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.

I haven’t followed it since Lorna was on the stand last week, good to read Jo Phoenix’s piece. I will catch up with TT.

Ill put in a call to the Tribunal this morning.

Definitely can see that the missing discovery is hiding a multitude of sins.

When Lorna’s direct report emails to say something like it’s horrible to associate with someone who is gender critical and Lorna’s line manager endorses that…

The barrister made a clear link to saying it horrible to associate with a gay person or a Muslim.

They literally cannot see how utterly prejudiced they are - and these are the diversity, equality and inclusivity people.

Only inclusive of genital multilated people and fetish dress wearers is quite a niche area.

The usual HR squeaks

I don’t know who approved it, I was only there to advise.

Someone said she didn’t align to MCC values and sacked her… pray who?

Don’t forget Julie Bindel too.

Burn the witches.

For those interested in remote access, I've been advised:

• Contact the Tribunal at [email protected].
• Include Lorna Young v MCC in the subject & body
• "Request to observe remotely” in the subject heading to request a remote link.

Monday 18 May 2026
Morning session

Tribunal Tweets - please subscribe to their substack if you have a few pounds spare. They do vital work!

__

Good morning.

We will shortly be live tweeting day 6 of the employment tribunal of LY vs Manchester City Council (MCC). LY holds gender critical views and is Catholic and was formerly Equality Team Manager at MCC. She was dismissed from this role due to her social media content.

JJ - Jo Johnson, co-worker
SH - Sarah Hurden, co-worker who submitted complaint against C
AS - Abida Sultan, also submitted complaint against C
SK - Sharmila Kar, co-worker

GI(T) - gender identity (theory)
TRAHR - Trans Rights are Human Rights motion
Cx - complaint

Ix - investigation
GG - galwaygirl, the C's anonymous twitter account

(for those of you who are following along - I haven't been miscounting days ...

The full merits hearing is taking place in Manchester from 11 - 22 May 2026. Monday 11 May was a reading day.

So we are on day 6 of the Tribunal, but day 5 of evidence.)

Four more days of trial so worth trying for remote access if of interest.

JaneDoeKeepsReceipts is a ⭐

Will post for as long as I can today. Have a few other commitments so if not posting please step in... or I will collect on my return.

We are in remotely and counsel are arriving now.

J Reminds remote remote viewers to not record

AM We sent a signif amount of disclosure yday. I have no comments on this but I cross exam the C where I said the R hadnt looked at GG tweets, but I now see an open access search was made of GG and Nick McMillan screenshot some tweets

More discovery mid trial….. the warning over you’re under oath to the witnesses had an effect yesterday. 👀

J You're not seeking recall witnesses
AM No, just correcting info

J Do you NR?
NR No I dont. We received late last night at 8.30pm so didnt look until 10pm as on a train. I cldnt download it due to the format. It discloses docs that shld have been disclosed before as highly relevant

NR I'm not sure we have full disclosure. Some are v relevant and covered how to Ix. I wld like the R's bullish statement retracted.

There are 200 pages. I wld have used them to reinforce my Qs to JJ. Once I've fully reviewed I can reinforce my case put to JJ.

NR There's also disclosure by others eg Miss Narici so I might be clunky in my cross.

No, I dont want an adjournment and we havent discussed these docs yet. I dont think I have new Qs arising from these docs today so will have to play by ear.

NR I dont think we'll need to delay. Some of the 200 pages is relevant but not all.

J We'll need printing odd if are as a pdf. Anything else re the docs or anything else?

AM We have thinned the list of issues

NR Nothing from me

J Calls next witness, Sarah Narachi

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
[SN affirms]

[J requests lights off for LY but she says she's ok sat at the back]

AM Enters SN's witness statement (WS) I have no Qs but NR will

NR Good morning. We've had further disclosure from u. When sent to yr solicitors
SN Various times. Those were sent at end of week, Thurs I think

NR They contain Cs name. Why not produced the first time
NS They shld have been. I assumed they were included and was reminded of some recently and they were sent to me

NR When did u receive tweets and which ones. I have 3 sets from GG account

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
40s

NR Sent tweets by SH
SN Sh sent screenshots re commonalities between accounts and tweet screenshots x2. p1376 and the email from SH.
The attachment of Dec 23rd, was screenshots of pics of commonalities between LYs personal account and GG and a couple of tweets

NR Then she sends another email about sending 3 hrs going through.
NS A w-transfer from SH w a signif no of tweets
NR We dont have that, the attachments
SN I dont have the original. I thought the commonalities and
NR We dont have we transfer or attachments to email

So you sent new disclosures to your solicitors last Thursday.

