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.

NR Re that Meeting. THat's the detriment that has been changed in list of issues - raising of issue in meeting is put as harassment.

AM The next ix meeting - you are back at

AM work after Christmas [to LY]

AM Email to you 10 January, booked meeting for 18th. Giving issues to cover at meeting. Your answer is that you're off that week due to work-related stress and indicate may not be able to attend.

AM You ask for copies of WSs and resignation letters.

AM Sarah attaches docs to email to you. Your email later says you're still on sick leave. Sarah says she'll wait to hear.

LY She had responded to my request to delay meeting. She indicated about the twitter allegations. I assumed I would talk about
that at the meeting.

AM I think that's what Sarah will say she expected to.

AM 6 Feb You were told by Jo c additional complaint from another person. You say you were removed from EDI team

LY Jo didn't say c nature of complaint. I didn't understand - hadn't work for weeks.

LY I had asked to be removed to Keiran Barnes team. Relationship with Jo had broken down and would be safe in KB team. Request not granted.

AM Request was with James Binks?

LY Yes

LY Re EDI team, wasn't a discussion, as in I had a choice. Was presented to me as we're doing this.

LY Had been told day before I was being removed from EDI team though didn't know what complaint was. Next day I came to town hall c removal and asked to be put with Keiran.

AM When allegations made it's not unusual to separate people

LY Already separated- I was already isolated working at home. My LM duties already been removed.

AM LM duties not restored cos you were on phased rtw

LY That was reason I was given.

AM Standard as you were coming back to work in reduced capacity

LY Jo made it clear it was because of these complaints. I never understood

AM Email from James Binks 7 Feb responding to yours two days before. Jo would continue LMing team. Jo had made it clear restriction in Nov was because of your phased return.

LY Apologies, I had got that confused

AM JB confirmed that was correct, not cos of ix

LY Yes but not

clear to me how LM duties might be restored.

AM James Binks [JB] email is about contact with team until issue resolved.
LY There has been a misunderstanding by JB. What was your q again?

AM JB says you agreed not to contact team until resolved.
LY I wasn't given a choice.
LY I was told this, because complaint made.

AM You had asked to be removed from team.
LY But to go with KB for support I had asked for. I was just removed - very isolating and upsetting.

AM [to docs] Reads c Lauren feeling she was being punished and EDI manager in name only

AM [reads c LY asking to work with KB. Jo said no post available. LY said post could be found under reasonable adjustments. Could be suspended - Jane (union rep) and Jo agreed this would not be appropriate]
LY [reads her words from doc]

J Just wait for the question to answer

AM Suggestion of suspension came from you and not accepted
LY Yes

AM Jo says better for LY to keep separate until resolved to help. Supportive.

LY Yes, that was a change. She seemed supportive and it was the first time I got to express myself. But on 6 Feb meeting with Jo

LY Jo had said had to shut down conversation.

LY They were talking about me in the office, not nice for me.

AM Jo said you could use work time to prepare for meeting
LY Yes

AM You wanted to be removed from team?
LY I didn't know what complaints were. I was working from
home by interactions with team were good and helping me. I was sharing knowledge. But unspecified complaints and being talked about by the team - and my mental health had hit floor. We are two weeks away from my suicide attempt

AM In Feb another ix meeting. Do you want a break?

J [Offers break when/if wanted, and tissues.]

LY I'll push on.

J AM needs to ask qs. We'll take it carefully

AM 16 Feb invite to ix meeting. You say Sarah didn't tell me which GalwayGirl tweets are being investigated.

LY This was the first time I was told

AM Council didn't know

GG was your account at this time.

LY That's what they said. They also said I'd told team members it was my account.

AM You complain about this and say would treating GG as gross misconduct is act of discrimination.

LY I didn't know what tweets were until nearly a year later

LY Are you asking me what I knew then or now?

AM You says treating tweets as something which could be gross misconduct is discriminatory and they are not of a level for this.

LY Yes

AM Had you not been unwell, this would have been given to you at the meeting.

LY Sarah refused to give me info in advance of meeting. Said wouldn't send tweets cos offensive and was telling me I was going to be sacked. Dark days for me and pushed me over the edge. [difficult to hear LY at times now] Felt like a coordinated attack and took me over edge on 22 Feb

AM I can go through tweets in submissions not now.

J [talking c relevance of tweets]

AM These were not the tweets that were in play at the end. These were collected in earlier stages of ix and didn't get past Sarah's report. Sarah concentrated on a small number of tweets.

AM One of your complaints is that there had been an analysis of your LY and GG accounts, to ascertain if it was your account. Email from Nick MacMillan c ix around GG accounts. Couldn't access GG cos account taken down. Reversed Google search to see if personal picture.

AM You found this upsetting - c photo of Trevi fountain discussed by NM - as you'd been in Rome shortly after your father's death.

LY Very upset by them identifying me like this - this was in my mind - had letter from Sarah c how they were trying to identify me and it was by using my dad. He was my dad! I was in Rome because I went after he died, somewhere where my faith could support me. My complaint is how horribly twisted it was to use my grief.

J ?

LY I'm okay, thank you.

AM Not trying to minimise your distress. Would like to show you the
pictures of the Trevi fountain - nothing in photos to imply they were sensitive.

[Reads from sm, LY talking about having a wonderful time in Rome]

AM Doesn't imply any sensitivity.

LY Not that - but council were aware of this and knew about my dad and Rome.

LY They had had GG info for a while and included info about my family, my shielding, my dad dying. When I went to Rome it was because I was on bereavement leave for my father - council had the information and context. The council did know. Certainly Keiran Barnes knew.

AM Ix never concluded. Sarah got the first interview with you and then it came to halt. Couldn't test allegations cos you couldn't engage.

LY I asked Sarah several times between Nov and Feb -[difficult to hear] - about allegations being made.

AM KB wasn't working in EDI when Sarah and Adiba were there.

LY No, but later. Had regular contact.

AM He could have been a sort of character witness.

LY He wouldn't have recognised that as being me. Known me for 15 years, how I worked and built relationships. A massive gap in how ix done.

AM You messaged Jo for another OH report. Jo immediately responded

LY Not immediately. OH contacted me after my suicide attempt. [difficult to hear] Four days after.

AM Day after that exchange with Jo, another exchange re AMR notes. Jo apologises for emailing on Saturday
But going on holiday. Jane involved Keiran was brought in to assist.

AM Jo not in work - on leave - over the difficult period which included your suicide attempt.

AM Over that weekend you spent a lot of time on your GG account.

LY Questions this.

AM Reviewing.
LY I downloaded my Twitter archive on 17 Feb and tried to work out which council considered gross misconduct.

AM You spotted a comment by Barry Young who wrote I work somewhere where we consider TWAW and TMAM - is that so bad. GC cult member - opinion to me is fluff on the wind.
They are GCL - GC losers.

AM You say this is as bad as your comments on GG account.
LY His tweets come under protections. So do his. If council ix me they should ix Barry.

AM You didn't raise complaint c Barry
LY Didn't see tweets till later. The fact that Barry found
and replied to GG tweets meant he must have been looking. Targeted against me, orchestrated, started by Sarah Hurden and then out to rest of team.

