‘The chef described an explicit sex dream he had about me to the whole staff'
Picture a professional chef. Not the showy, bish-bash-bosh, celebrity kind, but one you might see in a real restaurant kitchen. The likelihood is, you have a sweaty, sweary lout, or an uptight perfectionist in mind. What do they have in common? They're probably a man. And here lies the hospitality industry's great big problem – one that's pushed Britain's under-represented female chefs so far that they are demanding to be heard.
In an open letter obtained exclusively by The Telegraph (below), 70 women condemn the sexism and inequality they have faced working in the UK's restaurant industry. Written in response to a Jason Atherton interview published this week by The Times, in which the owner of 16 restaurants denies having witnessed sexism in kitchens, the women share that they are 'exhausted by an industry so systematically flawed that we struggle to see ourselves within it.'
Citing sexism which continues to 'diminish the potential and contributions of countless talented women', the letter goes on to address how this culture impacts the wider industry, which contributes £18.76 billion to the UK economy. 'From inappropriate comments and behaviours to unequal opportunities for advancement, these experiences hinder not only individual careers, but the growth and innovation of our industry as a whole.'
Spearheaded by London-based chefs, Sally Abé of The Pem, and Dara Klein of Tiella, the call to action began with a link posted in a WhatsApp community created 18 months ago, designed to facilitate conversations between female chefs. 'When I shared [The Times] article to the group, it really hit a nerve,' says Abé. This, on top of outrage caused by a video shown at last week's Michelin Guide awards ceremony, which appeared to praise female chefs despite awarding only one woman a Michelin star, pushed those in the group to outrage. 'Just because you've not experienced something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist,' says Abé. 'It's insulting and painful. It's so hard to speak out because there are so many powerful male chefs that you daren't speak against. But now, luckily, there are 70 women in this WhatsApp group who are all pissed off and annoyed at what he said. This feels like our #MeToo movement, in some way.'
As well as inspiring the open letter, the group's collective upset has encouraged many women to share the traumatic experiences they've endured in the workplace – many of which involve severe sexual harassment. For Hannah Rose Hall, who currently works at The Pearl in Manchester, at one point in her career, it was constant. 'The most invasive and repeated instance was where a male member of staff used to stand behind me in my tiny section during service 'waiting for the microwave'. This meant that he would be pressed against me whilst I tried to do my job. When I told him to wait somewhere else it was often met with jeering and became a joke.'
Meanwhile, Anna Søgaard, behind Danish pop-up, Jomfru, and female-focussed supper club series, Suppher, recounts an allegedly common occurrence. 'Like so many women in kitchens, I experienced sexual harassment as a young apprentice before I had found my voice. I was put on the hot section after shadowing and training to be ready to progress. The sous chef at the time was on the pass and was instructed to give the head chef, who was off that day, feedback on how I had done. At the start of service as I bent down to pick up a stack of plates, he grabbed me inappropriately which threw me completely and made me mess up. He then told the head chef I wasn't ready to progress to the hot section. I never explained what had happened. At the time I was the only woman in the kitchen, and sadly I was scared that saying something would make me seem dramatic.'
Chef and author, Poppy O'Toole, who boasts a combined following of six million social media followers thanks to her cooking videos, says she's experienced sexual harassment throughout her career. 'A particular low point that led me to leave a job was when a chef-owner proceeded to tell the entirely male kitchen about a sex dream he had about me, going into explicit detail, while the rest of my team either stayed quiet or laughed along.' Despite this, at the time O'Toole was relieved it wasn't more severe. 'It sounds stupid to say, but as a younger chef I would always feel thankful that it only went as far as sexual propositions and [my boss] grabbing my behind on one occasion – at a public event in front of his wife. I'd always think 'at least it wasn't that bad.' It was always made into a non-issue if I raised it with other members of the team. There was, quite honestly, no-one you could go to.'
For one of the letter's key instigators, Dara Klein, a particular boss's lewd comments made her day-to-day environment unbearable. 'In one restaurant – a highly respected favourite in London – the head chef-owner told me I 'gave him a great boner', referring to a steak I had cooked him. The same man also told me to grab 'a nice thick girthy one' when referring to a block of cheese, adding 'because you know what that's like, Dara.''
