REVEALED: Collusion and lies by LGBTQI+ activists that led to Christian artist being reported to police and banned from her own exhibition
1 July 2025 Issued by: Christian ConcernChristian artist Victoria Culf has uncovered new evidence revealing the collusion and lies that led to her being reported to the police and banned from her own exhibition at Watford Museum.
Last year, with the support of the Christian Legal Centre, Mrs. Culf, 44, launched legal proceedings against Watford Borough Council on the grounds of breach of contract, discrimination, harassment, misfeasance in public office, negligence, intimidation, defamation, conspiracy, and malicious falsehood.
However, following the disclosure of documents by both the police and the Council, the Court has now granted Mrs. Culf permission to amend her claim.
The Amended Particulars of Claim include evidence that her accuser, who is a council official, falsely informed their bosses that Mrs Culf was under police investigation, which influenced and pressurised the Council into banning her from its premises.
In reality, evidence has now confirmed that no such police investigation existed at the time the ban was imposed.
Further disclosed evidence has revealed that the Council official was receiving advice from LGBTQI+ charity Ask for Clive, an organisation that partners with Stonewall and promotes a ‘zero tolerance’ to alleged ‘hate’ and actively encourages hate crime reports to the police.
In June 2023, Victoria feared a knock on the door and being arrested in front of her children after council representatives told her the police were investigating her for a discussion she had with a colleague while setting up an art exhibition at Watford Museum.
While making a cup of tea, the council official, who was already known to Mrs Culf, revealed that her child was ‘socially transitioning’, that they had tried to get puberty blockers from the Tavistock Gender Identity Clinic, and that as a family they had been affirmed and supported by other people.
Stirring the tea, Mrs Culf, who has been an artist for 20 years, politely and sensitively said that because of her Christian beliefs and her experience working with children and young people, she believed ‘transitioning’ is harmful.
She said that she believed that the discredited Tavistock Clinic, which has been plagued by scandal, should be shut down, and said that the human brain doesn’t stop developing until around the age 24 and therefore ‘children are too young to properly assess risk.’
She added that: ‘I wouldn’t be being true to myself if I agreed with you.’
They discussed the matter further and then the conversation ended calmly and amicably.
The consequences for expressing her beliefs, however, were devastating.
Despite the conversation appearing to end amicably, the colleague later posted on social media accusing Mrs Culf of a “transphobic rant.”
This led to the council restricting her access to the exhibition and informing her that she was under police investigation for a hate crime, claims that have since been proven to be false.
The council official claimed police were investigating the incident, but police records confirm they did not log it as a crime and described Mrs Culf’s comments as protected free speech.
Despite this, pressure from the council official and council led to Mrs Culf being excluded from a community art project run by BEEE Creative, and her artwork was damaged during the exhibition.
She has said she felt like a criminal, fearing a knock on the door and being arrested in front of her children. This has never transpired and at no point has she been contacted by the police.
Ask for Clive
The Amended Particulars of Claim identify Ask for Clive as a key player in the alleged conspiracy to report Mrs Culf to the police, ban her from her own exhibition, and ruin her professional reputation.
On their website, Ask for Clive, describe themselves as: ‘a charity that partners with venues to promote inclusion and to create welcoming environments for the LGBTQ+ community. We work directly with local communities and venues and collaborate with law enforcement on training and reporting initiatives.’
They operate across the country with a number of partners, but their activity is centred on Hertfordshire and Watford.
Tellingly in relation to Victoria’s story and the advice they would have given to her accuser, they say that they: ‘Ensure zero tolerance to towards LGBTQ+ discrimination and hate with any instance countered and recorded appropriately.’
Advice for reporting hate crime on their website, they say:
“If you have been the victim of any form of hate crime or have witnessed such a crime and, for whatever reason, you don’t want to report it directly to police, then there is an online reporting facility you can use. The police take hate crime very seriously and will record and investigate the offence even if you do not want to give your details.
“You may specify how you want to be contacted and if contacting you would cause you any difficulties. The police will not pass on your details without your consent and would ask you to consider giving your details confidentially.