AM Not disputed that number of EDI team members were looking at your account.
LY Letters from Annie pointing out this difference in treatment, between me and Barry. Decision to dismiss me was taken in May 24.

AM A very narrow q. Don't want to upset you more than you are. Para 293 you talk c an email you sent which was your cry for help. First response was from Jane Slater and you didn't hear from anyone else before your suicide attempt. Jo was on leave.

LY Sent to Jo, Jane, Sharmila, Keiran. Not logically thinking.

AM Evidence is Jo and Sharmila both away. You are not criticising their non response.
LY Not criticising.

AM Jane responded.
LY Yes.

J Will take a short break.

Wednesdasy 13 May 2026

Morning session 2

This is the second part of the morning session on Day 2 of Lorna Young (LY) v Manchester City Council (MCC), held at Manchester Employment Tribunal.

AM Apologies. I have one more page around this time - a response from Nick McMillan, so sorry to hear etc. So there was a response from HR

LY Nick and I go back a long way. He rang me although I couldn't answer. I saw that email.

AM Do you know why he rang you

LY Assume Jane contacted him, and they and James Binks were involved when call made.

AM Sarah will speak for herself but my understanding is that Sarah was unaware of these events. She continued, interviewed Barry, Sharmila, Demi. [to doc, interview with Demi]

AM Clear here that Demi aware of GG account. She says this upset Michelle and Barry who have more awareness of subject matter than I do. Members of EDI aware that GG account was yours and subject of some discussion.

LY I read these statement quite recently. Struck me as painful
that day after my suicide attempt people were interviewed and saying things about me in the way that they were while I was so very seriously ill. Lack of compassion. How quickly within a matter of days they were having these conversations

AM But not necessarily knowledge of your suicide attempt

LY But HR were supporting these people at this time. A number of people who would have known and should have considered whether this was the right time to have these conversations.

AM [to OH report March 2023] Reason for referral - for OH advice

AM LY subject to ix had marked attrition to resilience. Ref to your overdose. I have serious concerns re LY health, v unwell, struggling to make decisions of consequence. Not in position to engage with process.

AM You were not able at the time to engage with process.

LY Not the process, yes, but also what I was being accused of.

AM [reads c LY still absent because of mental health decline] Dr says LY should be able to engage and make informed decision in c 4 weeks. Ix needed to be concluded in order for you to return to work?

LY Yes, that was the position.

AM OH report on 27 April. Dr says unlikely to return soon. Difficult to predict timeframe for recovery and rtw. To meeting 17 May, attendance review meeting. Sharmila, Emma, you and TU rep. Also Carl and you had a support worker with you.
LY Y

AM That meeting is included in your complaints.
LY Y

AM Will get transcript of meeting - page 1504. I'm going to play the bit I think is most relevant, from 1505, where Sharmila says, yes I think the report is helpful.
J Play 30 seconds before to check volume.

[AM plays recording to the room. This is difficult to tweet as the sound is not great, and there is no indication of who is speaking out of the group in the meeting. The courtroom can follow the transcript]

What can we do? OH report has talked about the ix but also we need to think how we can get past that and minimise the impact it's having on you.

Don't know how to answer that. I just want to go. Retire and go.

Can we just park the retirement question because I'll need to refer to my colleague on that. Need to support you to outcome that helps and not hinders. Outstanding ix - OH report says you can't participate directly but could indirectly. Need to get to next steps, what happens next. Send you set of questions you can consider?
LY responds.

[AM stops the recording] I don't want to distress the claimant further.

J I'm happy to listen to it in private later.

AM I started it at c -18, I'd say just listen to a bit more. It's all about tone, C gets distressed, and how they respond to that.

AM [to LY] Throughout meeting Sharmila and Ella tone was supportive. That's correct?

LY In terms of how they were conveying. But context - this was firsts conversation with work after my s attempt. Took a great deal to get myself into state where could attend meeting. V unwell

LY I though meeting would be compassionate, we're here for you. No idea it would be further ix. Not nasty tone, but it was still said to me and pressure built and built in that meeting. Clear from recording how much I broke down. Someone made a care referral for me
as a result.

AM Shortly after recording you asked for time out of meeting. [to doc ] You say, I can't talk about it, Carl (=TU rep) I just can't. Carl explains it's because your ill health is relevant to the situation the meeting is about.

LY Carl may have thought it appropriate. I didn't. Timing was all wrong, so soon after suicide attempt. Suicide ideation. So difficult just going back in that building.

AM Carl c sending qs. He says not taking view on sending qs, but your health is being talked about in meeting cos it's the trigger.

AM Carl says it Catch 22 but they have to talk about it cos it's what's causing the situation. That's your TU rep's position.

LY I can see the logic in what he says. But you try to resolve things when I am well enough to even contemplate conversations about it. Where was the
duty of care I was owed at that time. Their duty - what they were asking needed to come later on. I was not safe.

AM Don't disagree with how meeting made you feel. But TU rep said had to deal cos ix was what was making you ill.
LY I didn't know the allegations, what was in the meeting. You can't take that risk with someone who is suicidal, you just can't. Need to make Lorna safe and feel safe. Even if it's logical, don't take risks. Any MH professional would advise that is the way to go.

AM [reads] Sharmila says there anything we can do to get you to a position where you can engage, etc.
LY I couldn't think straight. I couldn't take in what she was saying.

AM Discussion goes on, no need to bring you to it. MCC in difficult position cos being told open ix was causing you injury and was trying to manage and bring injury to end.
LY They didn't do it in right way. Ix was not - I was under care of hospital, transferred to crisis team. If it had been a physical injury - eg stroke - the response would have been she needs to heal

AM A physical injury wouldn't have been what was making you unwell

LY Perhaps the wrong analogy. I hoped that they would recognise the situation and there would be expertise as to how to approach me and the state I was in. To be told just to sort my health out first.

LY But she got very heavy. I felt v pressured and the progress I had made, I just went back and back.

AM Outcome of meeting, letter from Sharmila. Says we tried to explore options to progress ongoing ix. You were not receptive to engaging via written qs. You were not receptive?

LY I found letter cold, callous, upset me a great deal. The characterisation that I wasn't receptive felt to me like a criticism. I wasn't fit to do so. I thought they would realise wrong approach, pushing too soon and soon hard. But they carried on pushing.

AM You felt it was a criticism. But you not engaging in writing was a fact, not criticism.

LY Disagree. I wasn't not receptive, I was unwell.

AM Not receptive also covers situation where you weren't able to be receptive cos sick.
LY ]Disagrees]

AM [Letter talks c possible disciplinary hearing] This disc process going to continue.
LY That was my understanding. I wasn't well enough to look at anything re ix. I told them that. I just can't. Then I got this letter saying you are going to have to look at it, read it, whether you like it or not. Couldn't believe they were sending a suicidal person this - my MH plunged right down again.

AM [to letter from ? ] Says, comment from HR person re LY having to face up to it inappropriate.

LY When I was able to go to transcript it said she said 'face it' not 'face up to it'.

