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

If your English degree causes you to be LESS clear in writing than you would otherwise be, you should ask for a refund on your tuition fee.
If, on the other hand, you merely think suggesting that is witty banter, you should think about the seriousness of where you are and what you have done to someone else's life.

• *I wonder if it's the words "not necessarily " that are being discussed. NR said he had examined another witness about those words, below is from an earlier part of the hearing

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.

So, you aren't even allowed to say misogyny is evil? Tough crowd!

Over all thse tribunals, has anyone told us what an acceptable wording for expression of CG beliefs would be? Most say you are allowed to have them, just you're expressing them "wrong." But we never get what the "right" way is. I'm assuming it's silently, just in your head. Not out loud or written down or even anonymously.

Been out until now but will C&P TT

This is the second day of the resumed ET of Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council (MCC). She is taking her former employer, MCC, to employment tribunal for unfair dismissal on the grounds of religion or belief. Ms Young is a Catholic and holds gender critical beliefs. She was dismissed, among other grounds, for social media activity.

The hearing is being heard online as the Manchester court rooms are being refurbished. We expect to begin at 11.30.

[Abbreviations as per posted yesterday]

J [Checking everyone can hear and is present online.]
J Want to repeat no broadcasting or recording hearing. Observers must have cameras and microphones off. Thank you for subs. V helpful. It's clear an awful lot of work has gone in to these - now if wish to expand in any way

J Miss McColgan - are you on mute
AM Sorry - had setting wrong. All I propose to do is deal with some points raised by NR - will use subs to cross refer to NR's subs. Extensive segment on facts. My para 17, ref to bundle 1 p 905, Sarah Harden's email of June. NR suggest

first complaint was re C non-anon twitter account, but this precedes in time. As I read it, SH first email with concerns re dx, then some time on same day emailed Miss johnson with comments. NR has been critical of fact that complaints against C not addressed in a Sept

meeting before she returned to work. But in this June meeting Miss J told C to concentrate on her wellbeing. Didn't find it easy to deal with. Miss J did address it again at absence review meeting in August and C's response was bullish - came from place of anger.

Combative rather than conciliatory. AM My para 87 - c pursuit of ix after C overdose. She wasn't aware of overdose. C subs state Ms Nuichi comments unnecessary . I say those interviews were to assist Ms Nurichi to understand. This was point that C was aware of ix c GG tweets

but hadn't ack they were hers.
AM C complains that decision to conclude ix without further input from her. I would emphasise that C made it crystal clear in May meeting she would never be ready to engage in dx matters. R was aware of this. C clear wasn't and wouldn't be fit

to engage.
AM OH report said increasingly difficult to see date of any possible return - C still unwell. Doctor couldn't predict likely timescale C could engage, inc because of her suicidal tendencies.
AM C subs state that SN thought EA applied to anything done on Twitter,

AM Judge, in my view AR aticulation of NR's evidence overstates this. AR asked do you accept EA has no application to Twitter [AM reading from the cross ex with Ms Nurichi [SN] re how much SN understood what applied on Twitter.
AM SN's 'Yes' applied to J comment re would it

apply to racism/twitter. Judge, please read your own notes on this - suggest AR was overstrung re this.
AM C subs rely heavily on assertions.
J Para refs from AR subs now?
AM Yes. [reads] for C to hold views she did was gross misconduct and only q was had she written them.

AM Not evidence of institutional view.
AM [reads c conflating GC views with transphobia] I say not.
AM R position is that concerns were raised and ix'd.
AM [reads c comparison about being gay]
AM Expressing GC views not in conflict with working in EDI
AM Even if MCC

though TWAW or not, had duty to help good relations.
AM 'Terf is a slur' - this is an assertion not a fact
AM c SK shared material referring to Terfs refers to a post c Judith Butler, a prof and prominent philosopher. This tweet not comparable to C tweets.

AM Radical feminist can't be a slur.
AM GC beliefs exclude TW from women category. Ref to 'terf' not hate-filled or can be taken as slurs.
AM Multiple members of C team had resigned and raised concerns c her management. Concerns c other views also.
AM "Drag queens not T'

AM Not all are but some are
AM Three members of staff resigned around time concerns raised. R didn't move on other concerns cos of C health, but doesn't mean no basis for these. AM No evidence AS/SH tried to make C life hell. Coordination not same as collusion.

