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

[Mmmnotsure]

Lorna Young is taking her former employer, Manchester City Council, to Employment Tribunal. The case began today. It is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets https://x.com/tribunaltweets
and coverage is also available on their Substack
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council

Lorna Young was Equality Team Manager at MCC. She was dismissed, among other grounds, for her social media activity.

Lorna Young is gender critical and Catholic, and opposes surrogacy. She is claiming unfair dismissal, and discrimination and harassment because of religion or belief, and disability.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
5m
AH - he is identifiable as employee
NR - C drew your attention to 2 types of tweets, gender critical cult and GLCs - gender critical losers

AH - yes
NR - back to dismissal letter, Miss O analysed the tweets, and there are refs to inclusive workplace for trans and NBs

AH - yes I see
NR - reference to another document
AH - yes

NR - that was attached to the dismissal letter
AH - yes
NR - that's the doc she was referring to, its about the MCC motion on TRAHR
AH - yes

NR - it is not part of Rs case that C did anything at work that made it un-inclusive for trans people
AH - not it was not

NR - I'm going to ask you about the tweets now.

J - [asks AH to move microphone closer]

NR - you accept that C was dismissed for 4 tweets,
AH - yes
NR - 1st 'people like this should not be teachers' what did this mean

AH - that she said trans people shouldn't be teachers'
NR - do you accept now that she did not mean that

AH - she gave an explanation but anyone reading that tweet would think that
NR - now to draft guidance on RSE in schools, read para 45, 46 please

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
11m

NR - [now reading out para 46, teach bio sex, not contested theories like sex is a spectrum, use appropriate materials] Let's go look at the tweet again.
Its not stand alone, a teacher discusses coming out as trans to elementary school pupils. What's your understanding of elementary school age.
AH - primary school

NR - GC people profoundly object to the idea that medication does not change a man into a woman, and that children should not be taught that. Can you accept that a GC person can profoundly and reasonably disagree with this.

AH - can accept disagreement, but it's how it is expressed.
NR - it is clear from her tweet that she is disagreeing with what the teacher has said, not that the teacher is trans
AH - that's not how I read it
NR - can you accept that the first sentence is unobjectionable

AH - yes
NR - so you're disagreeing with the word 'this'
AH - in its entirety
NR - do you accept that best person to say what she meant is the C
AH - yes
NR - do you accept that her intentions were NOT to say the trans people should not be teachers

AH - yes but that's not how it read
NR - you accept that if that's what she meant the tweet is not offensive
AH - it can be read differently
NR - now on to 2nd tweet, about vicar and non-binary. Did you take advice on whether NB is a PC under the EA.

AH - no
NR - did you read the article
AH - at the time

NR - article about a vicar named Bingo, can you see white box on bottom left, Britain's first NB CofE priest. Can you see the play button for the video....
AH - yes
NR - so Bingo had done an interview about their identity with BBC Radio, Bingo vocal about gender issues on social media 'God loves sparkly eyeshadow'.

AH - yes

NR - we can see in headline and 2nd para and Bingo finds support for NB identity in the bible, genesis,
AH - nods
NR - the tweet itself, 1st NB priest, art posted on twitter

This is making me rage

Hello

BINGO

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/01/04/the-curious-case-of-the-nonbinary-priest/

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
7m

NR - do you accept from the article that the vicar was not shy of self promotion
AH - well I don't know from one article
NR - from this article - giving interviews, not shy about promoting their views
AH - well if article is true
NR - says this from God's guidance

NR - do you accept that a Catholic might be disturbed by this, and that the devil is the source of evil according to Catholics, and that the C here is objecting to this person's religious views
AH - I think it was badly expressed
NR - C expressed regret about how worded

NR - so why did you include in dismissal case
AH - it's inappropriate and they might do it again
NR - did you ask her
AH - no
NR - did you tell her about an appeal hearing
AH - not sure
NR - we have no evidence that C was invited to appeal hearing

NR - those are the two that C typed out, now on to tweet she liked
[discussion of how Twitter worked re likes etc]

NR - tweet describes trans ideology as most evil, homophobic, misogynistic thing in my lifetime, what's wrong with this tweet
AH - extreme, use of the word evil

NR - so it's the word evil
AH - well yes

NR - would it be acceptable to say misogyny is evil
AH - [unclear responses]

NR - gay rights campaigners would say homophobia is evil
AH - more moderate ways to say it

NR - so if C says that trans ideology is homophobic is evil than it must be acceptable to say that trans ideology is homophobic
AH - no reply audible

NR - tweet about trans ideology grooming children
AH - yes
NR - do you understand this to say that all trans people are pedophiles
AH - yes

This is incredible watching.