AM So Tina's letter inaccurate
LY Only that bit. Rest is right.

AM No obvious route out of Catch 22
LY No to me then, no. Council needed to give me time. I was making progress, fragile but progress, and could have continued to do so if they
have behaved differently.

AM Tina doesn't say in letter you may be able to engage in ix later
LY Tina is a crisis worker. Not her area to comment on the future possibilities, just be with me where I was at the time.

AM There was no narrative about Lorna getting better. No timeframe. Just ix making Lorna ill.
LY MH recovery isn't linear. Dr wouldn't be in position to say what future will be. MH recover from something that severe is up and down, all over the placer. My progress - if that was indeed progress - I was coping day to day,
even just hour to hour.

J Q c timing
AM I can stop there is convenient.

J Tomorrow back into normal 10-4.30 Possibly not go up to lunch. Likely to lead with Jo, broadly chronologically. Then Sarah. Sharmila. Angela. Ella.
J Adjustments?

AM Jo may need room to move about, and breaks.
[Jo - in room - says will indicate if she needs anything.]

J Anything else before we break for day?
AM No

J We have more observers today. TT has asked for permission to live tweet and has been given this.

J No one else has asked.

[J rises. Ends.]

Having been a witness you absolutely can go through your statement beforehand - I certainly did to make sure I was completely clear. I also went through all the documents I’d disclosed to make sure I knew exactly what was in them. Strange that people don’t do that.

Thursday 14 May

Morning 1st session

Today we shall be tweeting from day 4 of the Employment Tribunal case brought by Lorna Young against her former employer Manchester City Council.

Ms Young is gender critical and Catholic and was formerly Equality Team Manager at MCC. She was dismissed from this role due to her social media content.

She is claiming:
(a) Direct discrimination because of religion or belief;
(b) Harassment related to religion or belief;
(c) Discrimination arising from disability;
(d) Harassment related to disibility;
(e) Unfair dismissal.

We're a collective of volunteer citizen journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Substack (tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council) which funds our digital & some travel costs.

We report what we hear in good faith but do not provide a transcript of proceedings.

We anticipate a 10am start
Abbreviations:

LY or C - Lorna Young, the Claimant
NR - Nathan Roberts, counsel for C

MCC or R - Manchester City Council, the Respondent
Aileen McColgan KC - counsel for R

AM: Jo Johnson, a future witness, needs to disclose her "One Note" files - which she has done, but we've not yet all had time to review - NR wd still like her as first witness, so, have said she can be recalled later if needed.

J: How much disclosed?

JJ: 26 pages

AM: We will review today and see if it should be added to bundle.

NR: We have already expressed much concern re R disclosure. Can't say more until I've seen it.

NR: If these notes are re meetings with C it's an issue that C had not seen them when giving her evidence, but, I have prepared for JJ as witness today so would like to proceed with that.

J: Meanwhile Miss Young will continue her evidence.

AM: LY [ref] this is an email - discussing your mental health issues re investigation. Doc says, can't say when you can engage with the IX, or return to work, and latter wd depend on the IX outcome probably.

LY: Yes

AM: [ref] email from you to HR after that RtW report. You tell the R that disability reasons you can't participate, and it doesn't say when you might

LY: Yes correct

AM: [ref] draft report from Sarah Naricci - incomplete, c 12/7, at that time it's saying on p2 re the IX, Sarah indicates that she was initially assigned to investigate a number of allegations -

AM including management of staff, comments made re staff and council officers, discriminatory comments

LY: Yes that's what it says

AM: Then says, during IX it became clear social media needed IX too, re 'GalwayGirl' account.

LY: Yes

AM: Says the GG account had retweeted etc derogatory material re a number of protected characteristics - tho notes it's not certain 'GG' is you. Material provided by complainants and esp Sarah

LY: Yes

AM: Sorts it down to a small number of tweets, which were to be discussed at Feb meeting. Also mentions you saying to Alfie H "I don't give a fuck about your pronouns" and [missed] - these are the main matters?

LY: Yes

AM: Lists evidence to support allegation 1 - clear that your LornaYoung account not involved?

LY: Don't agree - the initial complaint sent them to me, very detailed from Sarah how she viewed the tweets.

AM: But this report says, the LY account had been raised earlier but had not been looked at in detail now?

LY: If they were sent to me, they must have been reviewed enough to do that, in Nov 23

AM: But in this report - the IXer is not suggesting any conclusions re anything other than the GG tweets, correct?

LY: But she must have done, to have put them forward, for Disc hearing Dec 23. So must have reached a case-to-answer conclusion.

AM: The IX was cut short, but by the time of this report it's clear it's only the GG tweets.

LY: Not made clear to me - email in June said "social media, tweets", and mtg in Dec included them all, and when my solicitor asked in Feb 24 for all the tweets she was sent them all.

LY: So I thought I was being investigated for all of them
[NB I can't tell if LY is saying 'sister' or 'solicitor' in this section]

AM: You had asked for specialist MH assessment before council made a decision. That happened 31 Oct 2023

LY: Yes

AM: Then 14/11, AMR w/ Shabila Khan [ref]. Your WS deals with this p330. There's a transcript, from a recording you made. You say you asked not to be sent any negative / upsetting news in run-up to CHristmas.

AM: This is not a clear statement that you didn't want negative news just before
Christmas.

LY: [reading] I say positive wd be welcome, negative not so much.

AM: It's not a clear request for no negative news before Christmas

LY: I think it is. S and I had had several meetings by then. I think it's clear what I am saying. That I don't want to be told eg am being sacked just before Xmas.

AM: Email from you 4/12, you ask when and how you'll hear from Council re the

MH assessment on 31/10. Request for info?

LY: Yes, for the when and the how.

AM: Shamila replies she understands you'll hear as soon as possible. Suggests that she read your request as being about what was happening?

LY: I read it as saying she'd tell me the how and the when.

AM: I suggest that this cd have been read as saying you are overriding the request for no bad news.

LY: No, I was asking how and why - not changing the request.

AM: [ref] email from you to Shamila, you say you can see she has replied but you are going to read after your counselling - 8/12.

LY: Yes, at that time I was tending to open emails when I had counselling support.

AM: A couple of weeks later [ref] - letter from Shamila re the MH assessment, apologises for delay, attaches a letter dated 19/12

LY: Yes

AM: Want now to look at the grievance that you submitted on 15/4/24 [ref]

AM: you complain of a lack of specificity in terms of the matters that the Council was concerned with. Specifity re GalwayGirl tweets

LY: Yes - wanted to know which tweets, why those tweets, why MCC objected to them

AM: Shamil emails to acknowledge receipt [ref] and apologise for delay, says will respond more quickly in future, refers to Leigh Day letter of 8/3, and advises of an upcoming meeting. You make a complaint re this email?

LY: Ref please?

AM: It's in grounds of complaint - see your WS also [ref]

AM: You say you thought all correspondence shd have gone to solitcitor, and you had had a panic attack.

AM: I suggest that Shamila responding to your grievance to you - you had emailed her directly - it was OK for her to apply to you?

