logo
Disabled actor let go by Globe theatre after alleging sex abuse settles

Disabled actor let go by Globe theatre after alleging sex abuse settles

Independent05-03-2025

A disabled playwright and actor whose contract was not renewed by Shakespeare's Globe theatre after she alleged sexual abuse by another actor has said she feels 'relieved' to have reached a legal settlement with the playhouse.
Olivier-nominated Athena Stevens sued the Globe for harassment and discrimination on grounds of her disability and sex, victimisation, and 'failure to make reasonable adjustments' after she worked for the famous playhouse as an Associate Artist for several years between 2018 and 2021.
Ms Stevens' contract was not renewed in September of that year, six months after she reported that an actor had allegedly been sexually abusive towards her.
The accused actor was subsequently hired by the playhouse and allegedly went on to send Ms Stevens voice notes threatening her, according to particulars of her claim.
It is understood the Globe's position is that the accused actor was not cast in a production at the theatre and that neither Ms Stevens nor the other actor were employed by the theatre at the time of the alleged incident.
In the same document, Ms Stevens – who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair after suffering a serious brain injury at birth – said she would also 'regularly encounter unfavourable and less favourable treatment because of her disability'.
She claimed these included incidents when she was refused access to the stage by staff who did not believe she worked for the Globe, and other times when she was left to manage groups of performers alone even though she had told the theatre she did not feel comfortable doing so.
It is understood the Globe's position is that the access issue was not raised at the time and that the issue around managing a group of performers had been resolved.
She also claimed that in March 2021, she had told the Globe's managers about an incident in which the accused actor allegedly showed her images of his then partner without either women's consent.
Ms Stevens, 40, who has waived her anonymity, said this incident constituted sexual abuse, as she was unable to physically remove herself from the situation because of her disability.
A meeting took place with the Globe staff in June 2021 to formally record the allegations, with Ms Stevens being told she would only have to recount the incident once, her claims said.
Around a week later, Ms Stevens said she was told the accused actor was cast for a production at the Globe.
Ms Stevens was asked to discuss her allegations again, and she subsequently recorded a video in which she reiterated her allegations.
She said she submitted the video to the Globe's chief executive Neil Constable, as well as board members.
Ms Stevens claimed she also handed over voicemails she had received from the accused actor in which he allegedly threatened her.
Two months later, Ms Stevens received a letter of dismissal which read: 'Given the recent breakdown in trust and relationship with the Globe, it feels wise to pause this working relationship until we have found a mutually agreeable resolution together.'
Ms Stevens and the playhouse reached a confidential settlement on Wednesday.
In a statement afterwards she said: 'I am relieved this fight is over and the Globe has agreed to commission a retrospective independent review to assess their safeguarding and accessibility procedures.
'I asked for this to be carried out in 2022 because I knew others could be harmed if swift action was not taken.
'If the Globe had listened to my concerns from the start, I would not have been forced to endure this ongoing battle that has caused significant damage to my health and wellbeing.
'I am incredibly thankful to my brilliant legal team Peter Daly and Rachel Barrett, who took up this case after many others turned it down.'
She added: 'I hope this win acts as a stark reminder to all that disability and accessibility rights are in jeopardy and are a matter of law, not something an employer can pick and choose.'
A spokesperson from the Shakespeare's Globe said on Wednesday: 'We are pleased to have reached a settlement on the employment dispute raised by Athena Stevens that supports everyone.
'The Globe deeply believes in the importance of creating equity for all, including those from the freelance and disabled communities, and seeks ongoing, continuous improvement of conditions that support an inclusive workplace.
'We remain committed to a healthy and inclusive environment for everyone at Shakespeare's Globe including staff, freelancers, and our audiences.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ingenious: the Globe's Romeo & Juliet reviewed
Ingenious: the Globe's Romeo & Juliet reviewed

