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

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?

Thank you @RoseInAPot for bringing the TT posts over here

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.

My thanks also

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.

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

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 )

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.

Thanks, @RoseInAPot. Appreciate your TT input here.

Thank you for posting @RoseInAPot

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?

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]

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?

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 .

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

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.

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.

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

I think it's a case of a recurrent human type which battens on to whatever persecution fad happens to be in fashion. In the middle ages they denounced heretics, in the 17th century they made witchcraft accusations, in the 19th century they virtue-signalled by sacking their maids if they got pregnant out of wedlock, in the 20th, depending on where they lived, they had Nazism, Stalinism, McCarthyism, Maoism etc to snitch for.

when defence witnesses are put on the stand in such cases they, without variation, sound like absolute fucking morons.

A question I would love to Ask

So Jo Jo the Manchester City Council issued a diktat that said that the council believes that the earth is flat, and employees must not post on SM any kind of of travel abroad, just in case the general public are influenced to question our position or make flat earth people feel distressed or uncomfortable

how in the world can any sane person think that the council can require its employees to adhere to a belief of any sort. Including a political belief.

The interesting issue here is what if Reform were to take control of Manchester Council, and have views and pass motions that the vast majority of employees found reprehensible? Would they impose the same rules? It will never happen, but the point of policy is to be generic and applicable to all situations.

"From now on they are GCL Gender Critical Losers" Is this is line with R's values?

Saying the quiet bit out loud.

These ETs are highlighting the Orwellian nature of TI. You will believe. Or else.

Thank you so much for the copy/ paste from TT @RoseInAPot

The dismissal letter part was interesting. JO was asked if she stood by it. Wanted to change "one word" now. However that change (cannot be completely sure as I have not seen the letter) is very important.

It appears that the dismissal letter said (something along the line about) holding GC views was incompatible with (the job?)?

JO said that she stands by the letter but not the "one word" now but that word i am guessing isn't trivial and totally changes the grounds for dismissal.

She admits it is wrong now. Some excuse about having an english degree. Claims it wasn't an accurate description for what she/they were thinking.

This sounds so implausible.

I thought the defence 'I did an English degree' was funny - obvs the TT transcriptions are very sketchy, and a lot more was said, but I would have thought that 'doing an English degree' would enable her to use language correctly.

'My client comes struggles to cope with remaining within the constraints of legality, due to her background which unfortunately caused her to be subjected to... an English degree!'
<gasps of shock and horror>

I too would love to know what 'The Word' was...