LY: No, shd have written to solicitor. Grievance was re delay replying to solititor basically

AM: [ref] [April 2024 I think] In your WS 354, letter to solicitors, Shamila is agreeing most of the matters are allegations of misconduct. The fact that there is an IX for gross misconduct does not mean every matter in IX is GM?

LY: Yes, but, when my solicitor replied everything got set down to 'misconduct' not 'gross'. My understanding re M/GM is that each incident should be treated separately but my impression was they had added everything up and called it 'gross'

LY: I cannot see how MCC got from M to GM.

AM: There is a long doc re Sarah Harden complaints and another here, but,
MCC didn't have those?

LY: No but I had submitted a lot of evidence re SH separately already.

AM: Emails eg this one in November?

LY: Several emails - eg SH had said it was my fault she couldn't find a toilet - that should have been dismissed out of hand

AM: But some were serious?

LY: But not one was evidenced at all. Allegations only - hearsay and claims - my solicitor was stunned when she saw them. And, dropped for final IX.

AM: [ref] Shamila says that it's now a long time since IX started, and ppl have left, it says yr conduct to colleagues weren't being pursued, only the social media now?

LY: Yes clear at that point.

AM: This was sent to you on 19th I think. It's clear from the report that the only matters in issue relate to the GG account, yes?

LY: At that stage, yes

AM [ref] repeats Ms Naricci's report that the LornaYoung account wasn't being looked at.

LY: [missed]

AM: This is what you were sent, it refers - like the draft we looked at - to examples (7 matters) - 5 tweets, Alfie Huett allegation and your like of the insurrection barbie video. Clear what the concerns were.
AM: Sent to you 19/4
LY: yes

AM: And the offending 5 tweets are here [ref] and were including in the report
AM: First re non-binary vicar - you wd not have said this now?

LY: I do regret that - no compassion which is not like me - but I was not reacting normally at that time. But as I say in WS I still disagree strongly with the vicar, on biblical grounds.

LY: And what he said is bound to be offensive to many Christians - it's simply not doctrine. But my reaction - this was Jan 2023, I was not well, and it was attacking my faith.

AM: But you didn't engage in biblical debate - you suggested vicar was listening to the devil.

LY: Yes, the devil is the great deceiver. Vicar was deceiving self.

LY: GI theory is not supported by Catholicism, but I do feel remorseful that I didn't make clear that there is compassion for ppl suffering dysphoria.

AM: Not compatible with role of EDI manager?

LY: Was not tweeting as EDI manager - personal account.

AM: But you told at least one colleague you were GalwayGirl?

NR: No evidence of more than one colleague?

AM: You told Sophia you were GalwayGirl?

LY: Yes back in [missed] - not tweeting re sex & gender then - later I asked her to unfollow & do LornaYoung instead.

LY: So I sort of felt that it was a breach of confidence on Sophia's part to publicise the account.

NR: There is no evidence from the R that any of the witnesses were told GG was her account.

AM: Just drawing attention to what C has said.

AM: I think it is not disputed that in 2022 it was common knowledge that GG was you?

LY: I think ppl told each other - passing on info deliberately to target me - to mine for stuff to discredit me bcs ppl had pro-GI views.

LY: I had blocked SHarden so if she was reading GG tweets she must have taken steps to circumvent that, and passed on to others - amounts to stalking really IMO

AM: Are you saying that if it's a personal account, you can post anything and employer cannot object?

LY: Yes of course, provided within the law - Arts 9 and 10.

LY: And bear in mind all the tweets I was sacked for were the period when I felt I was being harassed and targetted for my beliefs. Would I put things the same way? No

AM: You would not?

AM: You said the vicar's belief in GI was prompted by the devil, that's an attack on one person?

LY: Vicar had sought a lot of publicity re 'transition journey' - was inviting engagement. It was not intended as an attack.

LY: It is a tweet of Catholic beliefs and GC beliefs which are for me an extention of Catholic beliefs.

AM: This tweet - says children don't need to know this much info about their teachers, in relation to a teacher's transition journey. Cd be read as saying T ppl shd not be teachers?

LY: Completely disagree. I am saying that ppl who don't understand what the boundaries between teachers and small children shd not be teachers. Nothing to do with T ppl. I follow Debbie Hayton who is T and a teacher.

AM: You say "should not be teachers".

LY: I dealt with this in my appeal. Not what I meant and not what I said.

AM: I put it to you that you shd not have needed to have it spelled out to you that you were saying T ppl shd not be teachers

LY: Disagree. MCC shd have told me what they were objecting to. When they did I was able to respond, see appeal letter.

[J is talking but it's not clear. AM will bear in mind]

AM: Shall we take a break now?

[J and LY agree to go on a little longer]

AM: email re Shamila Carr's email April - MCC reply to your solicitors apologising for any distress, and making clear that you could submit written statement to the proposed May meeting.

LY: I had the report, but not the reasons that MCC objected to things.

AM: [ref] your submission - you say, MCC has identified "grossly offensive"
tweets, you say that you had asked for reasonable adjustments re writing in - but they had said you could?

LY: I'm saying, I had wanted it in writing what MCC found offensive, but that had not happened, so I am saying that I am responding as best I can but without knowing the MCC interpretation.

AM: You say you've asked repeatedly via solicitor for MCC objections and you talk of a 100+ page report. It was only 6 pages. With appendices

LY: Yes, over 100. But it still didn't say why MCC thought those tweets merited dismissal.

AM: [ref] You say you are not going to put in rebuttals re 30 pages of allegations from Sara and Adiba. But those were already off the table.

LY: This was the first time I had chance to respond, so, I wanted to say something re all that.

AM: You say later on, you indicate you were bullied. Sarah Naricci had asked you about this but you had not responded to her. Page 1145.

AM: [reads out from SN email - 2 or 3 sentences re bullying]

LY: I just wasn't in any fit state to reply - was in shock after discovering MCC was monitoring 'GalwayGirl' -

AM: Not MCC. Some staff.

LY: Yes.

LY: I did raise bullying - mentioned to Jo. This was 4 days b4 suicide attempt. And I think it shd have been obvious when SH complaint went in - very strong language used - shd have been shut down immediately. Malicious and fabricated allegations. But not shut down.

LY: Cd not believe that MCC cd not see that this was an orchestrated bullying campaign. So think when I saw that Q from SN, I just felt 'how can you not have seen this? How is it not obvious?'

AM: You cite re Barry Young, v opposed to GC beliefs. What you cite here doesn't identify BY at all?

LY: [missed]

AM: You say MCC shd have acted on this?

LY: If they were monitoring me, they shd have

AM: MCC audited bcs complaints raised. not the same

LY: Employees of the council, using council equipment, on council time. Amounts to the Council doing it. They were doing this in work time

AM: Your supposition

LY: I think clear from the evidence.

AM: [ref] 'Bullying and harassing against me' - you say MCC cd just have asked you re GalwayGirl, there was no need to hunt. But you didn't admit re GG - [ref] - no wrong ref, I don't have it, will come back.