AM No uncommon to act in coordination in bringing grievances re manager.
AM JJ stated that SH had raised concerns c sex and gender report discriminatory.
AM Fate akin to dropping phones in North Sea not right. Ltd access to WhatsApp messsages three years ago nor surprising.

TT

J Do you need a break. [There is a dog barking. Not sure whose it is. Might be outside.]
AM Assertion that GC views on a par with other GCs isn't quite correct. PCs exist irrespective of individual beliefs. Beliefs are value neutral. Others aren't required

to believe them. Unpalatable beliefs - ppl aren't required to approve. Being GC not akin to be Muslim. Saying being ashamed to be associated with Muslim isn't the same thing - that category of ppl are defined by ref to culture, family, overtones of race.

AM Views have to be pretty unpleasant before they don't come under Grainger/Forstater.
AM Would depend on view as to whether protected. Not all GC views would be. Wrong to conflate GC views with transphobia, but that doesn't mean that all GC views are not transphobic.

The fact there is no hard and fast definition of views, doesn't mean they're not transphobic.
AM The burden of proof. C seeks to rely on disclosure gaps.
AM Have been difficulties, and been a feature of case. But late disclosures haven't assisted C in my opinion

or damaged R. Don't need everything disclosed. There have been problems with disclosure but no basis to conclude have been deliberate to create difficulties for C.
AM Some allegations re non-disclosure are not justifiable. [reads from cross ex] JJ referred to conversation

with HR - often informal. eg, 'No docs, all offline?' was asked. Witness said, yes, conversations in office.
AM [reads re working together/tribunal proceedings brought timescale] AS/SH claims brought significantly out of time so I say not matters relevant

to be brought to C evidence.
AM Re concession said to have been made by JJ, that SH tweets drawn tog as evidence to show C GC. Invite J to look at her own note of the exchange.
AM Re C statement that sees conduct on GG account not covered by EA. Appears to arise from Higgs

[reads c hostile etc environment in Higgs] That is a fact -specific matter. Whether made in course of employment is fact specific matter - some may fall in. R has PSED to foster good relation. Unlikely posts on anon account may be relevant. If employer had staff

posting egregious material, inc damaging equality, may take view that PSED required considering action.
AM Re criticisms of SN. C said SN appended LY tweets to her report. Dx policy states ix officers should inc all evidence collected. LY tweets not pursued

doesn't mean should be attached.
AM Much criticism of SN report. [reads re referring to dx as case to answer ] I don't deny she went on to say other things, but should be read in light of that. AM Article 9 and 10 rights not absolute. Employers may limit - eg climate change

sceptic employee in company which doesn't fit company. [reads an eg of medic where work and catholic church employer is in opposition] Freely entered - it is part of package of employment.

TT

AM R had adopted TWAW before FWS and was able to set this out in its policies. Twitter is not private. Equivalent of standing in public square and shouting. Not to take away fact that GG were anon account but not same as private conversations R digital media policy

made it clear it didn't just apply to comments posted under ppl's names.
AM Been suggested that JO was required to deal with C complaint re SK/BY posts. I suggest fanciful to suggest that someone who is tasked with considering behaviour of one employee should be required

to ix other employees who are said to be similarly placed. Whatever was said by SN or JO, JO was clear that she reached her own conclusions on C tweets. She didn't see SN report. And didn't consider GC views incompatible with working in EDI.

AM Re vicar tweet [missed]
AM The GG account became known to her colleagues. And R media policy said applied if id as employee.
AM Re dismissal viewed through dx lens of disability. [case mentioned] doesn't assist C.

AM AH had C explanation of the appeal. Re apparent C referring to teachers sharing too much info re personal lives and not referring to t ppl - R had no more material than that but that establishes nothing.
AM Tweet re teacher telling pupils is t. Draft guidance C

refers to says nothing c what a t teacher should say to children. A T teacher may well be asked by primary pupils and likely to result in some form of disclosure. AM First application for extension of time. Burden of time is on C. Redactions not germane to C ability to

deal. Time between June July 2022 and bringing of this claim, not inequitable not to extend the time for this.
J No questions. Thank you for your subs.
J Mr Roberts.
NR Appreciate lots of moving parts. Anything you particularly want me to address.