What's more, anonymously, one female chef recounts an incident whereby, 'my sous chef pressed me up against a corner as he was correcting me on my mise en place and asked me if I could feel his d--k on my leg.' Meanwhile, for another, 'the boys I worked with made a bet on who would get to have sex with me first.' And one woman was told 'the way to check a custard tart was to compare it to the wobble of an 18-year-old's breast.' Many of the 70 women who signed the open letter asked to remain anonymous for fear of the professional repercussions that could come with speaking out on the issue.
As a gay woman, Alice Bowyer, a director at the Butcombe Group, was expected to join in when women were made the butt of her colleagues's jokes. 'I've had to put up with so much 'banter' and pretend to laugh at sexist behaviour just to be accepted. I think male colleagues saw that as me being happy to hear about women being sexualised at work.'
Of course, not all sexism is sexual. 'I've been told that I was only promoted because the head chef fancied me, and that I'll never get a serious job in fine dining after the age of 25 because employers will just think I want a baby and maternity leave,' says O'Toole. Meanwhile, Klein feels it held her back. 'At one point, I worked in a kitchen surrounded by men. Their progression seemed to always get fast-tracked whereas it seemed I was constantly under a microscopic lens.'
Helen Graham, previously executive chef at London's Bubala, felt the impact. 'At most jobs – from being told I need to 'man up' after buckling under the exhaustion of a 70-hour week when I first started, to being pushed around by a male superior in the walk-in fridge, and told 'I'll never make it' because I 'can't handle it'.'
Plus, apparently, we customers are often the ones to blame. Harriet Mansell, founder of West Country restaurant concepts, Robin Wylde and Lilac, has found herself constantly having to convince guests that she is the head chef and owner of her sites. 'I've lost count of the number of people who have said 'When's the chef coming out?'' Meanwhile, a similar experience had by chef consultant, Jane Alty, was actually televised. 'Masterchef interviewed a contestant who was working part time at my newly opened restaurant, who came second. The interview was aired on TV and the editing made it look like he owned my restaurant. For a year and half I had guests asking for the 'head chef' so they could tell him how much they enjoyed their meal. It was also printed in a well-known restaurant guide that he was the head chef at the time.'
The good news? Many of the 70 signatories are now in leadership positions, changing restaurant culture from the ground up. 'I let a chef go mainly because he held very sexist and toxic views,' says Sam Evans, co-founder of Hang Fire BBQ. 'He'd call male chefs of any rank 'chef' and female chefs – some more senior to him – 'cook'. He'd also ask the female chefs to make him coffee or undertake prep he thought was menial. We gifted him his P45 quite quickly.' And chef-patron of London's Apricity, Chantelle Nicholson, says 'I will make a significant change, because I can… Now, we have a predominantly female team, with all four senior chefs being female.'
While the rest of the industry plays catch up, Abé encourages all chefs to join the conversation. 'There is no better time to speak out. There is no better time to say 'Let's stop with the pale, male and stale,' and move into a new world where everybody has a chance.'
To all those who benefit from the joys of dining out,
We are a group of 70 female chefs and hospitality workers, and we need you to know that we are tired. Exhausted by an industry so systematically flawed that we struggle to see ourselves within it.
This week, we find ourselves outraged by Jason Atherton's interview in The Times in which he appears to deny ever having witnessed sexism within his kitchens – a statement which we know, with absolute certainty, is not true. This, on top of last week's pitiful representation of women at the UK's Michelin awards, means that we can no longer sit in silence.
We write to you with a sense of urgency, hope, and determination in a bid to change the narrative which denies our experiences and talents. Our kitchens, dining rooms, and bars are the beating hearts of an industry that brings joy, comfort, and connection to countless lives. Yet, within these spaces, we face issues that must be addressed to create a more inclusive, equitable and positive work environment for all.
Sexism has been and remains a pervasive issue in our industry, shaping the culture of our kitchens in ways that diminish the potential and contributions of countless talented women. From inappropriate comments and behaviours to unequal opportunities for advancement, these experiences hinder not only individual careers, but the growth and innovation of our industry as a whole.