LY: I think I asked Council, what evidence, and they refused to supply bcs too offensive to email (which is ridiculous!) - [missed a bit - LY was afraid of dismissal]

AM: Discussion of GG tweets and how in some ways they fall below your values, esp the vicar tweet. You are not really responding to MCC concerns?

LY: Disagree - I think my response was relevant - my first chance to be heard, so that's why I put it in.

AM: This is a good point to break?

J: We will take a 15 minute break.

[BREAK]

Wednesday 14 May

Morning session 2

This is part 2 of the morning session on day 4 of Lorna Young's case at employment tribunal against Manchester City Council. Part 1 of the session is here

The court is currently taking a 15 minute mid-morning break.

[We are about to resume; AM barrister for MCC will continue her cross examination of claimant LY]

AM: Before the break you said you had disclosed concerns about bullying to JJ - that was in Feb 23 [ref]. Is that what you are referring to?

LY: One of the times - I emailed another time too.

AM: But SN asked you in November? - ah - my mistake.
AM: On 10/5 [ref] email from Leigh Day, attachment about SCarr social media output. Suggestion I think that there is something problematic about it?
LY: Yes.

AM: What is problematic?
LY: [pause]

LY: Judith Butler well known [echo on the sound - sorry]
AM: The email is at [ref]
LY: [pause]

LY: Use of term TERF - as Leigh Day say - insult to those with a protected characteristic - see eg terfisaslur site.

AM: use of the term 'TERF'?
LY: It is derogatory when used of ppl who are gender critical.

AM: You say SC ref to, quote of, a tweet referring to article about Judith Butler that includes the word TERF is misconduct?
LY: No, am making the point that my personal account with no link to MCC got disciplined, but SC account clearly identifying MCC got no reaction at all. Less favourable treatment.

AM: You mean the IX?
LY: Yes and at that time on the LY account, very mildly GC only. Very different treatment.

AM: Not the only reason tho, we have looked at SH complaints. And we have seen SN report - those tweets not included.
LY: I had been sent a list of LY tweets plus the SH very biassed doc and IXed for gross misconduct. I liked a photo of JK Rowling hugging a gay woman, and that got called 'transphobic' and IX'd. But using the slur TERF got nothing. Unequal treatment is my point.

AM: SC liked a tweet from TransInTheCity and linking an open letter [to/from] Daniel Radcliffe. What's objectionable?
LY [reading] DR says 'TWAW' - GI belief. he's entitled to do so. SC is 'liking' a tweet on one side of a debate, I'm not allowed to like tweets on the other.

AM: This council has adopted a motion that TR are HR and includes TWAW
LY: Yes, adopted a political motion, and Council enacted in services.

AM: And you say SH initial complaint included material that you say merely GC, so MCC shd have investigated SC 'trans inclusive' tweets?
LY: I was IXd for likes mid-2022.

AM: No evidence you were IXd for those likes. SN report doesn't include those likes, does not put any case to answer re them.

J: doesn't say that.

AM: Rephrase - SN doesn't include them.
LY: They had been sent to me as complaint.

AM: Will not pursue this further.

AM: [ref 1885] Dismissal letter 6 June from Jenny Osborne. She says, Dx Ix was not concluded, but that she has considered whether it shd have been and what evidence she looked at - OH reports, SC letter, your email saying can't engage.

AM: At 1.3 JO says she has considered responsibilities council holds re a Dx, disability adjustments, she refers to offer to progress by correspondence but you weren't able to. Considers your mental health. Notes re your "voice" that Ix was not concluded.

AM: You had confirmed that GalwayGirl was you by now.

LY: Yes in May. And I had never denied that it was me.

AM: First confirmation. Brought to your attention in the Feb.

LY: I didn't deny it, this is in my WS.

AM: JO considers the GG account and draws her conclusions, that the tweets show lack of respect, derogatory views re T ppl. JO notes EA2010 and that GC views & religion are protected, but concludes GG tweets go way beyond.

AM: JO says the EDI manager role shd role-model tolerance and respect. That GC views can be within EDI team. Notes your health poor and may have impacted way you tweeted. Says fundamental loss of mutual respect. You say this shows no understanding of MH consideration?

LY: Yes I think it pretty much ignores the OH reports.

AM: No responsiblity for your actions?

LY: Everyone has responsibility for their actions. But MH issues can impact on your ability to operate that. I just found JO report so stigmatising re MH issues.

LY: Didn't fully take into account the relation between the way I tweeted and my MH.

AM: But you accept you had some responsibility for the material you tweeted.
LY: Yes, but there must be recognition of how my MH affected that.

AM: You then appealed - [ref] - you sent attachments. Including [ref] document 'real story behind drag queen story hour'. Why did you include?
LY: One of the tweets I was dismissed for was re drag events, adult shows, for children - wanted to highlight that this is a contested discussion

AM: As a neutral source, or?
LY: As an example of the discussion that goes one.
AM: And doc at 585 - "Pups, Furries & Kinksters have no place at Pride" - why relevant?

LY: Again example of discourse going on - re my like of the 'Insurrection Barbie' tweet - again, re the blurring of boundaries between adult content and children. Most of my tweets were in this area - Queer Theory blurring of adult and child worlds.

AM: you referred to Barry Young in your appeal. [ref]. You indicate that he'd liked some tweets but you didn't send evidence?

LY: Can't remember, I'm sorry

AM: Your WS 389. You say SC continued to post material on her LinkedIn page, hostile to GC beliefs. You include a post re an LGBTQIA+ summit, talking about 'organised transphobia' re the FWS Supreme Court ruling.

AM: The full text of the presentation starts at 643. Powerpoint by Prof Stephen Whittle. Was about more than the SC ruling. About SW views of "organised transphobia", not just the SC. Do you say not acceptable to criticise the SC ruling?

LY: SW entitled to views, but this was organised by SCarr [I think] and MCC officials attended. SW has very strong views - free to do that - but MCC officials -

AM: MCC doesn't need to be neutral between GC and T-inclusive views does it?

LY: A council shd recognise that it represents a range of views and shd not take one side over another.

AM: MCC shd not be trans inclusive?

LY: Not what I am saying. But, GI is a belief - and a contested belief. T ppl being included is a good thing - but endorsing GI belief is different.

AM: The SC ruling was whether ppl with GR protected characteristic, with GRCs, shd be treated as sex at birth or sex of cert. You are saying that participating in a conference critical of the ruling is embracing gender ideology and goes beyond trans inclusion.

AM: Struggling to understand your objection to the presentation

LY: Grass roots women had come together to protect sex based rights - have lost jobs - and then are called "organised transphobia". SW entitled to that view, but, divisive for MCC to endorse.

LY: MCC have not organised events for eg Sex Matters or WRN.

J: [asks for ref to full presentation, AM gives]

J: Organised and attended by MCC?
LY: Yes

AM: So your objection is that the presentation says, transphobia was part of the SC decision and MCC shd not have endorsed?
LY: Yes

AM: And so you take issue with the SCarr post on LinkedIn at 622, why?
LY: Our objection is to the presentation linked

AM: "Our"?
LY: Letter was from solicitor. Objection to the presentation

AM: At at 666 - SCarr appears to be supporting Manchester Pride, you say she shouldn't have been doing that?
LY: In context of my tweets re drag & children - this is a photo of a man in a dog collar with a small child. I've absolutely no objection to Pride per se.