Nathan Robert’s is doing an incredible job here.

Dismantling their prejudices.

Wriggle wriggle

Sounds like they've all been to the this is a transphobic dogwhistle workshop.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
NR - ref'ing to dismissal letter, Miss Osborne reframes inference now saying that trans people are a danger, not pedophiles, do you accept that the original interpretation was wrong, no reasonable interpretation that TW are pedophiles
AH - better to say danger

NR - now to transcript which is imperfect, [reading out very rapidly], drag queen story hour, children in the background, men with just a piece of plastic around their genitals
AH - yes
NR - do you accept that GC people reasonably object to this

NR - so you're disagreeing with the word 'this'
AH - in its entirety

What, each and every letter?

NR - so why did you include in dismissal case
AH - it's inappropriate and they might do it again

A pre-cog detects future crime, all a bit Minority Report

Fucking hell, what sort of person doesn't reasonably object to children being around men with just pieces of plastic around their genitals?

Nathan forensically picking apart this witness is a joy to behold.

But if the Equality Act is equal and opposite beliefs are protected/ treated the same, doesnt this mean that SW is saying that those with the belief in Genderism cannot talk about or express their belief outside their head? Therefore cant utter the word transphobia as thats a manifestation of their belief? How stupid are these people?

@KnottyAuty they are very stupid…. But also huge hypocrits.

I don’t know if AH believes a word of what she says or just goes along with the GI bollocks that she has had to sit thru for years from external trainers etc because she knows that is the MCC ethos. But she is making a right tit of herself in her desperation to defend her actions.

Imagine a woman claiming that describing misogyny as evil is extreme and there are better ways of saying it.

Anyone else got Bingo was his name-oh as an earworm?

110%.

All the way stupid and a bit extra since they believe men with penises are women.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
16m
AH - well, use of the word grooming
NR - there was nothing else that C wrote or said that called TW paedophiles
AH - no
NR - tweets were consistently held to mean something C did not mean, is that because she is GC and therefore transphobic

AH - no, reasonable interpretation
NR - do you agree that it was reasonable for R to put interpretation of tweets to C and that the R did not do so. Do you accept that R did not do so?
AH - Not in that form.
NR - Judge did you want a break,
J - how long will you be

NR - with a break until lunch time
J - asks AH
AH - 5 minutes would be good

J - we will take a break.

Court rises. End of first morning session.

Anyone else got Bingo on their, er, bingo card?

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
10m
Tribunal is taking a short break. We will return with part two of the morning session. NR has said he expects to go until lunchtime with this witness.
AH - Angela Harrington, heard C's appeal of dismissal

Participants returning to the room.

J - dealing with sound issues clerk has moved microphones, and also some picking up typing sounds, that's probably me, further discussion.
NR - ground 2 of appeal was that she was dismissed for interpretation of tweets that was not put to her and that it was wrong to dismiss her for the tweets. Do you accept now that the first one was a valid basis of appeal.
AH - yes it was a valid basis of appeal

J - can I confirm what you just said, what was the valid basis of appeal
AH - she wanted a break down of individual tweets and we looked at them as a totality

J - need to clarify, if a valid basis for appeal usually upheld
AH - I'm saying that I understand what she wanted that analysis
NR - before the break you said that you did not provide the analysis she wanted
AH - but we considered the totality of the tweets

NR - that's a lose lose for the C. If she asked for your objections to indiv tweets and you say must look at the whole, why didn't you uphold her appeal
AH - its' the totality of her tweets
NR - what does the totality of tweets add to the ind tweets to make them offensive

BINGO

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

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!

My Barrister heart ❤️ list is

Naomi Cunningham
Nathan Roberts
Niazi Fetto

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

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