The lack of diversity celebrated within prestigious awards bodies such as Michelin and 50 Best is a reflection of broader systemic issues of privilege and racism. Over the past four years, only two women have been awarded Michelin stars. This is by no means representative of the female talent within the industry. We must confront these biases and work actively to create opportunities for chefs and hospitality workers from all backgrounds. Diversity is not just a goal; it is a source of strength, creativity, and resilience. By embracing and celebrating diverse voices, we enrich our culinary landscape, allowing us to freely interact with our customers and friends without barriers. In our view, the only way to do this is by rectifying the lack of women and people of colour in leadership roles, who can understand, cultivate and support talent at all levels through mentorship, training programs, and equitable hiring practices.
Moreover, we continue to be frustrated by separate awards categories for women. This does not foster true equality. By placing women in another category, we perpetuate the notion that their achievements are different or lesser. True recognition must be based on merit alone, and we urge award committees to eliminate these separate categories and celebrate excellence in all its forms, without distinction based on gender.
It's no secret that our industry faces significant challenges, from economic pressures to changing consumer expectations. To weather these difficulties, we must futureproof our industry by creating inclusive and positive work environments, ensuring they have the tools and opportunities to thrive.
We acknowledge that positive changes are already happening, thanks to the efforts of some dedicated individuals and allies. We celebrate these achievements and recognise those who stand with us in advocating for equality and diversity.
However, today we call on our colleagues of all genders to challenge and dismantle the harmful practices we're highlighting. We implore you to help us to create a brighter, more inclusive future for our industry, because respect, equality, and support must be the foundation of every kitchen.
In solidarity,
The 70
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
7 hours ago
- New York Post
New Manhattan homes for menswear stores Charles Tyrwhitt, Tom Ford
London-based menswear store Charles Tyrwhitt is moving from 437 Madison Ave. to RFR Realty's 477 Madison, doubling its space in the process. Tyrwhitt signed for 3,800 square at the East 51st Street corner. The deal was handled for the landlord by MONA, a retail brokerage backed by RFR's Aby Rosen. Cushman & Wakefield acted for the tenant. Charles Tywhitt has a half-dozen Manhattan locations. Advertisement The building's offices are mostly leased. Recent signings include for Treville Capital and Fiera Capital. 477 Madison Ave. will be the new home menswear store Charles Tyrwhitt. One more Park Avenue office address has filled up. Advertisement Tom Ford Fashion signed a 10-year, 11,118 square-foot lease at SL Green's 500 Park Ave., bringing the landmarked, 201,000 square-foot building at East 59th Street to 100% leased. Tom Ford Fashion has signed a 10-year lease for 500 Park Ave., above. Brian Zak/NY Post Advertisement Other office tenants include The Georgetown Company, Vera Wang and Friedland Properties. Furniture store FRATO's flagship showroom is the retail tenant. Meanwhile, the former Hammacher Schlemmer headquarters building at 145 E. 57th St. can also boast 100% occupancy. Data Science Innovators took 5,067 square feet, landlord ABS Partners announced. Danish furniture maker Carl Hansen & Son replaced Hammacher Schlemmer on the retail floors.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
'A huge moment': Martin Jarmond discusses UCLA's plans after House settlement
UCLA football coach DeShaun Foster, left, and athletic director Martin Jarmond now have clearer guidelines on how to allocate funds and scholarships to athletes after a judge approved a House settlement in an antitrust lawsuit. (Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press) Like a quarterback who completed offseason workouts, spring practices and fall training camp, Martin Jarmond had been preparing for this moment for nearly a year. On Saturday came the big unveiling. The UCLA athletic director discussed with The Times the plans for his department's operations in the new college sports world created by the House settlement agreement with the NCAA that will allow schools to pay athletes directly for the first time starting July 1. Advertisement The big takeaways: UCLA will distribute $20.5 million in revenue sharing — the maximum allowed under the settlement — while keeping its Olympic sports programs and athletic department staff intact. The school will also preserve scholarship limits at their current levels for at least one year in order to distribute more revenue sharing money to each player. 'This is a pivotal moment in collegiate athletics, and we have to continue to invest in our athletics program to compete at the highest level,' Jarmond said. 