whilst believing that they are the righteous so anything and everything they do is fine

BINGO