TT

J No - I have both sides of argument in front of me for all the points, will let you know if not.
NR Starting with law. AM has raised two EU commission cases not in her subs. Surprised - and both predate Aweds {sp?!} and Higgs. Strasbourg views change over tim

Contrary to skeleton argument Higgs is relevant. She did work with the children. Chandelle, Wasterly and Page (?) cases - all involved misconduct at work. I spent time on Higgs cos facts are strikingly similar and where they differ they favour the C - anon on twitter.

Higgs - court found dismissal inappropriate. Article 10 balances employers right. Here C tweeting had no obvious connection to employer. R treated GC lesser in EA that others - no hierarchy of PCs. Ppl don't have to agree, SK publicly promotes views on other side of debate.

BY went further - GC Losers. Also at work - if at work you are associating shame towards colleague because of what they believe - not okay. AT Q - was reasons for treatment caused by GC views themselves. If so, C succeeds. R Needs to prove not dx. R burden needs to prove

that tweets not acceptable. May 2023 meeting re dx - only relied on as harassment, not section 15 claim. Sect 15 - R needs to justify conduct. I stand by disclosure and witness choice. Never been systemic look at evidence. Vast swathes of relevant evidence not disclosed.

Must be more correspondence to JO. The witnesses have drafted WSs with ref to docs not in bundle. R hasn't contact some ppl to be witness - if accused of dx should contact. They were trying to bring the C down, working towards this even though they had left MCC.

They should have been brought to defend actions.
AR Philosphical belief - surrogacy not to be relied on. We focus on GC and Catholic. I stand by subs c GI. Surprised to see. There is conflicting comments - not about whether causes harm, it's what ppl believe.

Two themes of case. The TWAW MCC resolution. That appears to have caused great confusion in R - that to work at R requires you to agree or not to say anything publicly against it. Wrong in law, but was weaponised against the C from the beginning to the end.

JO email c how brave you've been to raise this [re C views] - hold me to account. SN Said if C said TWANW would be challenging for C in her role. JO later said would be incompatible. R lawyers seem to be advising that behaviour is incompatible with MCC resolution.

Two - everyone saying that C behaviour is unacceptable. Language adopted re C liking tweets - traumatised, SN can't bring herself to send on material. Official R position is tweets unacceptable, grossly offensive - no one seems to have looked carefully and analysed material.

Trans age response to cross exam - I don't think witness understood q. Problems with moderation. Was legal advice from early on, from at least 2023, probably before. The line they've been told to repeat is it's not what you say it's the way that you say it. JO thought it

immoderate to say TWAW - anything against MCC policy. Nothing across any of ix that focused that it was a private act. C thought talking among GC community. Those who suspected were 3 of 4 ppl and weren't sure.

eg Sk comments Equal treatment required no dx against C. SH expresses views against GC views, and BY does so - no pushback. Ppl complained against C been online in own name called GC ppl GC losers, no action taken. R found C unemployable at R, regardless of team/

dept. "Someone with your views..." Jo agreed with that proposition. Tweets objectionable or not - decision for tribunal not R. C ill health. R converted from dx to SOSR but only change in practice was to lessen burden on R. You can keep it as dx with adjustments for health.

You can't just relabel it as SOSR and not look at evidence. Re AM - I am unclear what legitimate aims are or how R conduct is rationally connnected. C professionalism in job not attacked. No finding of fact that C misbehaved at work. Not R basis for dismissal.

Evident is that C worked well with t rights and colleagues, led meetings etc. JO never suggests anything contrary. Re harm. What is evidence of harm? Ms Harrington was clear no past harm caused by C conduct. JO said no past of future harm caused by C conduct.

AR C paras. [reads] complaints that C expressed hostile views to t ppl at work. Not the case put to C or case R has advanced. Can't dismiss someone cos someone has allege something. Also they're wrong. R reputation - not harmed. Knowing C id as GG has caused damage

and has potential to damage R. This is not part of R case. Not part of evident R has advanced. Damage never properly ix'd. None of ppl in team knew C was author of team - they all say hope she isn't. These exhibit anti-GC views, eg concern about purple, green, white colours.

