Last week, Ms Ottley, from Penzance in Cornwall, sent a pre-action legal letter to Arts Council England, accusing the taxpayer-funded body of failing to properly investigate her complaint about her case and then awarding the same magazine £60,000.

Days after her poem had been accepted and proofed for publication by the Aftershock Review magazine in October last year, Ms Ottley received an email stating it had looked at her online activity and decided not to publish because of concerns about what she posted online. It said it had a duty to make contributors and readers feel “safe”.

Its email stated: “Following an internal review, and in light of concerns raised about your social media presence, we’ve decided not to proceed with publishing your work in this issue. As a trauma-informed and inclusive publication, The Aftershock Review has a duty of care to ensure our contributors and readers feel safe and respected. This decision reflects our commitment to those principles and is final.”

Ms Ottley, in her 70’s, who was groomed, raped and shot in the eye in her early teens, claims the email was effectively code to say it had censored her work because of her opinions shared online.

Her legal letter explains she holds gender critical or “sex realist” beliefs.

Her lawyers, Conrathe Gardner LLP, argue re-tweeting JK Rowling and other women’s rights activists is not a legal reason to pull a poem.

Her pre-action legal letter states: “While Ms Ottley has used her social media accounts to re-tweet posts by high profile campaigners for women’s rights and single sex spaces, which she considers are invaluable for women’s safety privacy and dignity, including for example J.K Rowling, this is not and cannot be a lawful reason to refuse to publish Ms Ottley’s poetry.”

The lawyers argue there is evidence to show she has been discriminated against because of her beliefs.

Ms Ottley, who also endured an abusive marriage and “found healing” in writing poetry, complained to Arts Council England on November 5 last year. On January 28, 2026, it rejected her complaint.

In its reply, it said it did not believe the magazine had broken the rules attached to its public funding and denied the decision was linked to Ms Ottley’s trans views.

It stated: “Following our review, we have not found a breach of the terms and conditions of funding.”

It added: “Although we are unable to provide specific details of our review, I hope it is helpful to mention that the grant-holder confirmed that your poem was not withdrawn due to your gender-critical beliefs. We are also satisfied that the grant-holder has appropriate policies and terms and conditions in place.”

Arts Council England also argued that it was not a regulatory body and could not enforce decisions by the magazine.

“Please note, Arts Council England is not a regulatory body. We cannot give a grant-holder professional advice nor can we enforce or take part in carrying out a grant-holder’s business.”

Ms Ottley’s legal team point out on the same day her complaint was dismissed, Arts Council England awarded The Aftershock Review tens of thousands of pounds in extra funding.

The legal letter states: “On the same day as rejecting Ms Ottley’s complaint, Arts Council England made a further grant of £60,000 to the Aftershock Review.”

Her lawyers argue Arts Council England had a duty to properly investigate the complaint to ensure public money was not supporting discrimination.

The legal letter states it is “incumbent on the Arts Council England as a public body to take appropriate action to investigate and prevent the use of public funds to enable discriminatory conduct by a grantee, that would bring Arts Council England and arts funding into disrepute”.

It goes on to state: “It cannot possibly be the case that by re-tweeting JK Rowling that is lawful grounds for a publisher to refuse to publish a poet’s work.”

Ms Ottley’s lawyers are demanding Arts Council England reopen the complaint.

The letter states: “To avoid litigation we request that the Arts Council England confirm that it will reopen the complaint and conduct a lawful and fulsome investigation and review its decision to maintain funding of the Aftershock Review in light of the above … evidence of discrimination against those with gender critical beliefs.”

Arts Council England has 14 days to respond.