“To report a hate crime please use the following link: www.report-it.org.uk/your_police_force
Lied about police investigation
According to the Amended Particulars of Claim, in the aftermath of the conversation, Victoria’s accuser wrote to the Associate Director of Environment and Communities at Watford Borough Council, Paul Stacey, stating:
‘I also contacted Ask For Clive, a local charity supporting the LGBTQI+ community. With the support of you and Clive I felt able to call the police who have recorded it as an incident, and I’m continuing to receive support and have been signposted to Beacon.’
The accuser also repeatedly says: ‘I am receiving ongoing support from Ask for Clive.’
The police logbook, however, has revealed that the day after receiving the report, the police emphatically said they were not recording it as an incident or investigating it and described what Victoria had said as ‘free speech.’
The police log records the accuser to be “upset” after being told her report would not be taken forward.
Despite the police refusing to act, the official maintained the pretence that Mrs Culf was under police investigation, and emailed her boss at the Council to say: “The Hate Crime Officer called me. It has been logged as an incident with the number HC-08062023-0528”.
Over the following three months, Watford Borough Council continued to encourage and pressurise Be Creative to investigate Mrs Culf, treat her like a criminal and terminate her contract, which they subsequently did.
Lawyers will say that the purpose of these actions was to cause harm, damage and/or injury to Mrs Culf.
Free speech under threat in public spaces
Victoria’s case comes amid broader concerns about proposed workers’ rights reforms that critics say could suppress lawful speech in hospitality and public venues.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned that such reforms could have a chilling effect on free expression, particularly for Christians and other so-called gender-critical dissidents.
Clause 20 of the Employment Rights Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, amends the Equality Act to impose a legal duty on employers to “take all reasonable steps” to prevent their employees being “harassed” by third parties – meaning they could be sued by their workers if they don’t do enough.
That may sound reasonable, but the Worker Protection Act 2023 already extends employers’ liability under the Equality Act for third-party sexual harassment, and any form of physical assault is already a crime.
Therefore “harassment” here is verbal and will include conversations between customers or members of the public that are overheard by employees, not directed at them, and which they find offensive in virtue of one or more “protected” characteristics.
In evidence to MPs examining the bill the EHRC expressed concern that this legal ambiguity could lead to a chilling effect on speech. They warned that businesses, particularly in customer-facing sectors like hospitality, might feel compelled to ban discussions on controversial topics to avoid potential claims.
Pubs, restaurants, and shops might feel compelled to implement blanket bans on controversial topics to avoid liability. Critics argue that such measures could inadvertently suppress lawful speech, particularly in spaces traditionally seen as forums for open debate.
The knock-on-effect of this will cause chaos in workplaces and public spaces across the country with potentially a deluge of legal cases similar to Victoria Culf’s.
“I feared being arrested in front of my children”
Responding to the latest developments, Victoria said: “I was told in no uncertain terms by the council that I was being investigated by the police and needed to prepare a statement.
“I genuinely feared a knock at the door or a call asking me to explain myself, or worse. Based on the truth and what was really happening, that contact was never going to come.
“I now know this was a pack of lies, designed to intimidate me. It’s deeply troubling that my accuser misled the council, and yet they were all too willing to go along with it without impartially investigating it for themselves.
“I’m also concerned about the role Ask for Clive played in this. Their influence appears to be encouraging actions that can target anyone who merely disagrees with their ideology in a public space, which could especially target Christians and gender-critical individuals who express legitimate, legally protected views.
“I feel vindicated by the recent Supreme Court ruling and the growing recognition of the harm caused by affirming gender confusion in children. The council must now do the right thing and apologise and allow me to exhibit my work without fear.
“This experience has been incredibly hard, but I want to encourage others who’ve faced similar treatment not to suffer in silence and to speak out and seek help.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This case highlights the growing threat to free speech in public and creative spaces. “We will continue to pursue justice for Victoria. The actions taken against her were intended to cause her harm and suppress her lawful Christian beliefs, which cannot go unchallenged.
“This case is a chilling example of how public institutions are being captured by extreme ideologies that punish people for expressing lawful, evidence-based, and compassionate views. Victoria Culf has shown immense courage in standing up for truth and freedom of expression.
“The council’s actions were not only unlawful but deeply unjust. We will continue to stand with Victoria and others like her to ensure that no one is silenced for holding Christian beliefs or speaking out to protect children.”