TT

Even BY, person appears most offended, said would want to talk to tweet author. GG account into WhatsApp group and feeding complaint. Ppl entitled to private view and that was successful. JO - it's a red herring. JO said C couldn't work anywhere in R, but no one knew -

C free to continue working with team. Re chronology - complaints by SH - AM says her initial concerns didn't ref to C beliefs. JO evidence was that it related to C views in context of sex and gender report. No criticism of C behaviour in work. It did refer to C GC beliefs.

There was an early written complaint other than that mentioned by AM. MIss Sultan - had she been called as witness - acting as a pair with SH, MS would go in with racism. Burden of proof has shifted to MS and R decision not to call her means can't discharge q re her.

One detriment is re C comment on g reassignment. Letter inviting C to ix meeting, didn't tell C what being looked at. R is now saying never said tweets are gross misconduct though attached to letter - that's a weak response. [re SN /JO not saying same c dx ix or not]

Discriminatory part should have been stopped in its tracks. SN decided all should go in the mix as gross misconduct - not appropriate. GG detriments - nothing to add to my skeleton. Handling of complaint - don't have decision maker as SK clear she didn't decide things.

Ppl further up or lawyer would have been doing this. If decision made by a lawyer, you call the lawyer as a witness. If you call the messenger you get her to be honest and say I was the messenger. Highly relevant to criticism of handling of case.

SK letter - will reconvene re dx. But no further letter, and dx concluded without C involved. Disagree with R language that C was not receptive. Reason for dismissal was C conduct and/or her views. R label doesn't matter - it's tribunal view. Evidence c breakdown in relations

is not here - C had never even met Michelle Wheeler. R said throughout - your tweets not compatible with values but this is not enough. Those are my subs.
J You were going to come back to legitimate aims? Are those in your skeleton AM?
AM Are set out in relation to various

TT

AM Are set out in relation to various

matters.
J It's section 15 predominantly isn't it.
AM Re sect 15 I cross refer upwards to case in relation to justification discrimination case in as far as manifests... in manifestation. [reads]
J Do cross refs id legitimate aim and not just subs re proportionality?

AM [reads]
J So upholding code of conduct is the aim?
AM Yes as put by R in exchange re legitimate aims which is in the bundle.
J Well I can go through an id those and see where it takes us. AR?
AR I came back to it when ref to para 200 in AM argument

[I think AR should be NR?]

AR But if you scrutinise aims against conduct doesn't get you anywhere. Legitimate aim seems to be keeping R good reputation but I don't think pleaded aims reflect evidence.
AM I don't think there is conflict in paras - they should be read together, re R case on fourth belief

J I'll make a quick note of that. Any more from either of you
AR/AM No.
J I'll adjourn and reserve decision. May take some time. Hopefully before Christmas. Delay in getting judgement through promulgation at the moment, so I would need to do it well before that.

TT

J I'll update you if delay. I would usually list provisional remedy date, not to say that indicates anything re the judgment. Difficult to do that in this case as difficult to know how long that hearing would be. Can cancel hearing if not needed.
J Looking first at 22nd January.

AR I am out for all of Jan, Feb, March as massive trials . I will do it if one vacates, otherwise my solicitor.
J Thank you both again for your very careful subs. And to the large number of viewers for no disruptions, which isn't always the case. I'll adjourn there. [ends]

Not sure if 'AR' is supposed to be NR or AM!

But anyway, that's it for Lorna's case until we get a judgement

I haven't been following in any detail. What sort of feel do we get from the judge and the overall tone of questioning etc?

Thanks for posting RoseInAPot

SH expresses views against GC views, and BY does so - no pushback.

Has anyone who believes in gender ideology ever been dismissed for holding them? Or been dismissed for opposing sex realist views?

Seems primarily this 👆 no pushback against those who oppose GC views, but definitely problematic the other way around.

The line they've been told to repeat is it's not what you say it's the way that you say it.

Bananarama strikes again😀

The stand out for me is that Jo Jo had a problem with the words mysoginistic , and homophobic, , which she held as unacceptable.

and the judge queried how Lorna could express that view without those words.

i spat out my snowball

She conceded that transgender is an ideology. I wonder if she realised.

Article on the case from Jo Bartosch on her 'Terf Times' website

"MCC’s case was the Bananarama defence: Young could hold gender critical beliefs, but not express them in a way the council judged offensive or disrespectful."

https://www.terftimes.com/p/two-tweets-one-case/