This is a testimony from a lady who was subjected to a one-year battle with her council because of posters she had put up on her front door. When the council approved of her posters, it gave her awards; when it disapproved, it issued legal orders against her and prepared to engage in three-day-long trials in order to defend its position. This shows how controversial political opinions can be classified as ‘anti-social behaviour’ and subject to criminal sanction. Facing a massive legal bill, the lady removed a particular poster, but remains unbowed and continues to use her door to promote the issues she believes in. Here is her testimony below:
Since 2010 I have used my front door, which abuts the very popular Thames pathway and commuter route, to display campaigning posters. Labour Hammersmith councillors approved my activism as I objected with my neighbours to a large Tory planning application and campaigned to ‘Save Charing Cross Hospital’. In 2019 I was awarded a Civic Honours medal and personalised certificate to celebrate the saving of Charing Cross Hospital.
I added some ‘gender-critical’ feminist posters to the mix in late 2018. All the materials were from previously published and reputable sources, including the internet.
On 10 March 2023 I received a letter from the ‘Anti-social behaviour coordinator’ at Hammersmith Council ‘re: inappropriate signage on your door’. It informed me that there had been ‘complaints regarding offensive signage… visible to the public…. The information advertised is offensive to the LGBT Community and must be removed immediately without delay…. failure to do so will result in further action being taken against you.’
I emailed back asking for evidence of harm to anyone. I said that ‘inappropriate’ is not harmful. And which ‘information’ is alleged to be ‘offensive to the LGBT Community’?
I reminded the Council that Hammersmith Police had already come to look and had taken reports about the materials on my door. The police were satisfied that none of them broke the law. I asked the council to withdraw their letter and apologise for disturbing me.
In reply the official said that the posters had been reported ‘several times’. She alleged that I had ‘printed someone else’s photos’ without permission. The photo showed the naked torso of a young girl with raw scars from double mastectomy. This image had been reposted many times on Twitter and it is in the public domain. It is quite shocking, but that is the point: the reality of ‘gender reassignment’ is bodily mutilation. The official claimed that ‘Freedom of speech is different to publicly degrading and discrimination against sexual orientation. Which is what your posters promote and this can cause danger to the LGBT Community’.
Her arguments revealed official ignorance about the difference between sexual orientation and ‘gender reassignment’. In 2023 no one in official roles asked about the nitty-gritty reality of ‘gender reassignment’ or ‘gender affirming care’ which includes for girls double mastectomy and worse later. These harms have only come to light by concerned campaigners (including parents) cautiously disclosing shocking information into the public arena. My aim was to reveal the bodily harm inflicted on this confused girl. She looks very dazed. I was sympathetic to the confused teenage girl; I was not attacking her.
On 30 March I phoned the Principal Anti-social Behaviour Officer and I tried to get the officials from the council to come and talk with me in front of my posters. I wanted to explain my point of view: how the false concept of ‘gender’ was confusing teenagers and young people, and leading them to attack their own bodies.
I knew that I needed legal help to defend myself against the vague and ignorant accusations from the council. I started looking for a solicitor. I certainly didn’t want to receive a criminal conviction and a Fixed Penalty Notice and fine (max £5,000) for telling the truth.
I received the first Community Protection Notice backdated to 19 April 2023, with a covering letter dated 22 May 2023. The letter stated:
‘Your behaviour: Your actions towards sexual orientation and displaying pictures that do not belong to you is a breach of freedom of speech and hate speech.’
The CPN stated:
‘Your persistent and continuing conduct is having a detrimental effect on the public and the LGBT Community. On 13th April a new complaint [was] received via our Hate Crime Mailbox from a member of the public expressing the concerns and affects your posters have’.
On 5 June – just two weeks later – I received a second, slightly amended CPN. It referred to the same posters on my door, although in reality the posters were no longer the same – I put up new ones as new issues arose.