'That's why student-athletes come to UCLA, to get the best education and compete at the highest level, and we must invest in our student-athletes to provide that championship-level experience.' While Jarmond would not divulge the specifics of his revenue-sharing arrangement, it's expected that UCLA will follow other Power Four conference schools in using U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's back-payment formula as a model for current athletes. Under this formula, which will distribute $2.8 billion to athletes who competed from 2016 to 2024 to compensate them for lost name, image and likeness opportunities, roughly 75% of the money will be shared with football players, 15% with men's basketball players, 5% with women's basketball players and 5% with all remaining athletes. Read more: Landmark NCAA settlement decision clears way for schools to directly pay athletes Advertisement 'We've worked really hard to look at the House settlement, along with other factors,' Jarmond said, 'to determine how we were going to split up the revenue share.' Jarmond told The Times last year that he anticipated a bigger share of revenue going to football and men's basketball players because they were 'responsible for more of the revenue based on the House settlement and the back pay for NIL and all those things.' Payments will rise each year as part of the 10-year settlement agreement. Even though roster limits could eventually rise to 105 for football and 15 for men's basketball as part of the settlement, keeping scholarship limits at their current levels — 85 for football, 13 for men's basketball — will allow UCLA to provide each player on scholarship a bigger share of revenue. As part of the settlement agreement, any money used for scholarships (which have an estimated value of $65,000 per athlete at UCLA) comes out of the revenue sharing pot. Jarmond said his department would reevaluate this arrangement in a year to ensure it was best serving the school's athletes. UCLA is also committed to preserving its Olympic sports that have provided the lion's share of NCAA championships in an athletic department widely regarded as one of the best in the nation. Jarmond said there would be no staffing cuts, but some personnel might be reassigned to better serve the athletic department. Advertisement 'We are looking at reallocating staff,' Jarmond said, 'to positions that better meet our needs in a changing landscape.' The ability to pay players directly could help UCLA in ways that go beyond compensating its athletes. Revenue sharing arrangements could help narrow the resource gap between the Bruins and other Big Ten Conference schools that had more deep-pocketed NIL collectives engaging in pay-for-play practices. Now, all new NIL deals exceeding $600 must be approved by NIL Go, a clearinghouse created by the College Sports Commission to analyze deals to ensure they serve a valid business purpose and provide fair market value. It's expected that all existing college NIL collectives — including UCLA's Men of Westwood (which serves men's basketball), Bruins for Life (football) and Champion of Westwood (women's basketball, Olympic sports) — will essentially become marketing agencies that try to find endorsement deals for athletes. Advertisement Read more: Chancellor Julio Frenk suggests he'll be actively involved with UCLA athletics Jarmond said UCLA was seeking a third-party partner to help secure so-called true NIL opportunities. Being based in Los Angeles should provide Bruins athletes with a clear advantage in securing marketing deals, Jarmond said. Other challenges remain. Having traveled to Washington, D.C., to lobby for federal NIL legislation, Jarmond said he believed it was necessary to eliminate the imbalance that exists with more than 30 states having their own NIL laws. While distributing $20.5 million in revenue will be another financial blow to an athletic department that has run $219.5 million in the red over the last six fiscal years — though the entire debt has been covered by the university, bringing the balance to zero — Jarmond said he has long championed athletes being paid and believes the move is long overdue. As part of the settlement involving back pay to athletes, UCLA's share of NCAA revenue will be reduced by more than $1 million annually for the next 10 years. Advertisement UCLA's finances could soon improve under a College Football Playoff revenue sharing agreement that is expected to provide Big Ten schools an additional $8 million to $12 million annually beginning in 2026. That's on top of media rights deals tilted heavily in favor of Big Ten and Southeastern Conference schools, giving the Bruins another infusion of much-needed cash. The athletic department has a new ally in Chancellor Julio Frenk, who signaled his intention to be closely involved with the school's sports programs during a recent interview with The Times. 'Chancellor Frenk has been extremely supportive of athletics and the impact that it has on our community,' Jarmond said. 'He has been supportive of our efforts every step of the way. He hit the ground running during a pivotal time not just for athletics but the university, and he has demonstrated support at a high level and I'm grateful for his leadership at such a pivotal time for athletics.' While acknowledging that UCLA athletics needed to be more creative with revenue generation as part of what he called 'a huge moment' that would forever change the trajectory of college sports, Jarmond said the school's commitment to sports was unwavering. Advertisement 'We have to be bold and innovative in this new world,' Jarmond said. 'UCLA has always been on the forefront and been a leader and that's not going to change. We will embrace this new era and we will continue to support our student-athletes at a championship level.' Get the best, most interesting and strangest stories of the day from the L.A. sports scene and beyond from our newsletter The Sports Report. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Up 725% in 10 Years: Why This Could Be Wall Street's Next Big Stock Split
