Fringe venue ‘breaking law' by letting biological men use women's toilets
Underbelly Bristol Square, which is home to multiple small theatres, posted a disclaimer below the sign for the female bathroom telling attendees to 'use whichever toilet best fits your identity or expression'.
The men's toilets display a similar disclaimer but individual cubicles appear to still be labelled 'gents'.
The accusation comes after the Supreme Court said transgender women are not legally women in a landmark ruling.
The ruling by Britain's most senior judges in April prompted new guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, stating that although it is not compulsory for public services to have single-sex facilities such as toilets, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only toilets provided are mixed-sex.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court by the gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland after two Scottish courts rejected its arguments that the Equality Act's definition of a woman was limited to people born biologically female.
The photo was posted on social media by Alex McDonald, who said: 'My wife is incredibly upset by this. Maybe @edfringe could act and just remove them before @PoliceScotland get involved.'
Mr McDonald added on X: 'Supporters of trans women in women's spaces and sports are generally holders of luxury beliefs; they've never been affected by what they believe in and are too removed from reality and what many people go through to care.'
Susan Smith, from For Women Scotland, who brought the gender case to the Supreme Court, told The Telegraph: 'This is plainly unlawful. You can't have a sign like that. You can either have a mixed-sex space or a single-sex space. It's not possible to have both at the same time. It's either one or the other.'
'I think Underbelly is on rocky ground because something could happen in those toilets, like a sexual assault or someone even recording an individual undertaking their business.
'The law isn't optional; it's not something that you can elect to follow or not.
'Underbelly should remove these signs as soon as possible. If they fail to do so, then they could be flouting the law.'
Helen Joyce, director of advocacy for human-rights charity Sex Matters, which campaigns for clarity about biological sex, added: 'The For Women Scotland judgment clarified the law concerning permissible sex discrimination in services and employment: it means biology, not paperwork or identity.
'There's no lawful basis for putting up male and female signs – for toilets, changing rooms and so on – and then declaring that you mean something other than sex.
'Organisations that fail to get this right risk enabling sexual harassment and ultimately being sued.'
On Sunday, Underbelly Bistro Square included 57 events with genres ranging from children's shows, theatre, comedy, musicals, opera, cabaret and variety.
Earlier, pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted a Fringe Festival event featuring John Swinney.
The Scottish First Minister was being interviewed on Saturday by comedian Susan Morrison when the event was disrupted five times by six different groups of protesters.
They called for an end to funding arms companies through Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish Government's economic agency.
Mr Swinney told the crowd: 'I am absolutely aware of the horrors going on in Gaza.
'I use every opportunity to advance the arguments for a ceasefire and to get humanitarian aid and end the suffering of the people of Gaza.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will Labour's new migrant controls stop the boats… or encourage Nigel Farage?
Maybe everyone can agree on one thing: if stopping the boats was easy, it would have been done by now. Whether the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, ever deluded herself otherwise, a year of only limited progress in the government's mission to 'smash the gangs' must have brought home to her just how intractable irregular migration is. The numbers of those crossing the Channel are as high as ever – partly because of the warm weather and calm waters, but also because the criminals who run these people-smuggling businesses are also smart and innovative. When Keir Starmer said he would bring the same legal powers and resources to the criminal gangs as had been applied to terrorism and drugs, he seemed to have forgotten that those wars are also far from over – let alone won. Will more of the same work? Cooper must hope so. She's promising another £100m for the National Crime Agency to recruit more officers, and there'll be enhanced 'detection technology' to defeat the people traffickers. Making those distasteful online 'ads' for smuggling services is to be a specific criminal offence. Less convincingly, the government proposes to financially penalise universities where too many foreign students fail to complete their courses because they use their study visas as the first stage in an asylum application. How the university applications officers are supposed to vet all their student applicants in this way is far from clear – quite aside from the fact that the right to claim asylum is absolute and universal under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This, by the way, is why no migrant seeking refugee status can be labelled 'illegal', even though that is what was laid down in domestic law by the previous administration. So Cooper is in this for the long haul, making slow, incremental progress both at home and in cooperation with other concerned nations near and far, patiently waiting for the forces of law and order to push their investigations and prosecutions forward. Any single measure, inevitably, tends to get dismissed as