Spectator

time12 hours ago

  • Spectator

Ingenious: the Globe's Romeo & Juliet reviewed

Cul-de-Sac feels like an ersatz sitcom of a kind that's increasingly common on the fringe. Audiences are eager to see an unpretentious domestic comedy set in a kitchen or a sitting-room where the characters gossip, argue, fall in love, break up and so on. TV broadcasters can't produce this sort of vernacular entertainment and they treat audiences as atomised members of racial ghettos or social tribes. And they assume that every viewer is an irascible brat who can't bear to hear uncensored language without having a tantrum. The result is that TV comedy often feels like appeasement rather than entertainment. Theatre producers are keen to fill the gap, and the latest effort by writer-director David Shopland declares its ambitions in its title. Cul-de-Sac is set on a housing estate where Frank and Ruth are busy destroying their marriage. Ruth lounges on the sofa all day drinking sherry and mourning the loss of her career as a therapist. Frank is a depressed salaryman who rants and raves obsessively about a mysterious Mercedes parked by his kerb. The couple make friends with a timid bisexual neighbour, Simon, whose wife has just run off with his brother. More characters arrive. Marie is a beautiful, nerdy evangelical who recruits worshippers for her husband's church by knocking on strangers' doors. Her latest disciple, Hamza, is a Kurdish businessman who owns the Mercedes that blocks Frank's drive. Thus the messy social circle is complete. The characters are quirky, likeable and easy to relate to. And the show is full of awkward comic moments and latent sexual conflict. The best character, Simon, is perhaps too obviously based on Alan Bennett. He has a squashed blond hairdo and geeky black-rimmed glasses, and he speaks in a lugubrious, wheedling Yorkshire accent. The show is good fun for 90 minutes but after the interval, disaster strikes. The script morphs into an anguished memory play and the characters become self-pitying bores. They take it in turns to describe the most grisly moment of their lives. Ruth explains the crisis that terminated her therapy career. Marie reveals the difficult truth about her missionary work. The men recount tales of loss and bereavement caused by lethal explosions and murderous terrorist attacks. These distressing back-stories have no shape or dramatic direction and the show becomes an interminable group-therapy session. At the climax, a suitcase is opened to reveal a blood-stained item of clothing, and the script delivers 'messages' about the virtues of tolerance. We're warned not to indulge in xenophobia or to lay blame on a particular faith for the crimes of a few extremists. In other words, it feels like a TV show. Perhaps Netflix will pick it up. At the Globe, Sean Holmes offers an ingenious new take on Romeo and Juliet. His inspiration? Set the show in the Wild West. It makes sense, just about, to plonk the story into a frontier town where two murderous families are locked in a deadly feud. The Victorian age was a time of stylish and dignified fashions so the show looks terrific. The women swish around in sumptuous full-length gowns while the men sport frockcoats, hip-hugging trousers and chic leather boots. The cowboy hats are a bit of a problem. Thesps hate wearing headgear that conceals their faces, and in this production the actors wear their hats shoved well back on their heads so that their handsome mugs can be seen at all times. Perhaps the hats could be ditched altogether. This feels like a TV show. Perhaps Netflix will pick it up Most of the cast are pretty good, some are exceptional. Michael Elcock's Mercutio is a mischievous, charming street hustler who turns the tricky Queen Mab monologue into a tour de force by pretending that it's the most hilarious joke he's ever heard. (On the page, the speech reads like a bad dream about a spider improvised by a stoned poet.) Elcock's playful, fleet-footed Mercutio makes Romeo seem like an angry dullard by comparison, but that's always a risk with this play. At least Rawaed Asde (Romeo) has the dreamy good looks of a movie star. His Juliet (Lola Shalam) plays the part as a cheery Essex blonde with a heart of steel. When her father threatens to force her out of the house, he looks more scared than she does. Jamie Rose-Monk's Nurse is too young to perform the role as a venerable lady's maid and she plays it like Juliet's best mate from school. Dharmesh Patel works wonders with the small role of Peter by adding balletic little hand gestures and other physical absurdities. None of his play-acting is in the script but it comes across beautifully in the festive, carefree atmosphere of the Globe. This is an object lesson in how to reconceptualise Shakespeare. The idea of the Wild West is lightly handled and it offers witty suggestions rather than imposing ugly restrictions.

