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.

Just pondering, this witness was sitting in a local authority EDI Team, partly paid by the LA but HR employed by NHS.

Firstly, why is the NHS funding this function for the LA and secondly, what if there was a conflict between the LA & NHS HR policies & procedures?

Yes in the flesh

Well clearly not an issue because she was asked about an investigation and nothing to see here as her other boss sorted it.

Total way to pass the buck. She's a misogynist since she doesn't support womens rights to single sex spaces. Aint no one going to address that lack of inclusivity.

Thats offensive to young children. They might have a trans age identity.

They have more wit.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharmila-kar-a2b5957/recent-activity/images/

Two weeks ago she is still widely spouting her gender ideology

But all good! You're offensive in the right way. Erode women's rights Ms Kar - you go girl!

Either they don’t understand or their understanding was given to them by someone who had their own interpretation of the law.

On an entirely unrelated note, according to Google, MCC are closely aligned with Stonewall.

Monday 18 May 2026

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets

This is the second part of the day 6 afternoon session in Lorna Young vs Manchester City Council at employment tribunal. Part 1 is here

The court is currently taking a short break; after which Nathan Roberts barrister for the C will continue cross-examination of MCC witness Sharmila Kar.

[We resume]
NR: p1456 This is another OH report?
SK: Yes

NR: Last para b4 'conclusion' - advises advance notification for discussing things with C?
SK: Yes

NR: I am pausing here, because this [ref missed] is first disclosure of anything from HR. And only disclosed bcs appended to the DX report.
NR: My next Q is re AMR 14/11. Your WS185

NR: Para 45. Your understanding leaving the meeting was the C had asked for no negative news before Christmas?
SK: I may have been a bit generous there, recording says "positive news welcome, negative not so much".

NR: But your WS is your impression?
SK: Yes

NR: p1633, email chain. C asks when and how she will hear MCC's intention?
SK: I think that's an interpretation

NR: I think it's what the words say. When and how re intentions
SK: Yes

NR: p1650 - dated 19/12 but sent 20th. Now it's an SORS process, various headings - tweets, OH, sickness absence, breakdown of trust. You don't in your WS explain how this decision was made.
SK: No

NR: YOu say MCC decision not yours
SK: Yes

NR: Whose decision are you communicating?
SK: It was a collective decision, discussion meetings

NR: List for me.
SK: Mary Sutton, Mick McMillan, Ella & Alice (HR). Mary Sutton was the constant legal advisor.

NR: David Regan?
SK: Has retired now.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
6m
NR: We were told, Mick McM, David Regan, Ella [earlier witness] and you.
SK: And mary Sutton

NR: My question is, are we going to hear of any witness giving evidence about who and why took the decision to widen all this to the SORS process
SK: Can't comment

NR: Do you accept this re-opens the IX effectively
SK: Wasn't involved - didn't see tweets until saw the bundle.

NR: Someone at MCC knew IX was being re-opened, but not you?
SK: Correct
SK: Communication was going through me, but not my decisions.

NR: Do you accept this is all very vague?

SK: I repeat, I didn't know what the allegations were.

NR: If you couldn't work that out, how was the claimant supposed to?
SK: [missed]

SK: I think that's an interpretation
NR: I think it's what the words say.

Jesus wept. “It wasn’t me, I was just passing on information, I didn’t know anything, I can’t comment”.

Any minute now someone is going to claim they were reversing into a bin.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
8m
NR: But you knew very well how fragile the C's MH was. And then she gets this enormous and broad and vague letter.
SK: Yes I agree there's a lot to consume there
NR: Do you accept, "bad news" for the C?
SK: Well it's not good news.

NR: The SORS mtg didn't happen till June.
SK: Didn't know that.

NR: In March you ask for the tweets. You knew report not ready until April.
SK: Yes

NR: So there was no need to tell the C all this 5 days before Christmas?
NR: She had asked when and how, not what.
SK: Agree timing not great, but was triying to give C relevant information

NR: Going to take you thru letters named from you, but if they were written by HR do say.
SK: Or by legal department.
NR: We haven't seen any HR docs at all 2023-24.
SK: I wasn't involved.

NR: Leigh Day (Annie Powell) tells you C has still not seen the tweets that are being claimed as gross misconduct, in spite of requests.
SK: Yes

NR: You reply yes you will correspond via C's sister, and you don't send the tweets but say they will come in IX report. Not your decision not to send?
SK: Not my decision.

NR: Leigh Day respond - say you have them, why can't you send them?
SK: Yes
NR: You respond, reluctant to share bcs out of context. What was the relevant context?
SK: I think the broader IX, and legal advice not to share outside that.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR: AP replies, C knows the tweets context best?
SK: Yes
NR: p1659 - Ms [HR person] finally sent the tweets?
SK: Yes

NR 1698 - C writes to you re an OH referral, says she wants to consider RtW. MCC refused OH referral before the SOSR?
SK: Pretty sure that's right.

NR: Even though the C's absence was part of the SOSR meeting?
SK: Don't know.
NR: You wrote the letter.
SK: Just the postbox
NR: You don't know whose decision?
SK: I can't remember, I asked for advice here.

NR: I think it's what the words say.

😀

I am between two employers. I can't be validly investigated.

