Council worker "lied" about police investigation of artist Victoria Culf

Ahhh gotya☺️

Can the nice judge give SP an search warrent for his tec and backups?
Or did he claim the phone and notes end up falling into the nearest clinical waste box etc etc

It was joke reference to the Sandie Peggie case, Dr Upton claimed that he made notes on his phone that prove when things happened but has been unable to produce them.

Errr wot?

The police officer opened the official police system?
On the system typed in their login code on the keyboard to start creating a record?
This record created a unique record code?
Which was given by the officer to the employee?
The the employee recorded this number on their personal phone?
The police officer then created a second record which recorded no crime occured as VC had a right to express a view?
Some time later ( between these two records being created and VC collecting data for her case) some how the first record vanished from the system and the second one remained?

That sounds like the police failed to had basic Data Protection systems in place (designed I am sure ) to prevent an audit trail being created. 👀

Additionally an office as yet unidentified accessed the first (now missing record) and called the employee to up date the employee on the progress but the police have no record of that interaction either?

The defense will have a field day proving how the police made such a basic mistake.

once a parent has decided to trans their child they MUST seek out and receive reassurance that they are doing the right thing

That does help me make sense of it, because I was struggling to understand why you’d talk about your child’s health in a casual conversation with someone you didn’t know.

Damaged artwork too - criminal damage?

With the added impetus, as Helen Joyce has pointed out, that once a parent has decided to trans their child they MUST seek out and receive reassurance that they are doing the right thing, because the alternative is horrendous. And if they don’t get that reassurance, they lash out.

Not the first time we’ve this, either.

The council worker probably recorded the HC incident number as part of contemporaneous notes on their phone - so it must be true.

The police are obviously mistaken

As @CassOle rightly says, because they believe the end justifies the means.

it's not even really an Equality Act issue

At first I thought the same but I agree that it is, in addition to all the other wrong-doing.

The Council worker's harassment of the artist would constitute unlawful discrimination against Victoria Culf in provision of a service by the Council, ie. on the basis of Culf's protected gender critical beliefs.

EDIT to correct initial misunderstanding of the post I am replying to!

Ah the good old 'chilling effect'.

Its quite the thing isn't it? The power it gives to those parents is quite something.

There's a recap in the Telegraph

https://archive.ph/iht5P

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/02/christian-artist-reported-to-police-gender-critical-views/

I'd forgotten that the council employee was transing their kid.

Gender identity is not and never has been a protected characteristic regardless of what stonewall et al have and continue to claim

You can be discriminated against ‘by association’ - though only direct discrimination, not indirect.

Imo gender reassignment as a PC would only apply if the employee was within the gender reassignment class and that something other than has been reported so far had happened

It's not even that as it's not even really an Equality Act issue. The child being "transed" by their parent does possess the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' but their parent does not. There is no case law that a belief in gender identity is even a protected characteristic. Post-Forstater on the contrary a belief that gender identity is a load of old tosh is protected in law.
Victoria has a clear case of being harassed for her GC beliefs.

It's 'gender reassignment' (not gender identity - this difference matters) coming up against 'religion or belief' (this covers religion and non religious gender critical beliefs).

is this one protected characteristic (gender identity) coming up against another protected characteristic (religion)?

It is interesting what happens when you bear personal responsibility for your actions isn’t it? Just look at Maggie Chapman MSP voting to keep trans-identified men out of the Scottish Parliament’s women’s toilets because a useful oddity of the system meant members of that deciding committee were personally responsible for their actions.

I considered it when I first read about it last year. But at the moment there is an active court case and nothing has been proven, once there has been a verdict I will ask what they plan to do to promote free speech and prevent something like this happening again.

https://x.com/cconcern/status/1940351128882794870?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

There is a bit more about this on X including the involvement of a local charity.

Please write to your local councillor asking what they are going to do about this.

Yes. I believe so if accurate.

Misconduct in Public Office I believe.

A public official willfully neglects their duties or misbehaves to such a degree that it abuses the public's trust. It requires a deliberate act or omission that is a serious departure from proper standards, and the official must be aware of the duty they are neglecting or misbehaving in relation to.

Harrassment

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1

The emoloyee was tasked to carry out a role which involved minimun contact with a individual who had a lawful contract to use the space.

The employee has no reason to bring up transgenderism ( I am assuming VC did not introduce the topic).

The employee objected to the lawful views held by VC.

Internal policy would have imposed a contractual oblgation to not "bring your whole self to work" but rather follow the law (EA on faith etc) and be professional in your dealings with others. Its commonly accepted that telling lies to your employer is misconduct and that employees must refrain from using employer assets and/or creating losses for personal gain (also misconduct)

The employee with no consultation with their manager decided to contact the police and make an allegation against VC. Thats not smart but is their right. The employee was informed that no crime happened and no crime would be recorded.

The employee engaged in a number of actions designed to breach VC's contract for services.

• False report of harrassment by VC
• False report of crime report being take by the police.
• False reporting a crime number when none was issued.
• False report of an ongoing investigation when it was known no action would be taken.
• False report of a call back from police and claiming it was the "hate crime unit" to create an illusion of a more serious level of criminal act.
• Knowing the false reports had resulted in action by the LA
• Knowing that this action interfered with VCs livelyhood and that would continue into the future.
This was focused at causing financial harm and remove her access to public spaces owned by the employer.

The employee also engaged in some of the actions to create a fear that VC would be arrested when that was never ever going to happen.

The employee may not qualify as a public officer but it is clearly an abuse of their role to setout to use the internal process in the way ot has been described.

Shame it is closed, I remember going on school trips in the 80s.

The Lib Dems have dominated the council for a long time, as shown by the limited number of elected mayors in the last 25 years, but I do know that a lot of them used to be members of the same church as Dorothy Thornhill and Ian Sharpe so didn't know if that made a difference to their perspective.

I'd be interested to hear your take, have you contacted Victoria Culf's legal team to let them know what was said to you?