The Belief That Must Not Be Named

Matthew Heath is known for exposing grifters, now he’s banned from naming the person accusing him of a crime he didn’t commit.

On Thursday the 31st of July, five police officers arrived at the home of Matthew Heath (known online as Legal Gengar), a gender-critical gay man living in Bromley, London. In a scene Matthew described as humiliating, officers arrested him in front of his elderly parents and their friends. The charge? Allegedly “stalking with intent to cause physical violence” against a trans-identified male, an accusation Matthew denies entirely and one that raises serious concerns about free speech and the ideological tilt of British policing.

Many will know Matthew as the voice behind Grift Watch, an independent citizen journalism website dedicated to investigating and exposing online grifters and ideological opportunists. The holds the line on public accountability, often scrutinising the financial and reputational incentives driving trans activism and identity politics. It’s made him a controversial figure, and now, potentially a political target.

Speaking to Matthew, he revealed that his arrest was initially framed by police as a breach of a High Court order preventing him from naming or referencing the complainant. But according to him, no such order had ever been issued against him. While his name appeared on documents from a related legal case, they imposed no personal restrictions. The arrest seems to be based entirely on misinformation or the result of police being misled into believing he had broken an order that never applied to him.

Under English law, breaches of court orders must be clear. No one can be punished for breaking an order they were never bound by. In Matthew’s case, he says there is no evidence he was ever served with such an order.A further concern lies in how Matthew’s gender-critical views were treated during police questioning. According to him, officers questioned him about his beliefs on sex and gender in a way that appeared to link those beliefs directly to the alleged criminal behaviour. While the involvement of a trans-identified male makes this case politically sensitive, simply holding a legally protected belief does not mean someone intended to commit a crime.

This incident comes in the wake of the ruling in Forstater v CGD Europe Ltd (2022), which affirmed that gender-critical beliefs, specifically the view that biological sex is real, immutable, and relevant, are protected philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act 2010. The ruling made clear that holding and expressing such beliefs, even if controversial, is lawful and cannot be treated as inherently discriminatory or hateful.

Despite this ruling, Matthew’s experience suggests that in practice, those who hold gender-critical views may still face scrutiny, bias, or even legal consequences when in conflict with trans-identified individuals. The question now is whether police forces are adequately trained to uphold legal protections for all beliefs without allowing ideological biases to affect their conduct.

Following his arrest, Matthew was released on bail under conditions that prevent him from naming or referencing the complainant. How can someone publicly defend themselves or correct false claims when they are legally barred from identifying their accuser?

The incident highlights the tension between trans activism and the protection of freedom of belief under UK law. While everyone deserves protection from harassment or violence, it is equally important that legal systems do not criminalise or conflate lawful beliefs with malicious intent, especially in politically charged contexts.

If the ruling in Forstater and the UK Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers is to hold true in practice and not just in principle, then police forces must ensure their actions reflect the legal protections enshrined in UK law, regardless of the cultural or political pressures surrounding gender identity debates.

This isn’t just about one man. It’s about whether citizens in a democratic society can still investigate public figures, ask difficult questions and express protected beliefs without fear of police intervention.

Matthew Heath has dedicated years to his platform Grift Watch to exposing corruption, misinformation and financial exploitation operating under the banner of activism. From uncovering dubious crowdfunding campaigns with zero transparency, to calling out public figures and organisations profiting from identity politics, his work has consistently challenged powerful narratives that often go unquestioned. Since, he’s now been arrested under false pretences, gagged by bail conditions and dragged into a politically charged legal process based on beliefs, and indeed fact, that the multiple UK courts including the Supreme Court has ruled are entirely lawful.

This entire situation highlights the importance of holding the line, not just for Matthew, but for everyone who dares to defend reality, stand up for truth and fight for justice.

If you believe in truth, free speech and reality, support Matthew by sharing his story and following his work at Grift Watch/@LegalGengar