AM: Thing here from Jolyon Maugham, SCarr has liked a video he posted re SC decision, what's the problem?
LY: V active in this space, took Gov to court re EHRC statement, v critical. Again, goes back to running theme of bias in a very consisted space.

LY: Whereas even in a personal capacity I could not tweet the mildest of GC things.
AM: You say SCarr not entitled to post disapproval of SC decision? Or rather, do you think that posting disapproval of SC decision is like your LY tweets or your GG tweets?
LY: Have not thought in those terms. If I had posted the mildest of approvals of the SC ruling, I would have been IX'd for misconduct. And that did not happen to SCarr. Point is the disparity.

AM: You put 61 page appendix to your WS, dealing with complaints raised June 2022 by Sarah and Adiba. This material was not before MCC at any material time, other than the emails of 17/11-24/11. These were not provided to the council, they are from your own compiling?

LY: Yes I had been working on them for some time - and I wasn't very well at that time. And then the focus switched to "GalwayGirl", and my suicide attempt. I have included them because I wanted the Judge to see them.

AM: You clearly disagree with concerns raised.
LY: Yes

AM: But it's fanciful to say they were fabricated bcs of your GC beliefs.
LY: I disagree.

AM: SH made it all up?
LY: There are fabrications and distortions, things without evidence. Because of SH hostility.
AM: And Adiba?
LY: I am not sure why A complained. There are untruths here too. For example says I didn't do X re her masters - but I put it in the business plan, and it's just not true I refused to talk to her about it.

AM: You consider yourself a good manager.
LY: [missed a bit] the assertions they made are just not me - 20 year career in the council - full on assault, as I described to SN. Unfair attack.

LY: Manager shd be approachable and compassiionate, and I am, always have been.

AM: You say the complaints made were vague and unevidenced. But that's not true. Specific complaint re cold sore comment, dyspraxia. What evidence cd have been given?

LY: SH said I mocked a cold sore - it simply didn't happen. And, approached re possible dyspraxia, possible Occ Health referral. We discussed - v respectful - I said I knew MCC had referral route re dyslexia which is different but didn't know re dyspraxia, but I would approach the disability forum to ask

LY: And I sent their response to SH, and she said thank you. But the complaint was that I had mixed up dyslexia and dyspraxia, and I simply didn't. It's not true.

AM: My point is that some of these are very specific allegations.
LY: Disagree. Claims of "inappropriate comments" without any detail of what they were.

AM: Complaint of bullying mentioned by J Johnson?
LY: Was not true

AM: Yes found to be not well founded, but that you still had fallen below expected standards?

LY: I think complaint of "abrupt" emails - but, when I am in pain I often write v short emails bcs difficult to type.

LY: Complainant has v often complained when promotion not obtained, but her capability issues are well known at MCC.

LY: So the complaint was kind of a shot across the bow bcs she knew a capability review was upcoming. I was supportive throughout, and, complaint found unfounded.

AM: A few more small points. In your WS 144. You say at the end that within days of the appraisal JJ became cold, and you did not get written appraisal. Wasn't that your responsibility as appraisee?

LY: I don't think that's right.

AM: You said on Tuesday that you "held the pen" on the Sex & Gender report. JJ had sign off?
LY: Yes

AM: And it's true that such reports are often subject to correspondence between officers?
LY: Yes

AM: You said re this that you had asked Kieran to [missed] that's not true?
LY: [missed a bit] Jo was the initial IX officer.
AM: But then handed over to SN

AM: Only ref I can find from you to SN re Kieran is in your written report you produced for Sarah [ref] - bullet re a report needing K input. Only other refs to Keiran are in your own notes which were not given to MCC?
LY: I think also in the first IX report. And K remained my handover manager, so obviously K shd have been notified, to speak to my management style, cannot understand why not a witness to the IX.

AM: IX was not completed.
LY: Was initiated.

AM: We looked at your screenshot in relation to Barry Young but didn't seem to mention him.
LY: They could have looked at his tweets?

AM: My point is you never submitted any evidence re BY?
LY: I put in my statement re dismisssal?

AM: The shot which does not mention his name.
LY: "GalwayGirl" does not mention "Lorna". I'm trying to point out the equivalence.

J: One or two Qs. [J sound v poor]

J: Can you give me a sense of how much contact you had with the 2 individuals, and what sort of contact.

LY: Got to know Adiba first, interviewed at the same time as me, we got on very well, she came to my home, we went for a nice walk, this was Covid times so working from home, met her again a couple of months later, but there were online meetings and phone calls, several times a week.

LY: Re Alfie, I was on the recruitment panel (online) and then very regular meetings - again online. Regular bcs his first full time post after [missed]. Sarah - again online, I rang her to tell her she had the job. We had online mtgs once or twice a week.

LY: Some mtgs one to one, some team meetings.

LY: We had a Teams Chat thread too, ongoing conversation on and off all day. Very positive and friendly. Can't remember if the chat thread went to the IX. Then in May [something] and so no interaction for a few months. When I came back S & Adiba had left, but met Alfie again.

J: You sent an email providing resources to SH [sorry sound is very bad] [something about a comment] Why did you feel that was the case?

LY: From my convos with SH and Adiba re Proud Trust training [hard to follow sorry]
LY: They had been to a full day conference organised by Manchester Pride, and I said I'd send some materials. Can't remember if it was email or the chat thread but they said "helpful, thank you very much".

NR: Want to raise that only 2 of the 4 tweets C was dismissed for have been raised in evidence, so would like AM to note that that's my position if they will be raised in subs.
AM: Yes I will, so I will find them.

AM: We have looked at the vicar, and the next is - you liked a tweet by Graham Linehan which says Gi is the most homophobic, misogynistic thing of his lifetime. Report says this was among the content showing no respect for others, grossly derogatory language.

AM: Report says goes well beyond a view moderately expressed?
LY: It is not moderately expressed, but it's still an allowable view. And my appeal letter detailed why I think it misogynistic and homophobic. Straightforward expression of my belief. Tho wd not now use 'evil' as GL did

LY: Wd say "damaging". And NB that Pope Francis considered gender identity theory to be evil. And well he's the Pope, head of my church.

AM: The other tweet referenced in dismissal letter, you "applauded" a video, the dismissal letter says, you applauded a video saying children being groomed i.e. you are saying TW are paedophiles.

LY: No. Was applauding video that was objecting to eg drag strip shows encouraging children to put money into their underwear. Drag queens and TW are not the same thing. To put on record - am not saying TW are paedophiles.

LY: Though there is no reason to assume they offend at rates different from other men.

AM: Might have been your intent, but that is not how it was seen.

LY: I think it is very much an over-reaction by MCC to think I was saying TW=paedophiles. And, that interpretation was never put to me, no matter how
often I asked.

NR: LY you were taken to a July OH report, you said there was an earlier one - see p871. Is this the earlier OH report you meant?
LY: Yes it is. 12th May.