Sunday night they dump 200 pages onto the claimants legal team.

Lovely 🥰 behaviour from a City Council with millions of pounds of resources, all these employees and paying out the wazoo for this legal case.

The stupidity of them not settling gets me every time.

I hope their insurers are watching.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

SN They're in the pack attached to my IO (Ix report)
NR We dont know this. This might be the 3rd cat of tweets. The ones in the Ix pack - the one the C sent a yr later
SN It shld be this. An Appex to my IO. All the info is diclosed there. Some info is disclosed elsewhere tho
2m
NR Are these the 23 Dec ones
SN I think are we transfer and not the attachment ones
NR So from WT email
SN Yes
NR An undated doc of unknown origins
SN I think from WT download as well
NR Theyre formatted differently

SN Yes but think came from same place
NR p1670. I still cant find these attachments. Wat is this
NS I dont recall where they come from
NR These tweets were sent to C. Were the generated by HR
SN They might be WT. I cant recall
NR We have no emails to work this out

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR Are these the 23 Dec ones
SN I think are we transfer and not the attachment ones
NR So from WT email
SN Yes
NR An undated doc of unknown origins
SN I think from WT download as well
NR Theyre formatted differently

SN Yes but think came from same place
NR p1670. I still cant find these attachments. Wat is this
NS I dont recall where they come from
NR These tweets were sent to C. Were the generated by HR
SN They might be WT. I cant recall
NR We have no emails to work this pout

NS we have email chains and not indiv ones so hard to work out
NR We do know she sent u 2 batches: 23 Dec and WT (we transfer). On p1347 she refers to sending by WT. Presumably u forwarded to HR
NS HR were sent a link of my download at some time

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

1m
NR [p1446] Above this is your email to the C. Please read to remind yrself of the start of this. Then u said "given the nature of the content I wld like to avoid sending by email, as dont want to send via MCC email" You regarded as too offensive to send
NS I wasnt sure were the Cs and concerned it wld set off flags in the R's email system
NR All the tweets
NS Yes, lots of swear words. Was my decision.
NR Did it amount to hate speech
NS Yes, thought was discrim
NR Not all was offensive
NS Didnt know all was hers.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
4m
NS Varying degrees of views [sound glitch]
NR p2033 was sent to u by SH. Chris Musson is quoting Rishi Sunak [reading] about GI in Scotland. The C says dont cave into the activists. Isnt it simple views
NS I was looking at the whole package and not single phrases
Tribunal Tweets

NR Do u think GC views are inherently discrim
NS No but I think some ways of expressing unaccep though
NR Atweet by JKR. What's yr problem w it
NS Again, it's the whole package
NR Do u have any objections to her tweet
NS It's how some ppl might view it

NR Is it yr view its offensive
NS I dont understand the Q [replies agains about package]
NR Asks Q again
SN It depends on the context
NR There is no context
NS It potentially is as infers re certain views. I'm no expert on these matters.
NR These just show she's GC. It;s an exercise to show she is GC

So the package of information was so offensive you couldn’t send it on email except….

It was presumably sent to you via work email
And you haven’t identified anything offensive in the package

Oh ok hun 🤯

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
SN SH came across these and she thinks some of these are GC.
NR Is that a Yes
SN Yes
NR p2036: [reads about Cs faith and her workplace bullying] Is this inapprop?
SN [missed, I think no]
NR [p2045]

NR A tweet re genocidal GCs and daring to tweet re GC beliefs which breaks PSED. This next batch looks like prepared by someone else. read this tweet. ANything offensive about that?
SN No, I dont think so

NR Do u accept that some of these tweets just support GC beleifs
SN Yes, on rereading can accept that

NR Equating them to something so abominable they cant be sent yr equating GC views as abominable