I engaged Sharron Boyce of solicitors Brett Wilson to write on my behalf a ‘letter of representations’ to the Council. Sharron had persuaded Newport Council to stop prosecuting a woman who put up gender-critical stickers on lamp posts and other places, and was accused of spreading ‘anti-transgender and hurtful’ messages. I was hoping for a quick resolution. Sharron wrote a 10-page document setting out:
- the law on CPNs which are intended to tackle nuisance or harm not the expression of legal free speech;
- the alleged behaviour: a description and sources of the various posters which were a variety of NHS and ‘gender critical’ posters;
- analysis, ‘in the absence of clarity as to which documents are alleged to have caused offence the allegations against our client are unfounded’;
- Freedom of speech: under article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, setting out my view that access to ‘gender reassignment’ surgery at a young age is dangerous and has long-term repercussions, and gender confusion is usually resolved by natural growth and maturation.
Sharron Boyce’s letter was sent to the Senior Solicitor at the Council on 6th July 2023. I had in the meantime set up a crowdfunding appeal with ‘Democracy Three’ which eventually raised £7200 (approx) to pay for the legal advice.
On 31 August 2023 I received a letter from the original Anti-social Behaviour officer advising me that the council had withdrawn the CPN. But on the very same day they served me with a new CP ‘Warning’. It read: ‘The continued use of your front entry door, which faces directly onto a public towpath and is visible to all passers-by, to display posters, graphic images and material that are, or could be construed to be, distressing or trans-phobic.’
‘Anti-social behaviour caused by you:
The graphic photos of post operative transgender males [!!] used in your posters erected on your front door have and continue to cause distress to members of the public
The poster saying that ‘Gender Identity is Insane’ has had a detrimental effect on passing-by [sic] members of the public and of the LGBT Community.’ [This was a new poster]
We, therefore, ask that you to carry out [sic] the following actions(s) immediately:
You are given 7 days from the date of this notice warning to remove the graphic images of post-operative transgender people and any material that could be reasonably construed as trans-phobic
You should remove any posters that contain graphic images of any kind, in particular – but not limited to – graphic images of post-operative trans people.
You should not display ..[same]
You should not display any material which is or could be reasonably construed as trans-phobic.’
I was not getting anywhere with these people. They refused to examine the definition of words. They regurgitated terms which they did not understand and used them as a threat to give me a criminal record and a large fine.
On 6 October 2023 the CPW became a CPN: ‘The continued display of these graphic images which is causing distress and having a detrimental impact to residents and visitors of the borough, including adults and children, is deemed unreasonable and intentional.’
I decided to appeal the CPN in the Magistrates Court, which is the procedure laid out in the 2014 Act, on the grounds that ‘1. the conduct specified in the CPN …. (b) has not had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality [the posters were educational] ..(d) is not unreasonable ..3. That the requirements are unreasonable’ [the incoherent instructions].
I got Sharron to put in the required appeal within the allowed three weeks period, in October 2023. I was not going to allow the council to get away with intimidation without a fight. I wanted them to try to argue a coherent case, which I doubted they could do.
And then I waited, and I retweeted my Democracy Three appeal to raise more money. Finally I was notified by Westminster Magistrates Court that the hearing would be on 14 February 2024. It was to be a Case Management hearing between the two barristers (for me and for the Council) to decide on procedure. Somehow the criminal Silk, Sarah Vine KC, had heard of my case and offered to take it on ‘pro bono’.
On 14 February 2024 Sarah Vine, who was in Manchester on another case, was unable to join the hearing by video link. The hearing was adjourned to the following week 21 February. Ms Vine would be there in person.
Just before the hearing, Ms Vine gave me a ‘skeleton argument’ of four pages, covering the case management issues to be discussed with the other side. Four pages of ‘Issues for determination’, ‘disclosure requests’ (identity of informants), ‘training, guidance and policies taken into account in making the decisions to issue CPN’ (at the time LBHF was a Stonewall Diversity Champion, and their analytical process was heavily influenced by Stonewall’s misinterpretation of Equality law), ‘Request for Directions’ and ‘Timetable’. And ‘the substantive appeal should be heard by a District Judge’.