NR: "Some decline in psychological well-being".
LY: Yes.

NR: It was put to you that the July OH report made no mention of your MH, if we look at it. Mentions stress risk assessment.
LY: Yes

NR: Was it put that BY said "Gender Critical Losers" -
AM: Was not put

NR: It's agreed he said it?
AM: Yes

NR: You said, re the Trevi Fountain photos, that you mentioned your father as well as the trip in general - go to [pages] - tweets from both LY and GG accounts re father's cancer, is this what you meant?
LY: Yes

NR: Am sorry to be reminding you of all this.
LY: I put in the IX report that I had mentioned it all.

NR: There was discussion of when you mentioned being bullied at work. We've seen mention in Feb. And here we have a reference - "Lorna said" - is this also what you meant?
LY: Yes

NR: That's all.

J: We will take lunch until 2pm. LY that is the end of your evidence, you are released from duty not to discuss case.
J: [missed]
AM: I don't think that's necessary, can put in closing submissions.
J [missed]

[but, LUNCH]

Thursday 14 May 2026
Afternoon session 2

We're about to start live tweeting this pm's session of day 3 of LY v Manchester City Council.

She alleges discrimination due to her GC and religious beliefs.

This morning's session is here:

The Judge is swearing in the witness, Jo Johnson.
WS accurate and truthful.

AM has 2 points.
AM indicated One Notes not part of council system. I ws wrong.

JJ Gave full access to one notes. But failed to [missed and too fast] It was on CC sustem and ina secure place. Just difference part of system.

AM - what did ou understand abt ref to bullying and what did you do abt it?
JJ - [missed _ Limit access team?]
Follow up convo - I assumed [missed].
[This witness is so fast... difficult]

JJ confirms address and that WS is truthful.

NR - start with late disclosure. We got standard disclosure on 18 Aug. Were you involved then.
JJ - can't recall. Wasn't a witness . Had contact re SAR. Shared [info] and chat meage. At one stage shared access to HR to all One drive docs.

NR - are you saying HR had access and searched?
JJ - Access.
J _ Everything or specific docs.
JJ Entire file.

NR - DSAR - a Lorna file - extent of sharing?

NR - we asked what was nature of the R's disclosure. It was in our view wasn't satisfactory. Do you know abt that.
JJ No.

NR - R's legal dept did another search that sounds quite different from the one you are describing.
quotes "comprehensive legal review" Search terms including "Lorna", and you were named as one of the custodians.

NR we asked who did this - we were told it was people like you.
Quite different from "I gave them access to my Lorna file" Different.
JJ - yes. I think I was incorrect. I'd have to go back and check dates I did searches.
JJ Yes - I returned everything I found in my search.

NR : Thousands of Loran refs. 49 docs in second wave search. never known what 1st wave search was.
"All docs provided inc some we think nt relevant to proceedings"

NR: As I think you accept, you alone would reciev 1000s of Lorna resullst. I'm putting to you that you decided what was relevant?
JJ Yes

NR We don't have any emails b/w you and Hr during period you managed LY
JJ wld need to check.

NR do you accept there would be emails.
JJ - at an informal stage we have chat messages.
Thousands of pages>

NR I haven't seen any emails b/w you and HR relating to this claim.
NR You became responsible for council's EDI team - formally by April 2022. EDI mgr and 4 specialists.
Until 2021 managed by kieran Barnes, C employed in his team as EDI. Do you accept she perfomed well?
JJ As a EDI specialist yes. Noise problem} Yes X told me she performed well.

NR - email to Kieran
JJ - some letters missing on page. at start of line.

NR - is that the sort of feedback you had?
JJ Yes.

NR she performed so well she got KB's job.
JJ yes. Competitive process.

NT Sabhiba and Sofia applied for role.
NR - met her in pub. You were aware she felt very socially isolated because shielding. Particularly when went of sick in May 2022. Sabiba Sultan joined in dec 2021. Specialising in race and sex.
JJ def race - can't remember if lead in sex.

NR Alfie joined [date missed] armed forces. Sarah Hurden in [date missed] so that was their team.
JJ - Yes.

JJ give me a definition of GIT.

NR Deginition of GIT - TWAW.
SH and Sofia believed TWAW.
JJ queries then confirms.
JJ - Yes - but no reason to disclose it either.

NR - Not a requirement of the job to hold any particular job or belief?
JJ No

NR or to believe TWAW?
JJ No

NR Repeated emphasis to provide specialist advice [in technical requirements for the job]?
JJ Yes.

NR Team spend half the time doing Eq Impact assessments EIAs?
JJ Yes - substantial part of job

NR do you accept the C was quite capable of working with Trans Rights orgs.
JJ Yes when specialist, Not doing that in her mgr's role.

NR - Trans Creative emails KB re working together next year. KB responds and passes to Lorna to decide the matter.
JJ - Yes.
reading new email.
NR - do you accept that she was talking positively with trans org and said I think we have a gap on trans at the moment?
JJ Yes.

NR - took responsibility that R was ready to attend Pride that year. Do you know that?
JJ NP
No, not NP.

NR - C contacts SH and [missed] re who wanted to take lead on Pride. Pride known as Pro Trans rights parade.

C's evidence that Ryan previous lead was passionate on GIT. Evid that she worked well with him.
JJ - yes good working relationship

NR - C's WS para 234 - asks JJ to read it.
JJ I don't know anything abt that.

NR - Feb 2022 TRAHR motion passed (before C was working with TR org and on Pride).

NR quotes motion TWAW, TM AM, NB people
JJ Yes.

NR - email R's CEO to all staff following year - quotes - we stand united with our trans and nonbinary colleagues that TWAW and etc>
Not just a council motion but sent to all staff.
Who is the "we"

JJ - I understand that to be MCC?
NR All ?
JJ no decision making policy approach.

NR Elected leadership team belief?
JJ not a belief a statement

NR - it a belief. If I am receiving it whose belief is it meant to be who is the we?
"We recognise that TWAW?"
Do you recognise that yr GC colleagues will profoundly disagree?
JJ yes

NR do you agree it created a belief that people were expected to believe?
JJ No.
[missed - re difficulties for GC staff]
JJ I interpreted as inclusive service delivery
JJ - I don't think it would have created a hostile environment?

NR questions
JJ- We do have zero tolerance to any form of discrimination. Other things in place >

NR - so other things they can rely on?
J interrupts - trying understand the point. Many corporate orgs have stance. eg a vegetarian or meat farming org.

NR - not bringing a claim abt the motion. This motion brought an environment.

NR - motion might push people to keep their beliefs secret?
JJ wouldn't want to speak [for others].

NR do you think this created environment that empowered people to go hunting for people who didn't think TWAW?
JJ No

NR - did motion create a culture where people cited the motion?
JJ not openly.

NR MCC a service provider, Employer and has PSED - compliance with EqA. Do you accept for Eq Act that TW are not women?
[JJ{missed]

NR - reference FWS.
JJ [can't hear]

NR Andrew Simcock councillor email to City Solicitor. what definition of gender when agreeing the motion? Common issue TWAW - but don't know what it meant?
JJ a constituent q.