Has deporting illegals become illegal?
Has deporting illegals become illegal?

Spectator

time12 hours ago

  • Spectator

Has deporting illegals become illegal?

The circus around Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia – whose full name the New York Times likes to trot out as if citing an old-school English aristocrat – speaks volumes about the immigration battle roiling the US. Our friend Kilmar is what we fuddy-duddies insist on calling an illegal immigrant. The Salvadoran crossed clandestinely into the US in 2012. As for what he's done since, that depends on whom you ask. According to his GoFundMe page, Kilmar is a 'husband, union worker and father of a disabled five-year-old'. Left-wing media portray 'the Maryland man' – a tag akin to Axel Rudakubana's 'a Welshman' – as an industrious metalworker devoted to his family. His wife has rowed back on the temporary protective order she once requested, claiming she'd been over-cautious. Yet according to the Trump administration, Kilmar is a member of the notoriously violent street gang MS-13 who's derived his primary source of income from smuggling hundreds of illegals over the southern border for several years. Choose A or B. In 2019, Kilmar was arrested for loitering along with three other men, one a suspected MS-13 member. He was carrying marijuana, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. From his clothing, tattoos and, more persuasively, a 'past proven and reliable' confidential source who verified he was an active gang member using the moniker 'Chele', police adjudged that Kilmar was a gangbanger, for which (of course) he wasn't charged. He was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement – whose acronym, ICE, reinforces its rep as cold-hearted – which moved to deport him. Kilmar (of course) contested his removal. The immigration judge hearing Kilmar's case concurred that the defendant was indeed a gang member and deportable; the Salvadoran (of course) appealed the decision, which nevertheless was upheld. Kilmar (of course) then filed for asylum, as well as for a 'withholding of removal'. A subsequent immigration judge stayed his deportation to his home country, where his wellbeing might be endangered by local gangs. Now, you might suppose that putting yourself in the way of other famously rivalrous gangs would come with the territory when you join one yourself. Like, inter-gang violence seems a natural hazard of this line of work. But it's not only British immigration judges who are soft touches. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the millions of gate-crashers Kilmar (of course) remained in the US. In 2022, he was pulled over for speeding while driving eight other Hispanic men of uncertain immigration status in an SUV altered to add a third row of seats for extra passengers. The officers suspected human-trafficking; Kilmar's driving licence had expired; a run of his number plate through the database turned up a federal note on likely membership of MS-13. Yet when the patrolmen contacted the feds, ICE (of course) declined to pick him up. So Kilmar was (of course) released without charge. Even so, his claim that he was merely transporting construction workers between jobs did not, under investigation, hold up. Fast-forward to 2025 and why this otherwise obscure Salvadoran who is or is not a thug merits such a detailed lowdown. Meaning (of course) that this case has to do with Donald Trump – whose evil minions in March flew more than 230 purported criminals to a Salvadoran prison, including none other than Kilmar, whom ICE did finally pick up (no 'of course' there). The flights' timing was judicially dodgy. The planes did or didn't take off after a federal judge ruled that the flights could not proceed until the deportees were given the opportunity to challenge their removal. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed Trump to 'facilitate' Kilmar's return to the US. Because, remember, there was only one country to which he could not be deported because of that credulous 2019 decision: his own. Hence the Justice Department's acceptance that Kilmar's deportation was an 'administrative error'. During this proxy war with Trump, Democrats have pretended to hair-tear over poor Kilmar, mouldering away in a nasty foreign prison and deprived of due process. But the story I just laid out has due process, not to mention leniency or even dereliction on the part of the authorities, up the wazoo. Meanwhile, after slyly getting their jurisprudential ducks in a row, last week Trump and co finally got Kilmar flown back to the US, only to arrest him immediately for human-trafficking – with every intention of convicting the guy and then deporting him right back to El Salvador. What do we make of this farce? The American commentariat has focused on a potential showdown between Trump and the judiciary, claiming to fear a flat-out executive refusal to follow court orders but secretly rather hoping that Trump does defy the courts and thus reveals himself as an unconstitutional tyrant. I view this absurd tale through a different lens. All these trials and flights for a lone illegal alien are expensive. The amount of 'due process' the American justice system affords every single illegal makes deportation at any scale impossible. There isn't enough time and money and there aren't nearly enough judges to make any but a token gesture toward the mass deportation of illegals that Trump has promised. That amounts to a victory not just for Democrats but also for disorder. I'd assess the odds that Kilmar is a thug at about 90 per cent. But proving membership of unofficial allegiances in court is a bastard. If every individual deportation case must be adjudicated according to exacting evidentiary rules and appeal procedures, America's drastic, undemocratic demographic change will proceed inexorably. Only mass round-ups and swift group trials could effectively address the staggering ten million gate-crashers during the Biden administration alone. What are the chances of that? In New York at the weekend, ICE raids were impeded by LA-style crowds of righteously indignant protestors screaming: 'Let them go! Let them go!' The officers just doing their jobs looked beleaguered, tired, numb and pre-defeated. After all the ICE agents' thankless labours, what proportion of their detainees will still get to stay in the country in the end? I'll take another stab at 90 per cent.