It also transpired that there would be a date for (1) exchange of affidavits, (2) another Case Management hearing to discuss issues arising from the affidavits and (3) finally a THREE-DAY substantive hearing with me being cross-examined. This final hearing would be in October 2024.
The Case Management hearing lasted an hour with both barristers co-operating to get through these issues. I was increasingly in a state of shock. I looked across to see the ‘Strategic Lead for Communications and Communities’ i.e. the PR head for Hammersmith Council, Geoff Cowart. I showed him my ‘Civic Award’ certificate so he would be unable to deny my ‘usefulness’ to the Council.
Three days later, on a Zoom call with Sarah Vine and Sharron Boyce, Ms Vine dropped the bombshell that she would not be acting ‘pro bono’ any longer. My case was, she said, a complex mix of civil (Free Speech) law and criminal law (Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014), which was why the legal proceedings would be so drawn out. Sharron had done a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation: the total bill for both of them would be ca £69K (plus VAT).
I was in total shock. I thought carefully for another three days. And then I dismissed the barrister Sarah Vine. I didn’t engage another cheaper one. I did not want to offer ‘rich pickings’ for lawyers for a case which was unintentionally complex, but was in essence about free speech. It was always about free speech. I contacted the Magistrates Court (City of London) and eventually they confirmed that my case in the Magistrates Court would be discontinued permanently. I also told the Senior Solicitor at Hammersmith Council.
I transferred the remaining money in my Democracy Three account to Brett Wilson, as previously advised by Maya Forstater, whom I had phoned. And I started a new approach, this time to get the Director of Legal Services for Hammersmith Council, Mr Deg Grant, to talk with me sensibly about my case on the phone. I emailed and emailed him every other day. I phoned and spoke to every one of the solicitors in the Legal Department of the Council, trying to catch him in the office.
Finally Mr Deg phoned me back on a Wednesday afternoon in June 2024 while I was sitting in a boat in the middle of the Queen Mother Reservoir under the flight path into Heathrow. In a 10-minute conversation I heard enough to understand (1) he too was not keen to waste money on lawyers (2) he was willing to wait ‘until the end of the year’ (December 2024) and see whether there were any more complaints.
I also spoke with the Senior Solicitor who seemed to indicate that if I removed the photo of the girl with mastectomy scars that would be sufficient. I did not promise to remove ALL ‘graphic’ posters (whatever that meant!). I reluctantly took down the naked photo and replaced it with a photo of the warrior Scottish ladies in the ‘For Women Scotland’ case at the Supreme Court.
I heard nothing before or after Christmas. I chased the Senior Solicitor in January and February this year 2025. Finally I obtained a letter from her as follows:
‘I am writing in reference to the Community Protection Warning (CPW) served on 10 May 2024. After undertaking a review of the Community Protection Warning and noting the absence of further complaints from the public, alongside your compliance with the terms of the CPW, we consider the CPW to have expired and therefore it has been revoked.
However, we will continue to monitor the material you display, particularly for graphic images that may not be suitable for young children.
While we respect the importance of free speech, it is essential to balance this with the appropriateness of content in areas frequently accessed by young children, and where neither they nor their parents will have control over what they may inappropriately see.
We hope you will continue to honour your commitment to refrain from displaying graphic images. By doing so, we anticipate no need for further action against you.’
Throughout, all I have done is tried to tell the truth, the awful truth about what is occurring. The senior solicitor should see the seductive posts by influencers on TikTok, Instagram etc. before calling my photo of a teenage girl ‘inappropriate’. Toddlers are being exposed to terrifying ‘Drag Queens’ by CBBC!
My latest poster is a print out of President Trump’s first Executive Order: ‘Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.’
I am still thinking about how to show the Naked Truth on my front door.