Stocks tend to get a boost when management announces a stock split. This stock has produced excellent operating results, and a split could signal confidence from management. Advances in artificial intelligence could unlock a lot of value for the business over the next few years. 10 stocks we like better than Meta Platforms › Some might argue a stock split is merely cosmetic. Existing owners still own the same percentage of the company they did before the split and the business continues to operate just as it had before. The only difference is new buyers can now buy even smaller portions of the business, and shareholders can sell off smaller portions. But a stock split, which usually comes after a prolonged period of gains in the stock price, can provide a useful signal from management. If management expects the price to continue climbing higher, it's more likely to split the stock. If it thought the stock was overvalued, it might hold off. As a result, stock prices seem to move higher when management announces a stock split. In that case, it's best to buy a stock ahead of management's decision. And one stock, up 725% in the last decade, is a great buy at its current price whether management decides to split its shares or not. There are a few factors that go into the decision to split shares. For one, the stock probably has a relatively high price, making it difficult for retail investors to buy whole shares. But there are other factors at play as well, including how the company uses share-based compensation and how much of the business is owned by smaller investors. When all of them align, a stock split makes a lot of sense. That's why Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META) looks poised to split its shares in the near future. Not only does the stock trade well above $650 per share, it pays out over $16 billion in share-based compensation per year and 20% of the shares outstanding are held by retail investors. Meta has been one of the most successful businesses over the last 10 years. After several major acquisitions -- Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus -- the company has grown its user base across all of its apps while pushing the frontier of virtual reality and augmented reality. Its recent focus on artificial intelligence (AI) promises to unlock value across its properties, including WhatsApp and Reality Labs (its AR/VR business segment). Thanks to strong execution, management has grown its annual advertising revenue from $11.5 billion in 2014 to $161 billion in 2024. That's an average compound annual growth rate of 30%. But there's a lot more growth ahead for Meta Platforms, and there's a good reason management may want to split its stock. Meta sees several opportunities to grow faster over the long run than its smaller competitors and many other tech companies of its size. As mentioned, the key to unlocking a ton of value for Meta is its work in advancing artificial intelligence. To that end, management plans to spend around $70 billion this year on capital expenditures, mostly focused on building and outfitting data centers for AI training and inference. AI has the power to unlock a ton of value for Meta's feed-based apps. The company is working on AI agents that can create and manage ad campaigns for any business with any product, including ad creatives customized for each user. That could increase the value of ads on Facebook and Instagram, open the door for more small businesses to advertise, and increase the total share of ad spend flowing to Meta. And this isn't some far-off dream, the company expects to roll out that feature by the end of next year, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. Meta also has an opportunity to build chatbot agents for businesses within WhatsApp and Messenger, offering individualized sales and customer service reps. That could further increase interest in Meta's click-to-message ad units, which were a $10 billion business in its most recently reported quarter. One analyst thinks Meta could generate $100 billion per year from chat agents by charging businesses directly. Lastly, Meta can use generative AI to take full advantage of the immersive and personalized nature of virtual or augmented reality. It's already seen success integrating its Meta AI chatbot into a pair of glasses, giving the AI access to visuals. The next step is to let AI interact with the world virtually through augmented reality to help users understand what they're looking at, make decisions, or just have fun. Those uses could rapidly push AR and VR into the mainstream. Importantly, Meta's stock trades at a reasonable valuation. Investors can buy shares for 26 times forward earnings expectations. It's worth noting that Meta's earnings growth expectations over the next few years are weighed down by the increased depreciation expense from the last few years' increase in capital expenditures related to AI. But if those AI investments pay off as expected, earnings growth should accelerate as it leverages its innovation across its applications and devices. Management could signal confidence in those efforts paying off by announcing a stock split, but it's worth owning at this price, whether or not a split ever materializes. Before you buy stock in Meta Platforms, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Meta Platforms wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Adam Levy has positions in Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Meta Platforms. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Up 725% in 10 Years: Why This Could Be Wall Street's Next Big Stock Split was originally published by The Motley Fool