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.

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.

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.

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

“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?!

They absolutely started with the intent of dismissing her.

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

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.

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

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

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."

thou must not suffer a witch to live

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.

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

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

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

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'

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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
·
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