NR He doesn't know answer.
JJ normal to contact City Sol.

NR - email to Lora definition of gender. Do you accept passed without a proper understanding of what it meant?
JJ - Motions proposed by cllrs. then [officers} make sure its' legal etc.

NR so meaning only after motion is passed?
NR what did you uderstand what TW meant?
JJ people who identify.

NR - C explains 2 diff types of definition - those who have a GRC. Most t people don't have GRCs. Other is gender reassignment. Could be a broader definition. fairly setting out all the defns?
JJ Yes

NR - quotes and then she sets out all the types of defns - EHRc, EqA, Stonewall, Govt Eq Office.
On prof level C's response was completely professional?
JJ Yes

NR C supported SH and Sabiba attending full day conference.
JJ yes if in bundle.

NR - quotes re Gendered Intelligence - attached training "looks good to me" C recommending pro trans training to you.
JJ yes.

NR Training rolled out?
JJ can't remember. have had GI training.

NR - one of the Cxs was Sex & Gender report - initiative of KB. His idea.
JJ missed

NR - set out GC and GI views? Complainant worked with SH and [missed]?
JJ Yes

NR - no critcism of this email [in bundle - we don't see it] ?
JJ No

NR 6 days after Miss Hurden and Miss Soltan went to the trans conf, and were familiar with T side of the debate?
JJ not sure the professional specialist side

NR - C sends further info
NR - C sent them EHRC report and LGBT assocn responses - both sides of the deabte abt that report. Not passing judgment.
JJ yes

NR and council motion, and Cass Review Independent Review of healthcare for Trans youth, and info from GC side of debate. A fair summary?
JJ [long silence] Is that a question?

NR fair summary?
JJ is it balanced? More info on one side.

NR covered that.
NR quotes - may find some of material chllenging to yr beliefs but as a team we need to understand both sides.
JJ Yes.
NR objective neutral summary
JJ yes.
NR - professional email.
JJ yes.
NR SH raise oral complaint on 6 April. No notes.
JJ She asked for a informal conversation.

Did you tell anyone?
JJ would have told someone
JJ when complaint raised.
At the time was informal.

NR - not sure that is right. JJ's WS - Para 22. quotes Had initial convo with Paul T re resolving on informal challenge. No doc.
JJ - yes teams call or informal convo.

NR Do you know if {Paula]s record was searched?
JJ No.
missed.

NR my question - now a continuous dialogue - several convos? Only got 7 April as conv.?
JJ day to day conversations.

NR - takes JJ to first doc re Cxs.
LY tweets - email from her to you. Effectively this email best record of what SH said to you on 7 April?

JJ Didn't take any notes. vast majority of Cxs were LY's mgt style, treatment of Adiba and some views leaking into work. All very generic at that stage.

NR - you only mention S&G report in WS..
JJ - also mentioned mgt style

NR - also ref to a different conversation or 7 April.
JJ can't recall. Wld have to assume 7 April.

Court is taking a short break. We'll start the next session on a new thread.

[Earlier session was actually afternoon session 1 - my apologies]

Thursday 14 May 2026
Afternoon session two

We're reporting the second part of this afternoon's session of the Employment Tribunal case brought by Lorna Young against her former employer Manchester City Council.

Please see our Ss page on the case (including reporting from the earlier days of the hearing) and abbreviations used. We're a collective of volunteer citizen journalists and are not paid for our work. Please support us by subscribing to our Ss (link in bio above) which funds our digital & some travel costs.
https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/lorna-young-vs-manchester-city-council

The first part of this afternoon's session is here. The pace of cross examination is fast and it has been difficult to hear the witnesses' responses when short and in agreement.

(NR is Nathan Roberts, Lorna Young's barrister
JJ - Jo Jackson)

NR - only doc recording what she may have said - this email. Heading misconduct. quotes whilst I unst that such GC beliefs are protected by law, and may not have been seen as explicit disc, expressing succh views in such a public way is unprofessional and not in line with MCC values
JJ - in such a public way.
[missed].
NR So EDI mgrs can't express?
[tech issue}

NR - Only things she had on her twitter account - said in email - Such tweets may not seem much individually. She repeatedly liked tweets. Nothing the C had posted - just likes.
JJ Yes

NR _ She's trying to establish if the C was GC? Do you acceot the nature of her searches was to ID if C was GC?
JJ yes what she shared. can't speak to her (SH)'s motives

NR - expressing GC beliefs publicly was unacceptable. the product demonstrated L was GC?
JJ yes

NR Tweet - Read it to yrself.
NR then we get Miss Hurden's analysis - balanced in many ways. Phrasing is contrary to [medical interventiosn)
JJ I accept GC.

NR SH thinks that knowing sex is real and immutable is wrong.
JJ - don't think she says that.

NR this is her evidence pack.
She's saying that is wrong.
JJ the way this done in a way is unprofessional.

NR she is saying it is wrong to be public abt tehfact that C is GC. It is wrong doing, to express that you are GC in public.
JJ I think more nuanced.

NR - Very clear. She thought it incompatible with ebing and EDi mgr.
JJ yes.

NR - Tweet which offended her (Bindel worked for 30 years Keep prison single sex)?
JJ Yes

NR - tweet JKR hugging a lesbian.
JJ don't know sexuality of person. Take yr word for it.

NR - abt halfway through [Cx] - despite council motion TWAW TMAM and NBANB. Evidence that motion is cited as evidence of wrong doing for being C. Agree?
JJ - reading context. quotes fast - something re trans people's autonomy. Sounds discriminatory to me
[missed]

J asks question.
JJ not just GC - in context of email wld read it as discriminatory.

NR Impact statement - may seem like mountain out of a molehill. especially younger t people will be fully aware what likes mean. Attack on inference of what the likes mean. Agreed?
JJ - umm she's plainly making a judgement abt attitudes of L based on those tweets and invoking her understanding abt the impact

NR "I am ashamed to be associated with" meaning Gc. An appalling thing for her to say. Do you agree?
JJ I can't account for how she feels/

NR - not her feelings. An appalling thing for her to say?
JJ I don't agree with her.

NR not asking that.
If she said I am ashamed to be associated with a muslim what wld you say abt that?
JJ again I do nt agree with that,

NR If she said I am ashamed to be associated with a gay man, what wld you say abt that?
JJ again I do nt agree with that,
So you think right to express shame over association with a PC, is OK.
JJ No.

NR So part of the investigation into SH?
JJ No

NR Part of the problem. Dismissed for tweets. So people can say outrageous things abt GC people with impunity?
JJ No do not agree. Not right.

NR - quotes JJ's email to SH - you shd be proud of {talking to me] will definitely support SH. Happy to help you phrase these issues. in writing so you can hold me to account.
Very encouraging & supportive?
JJ yes

NR supportive to someone who said ashamed.
JJ I would challenge that?

NR did you challenge that?
JJ very close to Sarah's resignation.

NR "I woudl challenge that" You didn't challenge that?
JJ [missed - didn't deal with email in detail]