I was a line mangager but I didn't want to look at the tweets or see anything. So I signed off on all these letters and sent them. But I promise I didn't pay any attention to the contents. Post boxes don't read the letters.

I am a rainbox postbox - I spout only rainbows and sprinkles. Not truth or any work activity. Post it in my postbox. I will deny all knowledge.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
9m
NR 1698 - C writes to you re an OH referral, says she wants to consider RtW. MCC refused OH referral before the SOSR?
SK: Pretty sure that's right.

NR: Even though the C's absence was part of the SOSR meeting?
SK: Don't know.

NR: You wrote the letter.
SK: Just the postbox
NR: You don't know whose decision?
SK: I can't remember, I asked for advice here.

NR: p1667 - queries re the SOSR that there seem to be misconduct allegations instead?
SK: Yes

NR: Asks for details of the misconduct re tweets?
SK: Yes

NR: You were only post-box?
SK: Yes and I wasn't comfortable with that and I think after this I left it to legal to correspond directly.

NR: Your WS [ref] we have had no disclosure of HR response to your relay of request for OH referral.
SK: OK

NR: [ref] C is chasing an answer?
SK: Yes
NR: A month later still no response - C submits grievance re the delay?
SK: Yes

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
3m
NR: p1704 - You said -
SK: Yes
NR: Meantime p1708 - letter to C signed by Ms [] Rimmer but she declined in evidence to say it was her decision to drop almost all the issues. Did not say who. Was it you?
SK: No

NR: Letter with the IX report. Did you write?
SK: No
NR: p1809 finally reply to solicitor, agreeing most allegations are misconduct. Can you read the rest of the paragraph?

NR: I do not understand what it means. What is this paragraph communicating?
SK: I think that we had had OH report into C ill health, what effect it might have had on C's conduct.

NR: Says you'd had OH report, had looked at C social media, but 'nevertheless' needed to look at her suitability for role. Meaning what exactly?
SK: I really don't know, this is why it was silly for me to be post-box, had no knowledge of IX report etc.

Is Mary Sutton the constant legal advisor going to be called?
She's my current pick for going right under the bus.

This is giving me the rage. And yet not one of these 'be kind' cowardly weasels is prepared to stand up for their cult and admit responsibility for what they have done to the claimant. What an absolute bloody shower.

It does me too especially as the current witness works for a mental health organisation.

Tribunal Tweets
@tribunaltweets
·
11m

NR: Attaches MCC statement on "trans inclusion" - "we" here means MCC? Says, "our view" - grossly offensive - mentions the Equality Act. The only attachment is p1822 - the T&NB inclusion statement.
SK: Yes

NR: Connects the "grossly offensive" to the T&NB policy?
SK: Don't think so. It's saying we are trans-inclusive.

NR: Council motion - TWAW, TMAM etc. Do you agree that if s/o says something that disagrees with that motion, even in private, it's 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, disagree, it's about how it's said.

NR: Saying TWAnW is 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, the view itself is protected.

J: Am not sure you quite answered the Q about the implication of the email as opposed to your own views?
SK: I don't think the email is saying 'grossly offensive' is related to the T&NB policy.
J: Disagreeing with the policy not offensive per se?
SK: No

NR: [ref] Leigh Day ask exactly what is offensive about the tweets? And it was at this point you stepped out of 'post box' role?
SK: Yes
NR: Aware MCC did not ever say what was?
SK: Not aware

NR: No more Qs

AM: [re-exam] you talked about advice from HR and legal - separate advice or intermingled?
SK: Intermingled.

J: [releases witness]
AM: One more witness - Ms Harrington
NR: Perhaps too late to begin today?

J: [Q re case conduct]
NR & AM we are in live discussions re this.
J: We will need to resolve Qs re any more disclosure, and list of issues. Needn't be very first thing tomorrow, but, with despatch please.

[END OF HEARING]

NR: Council motion - TWAW, TMAM etc. Do you agree that if s/o says something that disagrees with that motion, even in private, it's 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, disagree, it's about how it's said.
NR: Saying TWAnW is 'grossly offensive'
SK: No, the view itself is protected.
J: Am not sure you quite answered the Q about the implication of the email as opposed to your own views?
SK: I don't think the email is saying 'grossly offensive' is related to the T&NB policy.
J: Disagreeing with the policy not offensive per se?
SK: No

And there we have it. Bananarama.

Bingo card complete

NR: [ref] Leigh Day ask exactly what is offensive about the tweets? And it was at this point you stepped out of 'post box' role?

SK: Yes

NR: Aware MCC did not ever say what was?
SK: Not aware

So here we are three years after these witch hunters drove a woman to suicide and not one can say what she did to deserve being dismissed?

Please Judge, please see this plainly.

Everyone does the bananarama defence

Except they don't know what was underlying offensive and what it was about the manner it was expressed that was offensive.

You can't like tweets more kindly. Unless there is a like and now a new be kind button provided by Elon Musk solely to be deployed in trans issues.

I know a few of the people mentioned and this is exactly what they and the working environment are like, you are bang on the money. Google the Big Boss mentioned here, James Binks and his pal Paul Marshall to get some idea of who exactly ran the circus in which this performance took place