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

[DustyWindowsills]

I dimly recall a news story about this last year. Artist Victoria Culf, while setting up an exhibition at Council premises (a museum), chatted about gender issues with a council worker (who brought up the subject). Subsequently the Council blocked her from easy access to her own exhibition, on the grounds of a police investigation into a hate crime. She is now suing the Council.

It now turns out (so her legal team claim) that there was no police investigation. The council worker made it all up. WTAF?

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/council-staff-lied-about-police-investigating-artist-for-gender-views-bbnf5cs2m

This is the Times. Sorry I don't know how to do those archive link thingies.

I am agog at this. If it's been reported correctly, this wasn't just like a spur of the moment tweet, was it? This was a series of deliberate serious actions and lies, using their position in a public body in order to harass the artist and make her lose her livelihood.

Yes gross misconduct but surely also a crime has been committed?

That's not being vindictive, that's you being principled!

Disgusting, cowardly and deceitful behaviour by this council worker. At least the police weren't complicit.

Surely you know you're in the wrong when you find yourself deliberately and repeatedly lying like this?

The museum is now closed pending its move to the town Hall. Unfortunately, as you know Watford BC is a Lib Dem stronghold as is Herts CC who is completely captured. I know this story and circumstances - heard directly from the museum member of staff who told me before she realised I was not her type of feminist 🤭

Actually having followed so many employment tribunals on this board, I feel that "handmaidens/ aunt Lydias" in organisations are a crucial element in the TRA bullying machine. Private prosecutions would make them think twice. I'm not talking about people who are too scared to stick their heads above the parapet in captured organisations, but about enthusiastic, vocal embracers of the cause - people like dr Kate Searle in the Peggie vs NHS case.

Don't people have personal shame any longer?

Am I just old or old-fashioned?

When you have God History on your side, the ends justify the means.

So the council worker had a child who wanted to transition, going by the interview.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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

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

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

That would be great. 🙂

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.

Ah the good old 'chilling effect'.

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

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!