King ‘told Conclave author he watched papal selection film'
King ‘told Conclave author he watched papal selection film'

Wales Online

timea day ago

  • Wales Online

King ‘told Conclave author he watched papal selection film'

King 'told Conclave author he watched papal selection film' Robert Harris, 68, was formally made a CBE by Charles for services to literature in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday Robert Harris was made a CBE by the King at Buckingham Palace (Image: PA Wire/PA Images ) The author of the hit novel turned Oscar-nominated picture Conclave said the King revealed to him that he has watched the film. Robert Harris, 68, was formally made a CBE by Charles for services to literature in a ceremony at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday. ‌ Harris said it was "eerie" and "like an out of body experience" to see his 2016 book turned into a film, and then to see the papal selection process which he had researched in so much detail play out in May after the death of Pope Francis. ‌ "(It was) very odd, I suppose because I researched it very thoroughly, and really it's the sort of thing that can practically only be done in fiction because you have to have a lot of conjecture," Harris told the PA news agency. "And so it acted as a kind of primer for journalists and for people, so that was very strange. "And then, of course, the extraordinary fact that the new pope watched it on the eve of the conclave." Article continues below Pope Leo's brother John Prevost told NBC News his younger sibling had watched the film before the secret vote. Harris said the King also asked about his new book. "We talked a bit about Conclave, which he has seen," Harris said. ‌ "He's been reading my books for years, so it was nice to see him again." The journalist-turned-novelist also joked about how seeing the inside of Buckingham Palace could provide him inspiration for his future books. "There'd have to be some mystery in the throne room, yes, murder in the throne room! It's got possibilities." ‌ Harris said it was a "very generous gesture" to receive the honour and he had "never thought about it" before being asked. Author Dame Jacqueline Wilson was made a Dame Grand Cross for her services to the same industry at the ceremony. The 79-year-old former children's laureate is widely known as the creator of Tracy Beaker and has written more than 100 novels. ‌ "It feels like a dream," Dame Jacqueline said on receiving the honour. "I'm so pleased, so proud. "I was just totally taken by surprise. To be utterly truthful, I didn't even know this particular honour existed. I'm so proud and so overwhelmed. "If little girl Jacqueline could be told that I'd be standing outside Buckingham Palace with medals and a sash, she would have been astonished." ‌ Dame Jacqueline said the King was "jovial" and they laughed about getting her sash on over her "silly hat". "And I did thank him, and particularly also thanked Her Majesty the Queen, because she takes such an interest in children's literature, and that makes all of us writers feel very pleased," she said. Last year, Dame Jacqueline released her first adult novel since the 1970s as she returned to her beloved Girls series. Article continues below The novel, Think Again, was nominated at this year's British Book Awards.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store