hopelessly inadequate. How, it is asked, can the German authorities stop the trade in dinghies and marine engines? How will a crackdown on TikTok videos stop anyone trying to make the journey? Will the treaty with the French, agreed last month, ever be scaled up to make a real difference? Even if one gang is broken up, surely there will be more ready to take their trade? Such scepticism is entirely justified, but it is no reason to give up. Cooper's political pitch has to be that only painstakingly slow, hard work – constantly bearing down on the gangs, working through the vast asylum claim backlog, and getting other countries to take or take back the failed asylum seekers – can succeed. This dedicated effort has to be contrasted with the deceptively easy solutions promised by Reform UK. Nigel Farage, in other words, does not have the answers and would not solve the problem. Just the same as Brexit, in fact, when he also made extravagant claims about how it would solve our economic problems, and then blamed everyone else when it left the nation impoverished. Now he's blaming the migrants rather than Brussels, and his policies – little more than slogans – should be treated with extreme caution. Leaving the ECHR, for example – which he used to call 'Brexit 2.0' before Brexit 1.0 turned out to be a flop – wouldn't change a thing over in Calais. Yes, it would make claiming asylum impossible, and it would, perhaps in some cases, speed deportation and reduce spurious human rights claims by criminals. But it wouldn't stop anyone – refugee or economic migrant – from seeking a better life in the UK, and doing whatever it takes and paying any price (including loss of their own life) in the process. A policy of 'detain, deport', as so lazily tossed out by the radical right, only works if migrants continue to give themselves up. If they cannot do that, because the ECHR right to claim asylum is abolished, then they will not be willing to approach Border Force so that they can indeed be detained and then removed (somehow – again, never entirely clear to where). Instead, we will have irregular crossings turning into irregular, uncurated landings along the south coast of England. And even if the English Channel was somehow made small-boat proof, other methods would be found, such as further abuse of the visa system. Getting sent to Rwanda, say, only acts as a deterrent if you get caught in the first place. But pushing refugees and economic migrants into the grey economy and slum accommodation run by gangs really would turn them into the criminals they do not wish to be. It's not that the remedies offered by Farage, Rupert Lowe, various fascists and some Conservatives are cruel and morally shameful, which they are, but that they are impractical and costly. They're inured to personal abuse. In the words of Lowe: 'You can call me 'far-right', you can call me 'racist' – I just do not care. Detain these men, and deport these men – every single one of them.' Except it wouldn't work, for the reasons explained. Even getting the Royal Navy to attack the boats wouldn't succeed, because there are too many dinghies and too few Navy vessels (and the Navy has other things to do). The Farage/Lowe way of controlling migration is to sloganise and strike a pose, never to make a practical proposal. Labour's way is to get it done slowly but surely – grinding hard graft, with some respect for humanity, compassion for the most vulnerable, and dealing swiftly with any criminality. It just needs to be seen to be working, and it ain't easy.
The Sun
4 minutes ago
- The Sun
Cops accused of ‘cover-up' after failing to reveal men charged with raping girl, 12, are Afghan asylum seekers
COPS have been accused of a "cover-up" after allegedly failing to reveal that men charged with raping a 12-year-old girl are asylum seekers. Two men were charged after a girl was allegedly kidnapped, raped and strangled. 3 3 Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, is accused of raping of the underage girl in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, on July 22. A second man, Mohammad Kabir, also 23, has been charged with aiding and abetting rape, as well as strangulation and kidnap of the girl. The leader of Warwickshire county council and Reform party politician George Finch claimed there has been a "cover up". He alleged the two men were asylum seekers, and accused the police of hiding this from the public. Mr Finch claimed that the chief executive of the council, Monica Fogarty, told him Kabir was an asylum seeker living in a house of multiple occupancy. He said locals were able to "join the dots together" and came to the same assumption. While police are under no obligation to reveal a suspect's nationality, cops allegedly told local politicians and officials not to reveal it in this case over fears of 'inflaming community tensions', The Times reported. The roads where suspects live are usually named, but in this case were kept secret. An official claimed police feared the area would become a hotbed for protests like those outside a migrant hotel in Epping, Essex, last month. Mr Finch called for the Home Office to remove all asylum seekers living in HMOs in the county. According to The Times, he wrote: "Our local community has had enough of the Home Office breaking planning regulations to turn sections of local communities into unrecognisable, ghetto-like zones. "I am disgusted that one year from the social unrest that we saw in parts of the UK in 2024, the Home Office and police have clearly not learned the lessons from the handling of similar incidents last year." After the tragic killing of three children in Southport, false stories spread online that the culprit Axel Rudakubana was an illegal asylum-seeker. Rudakubana targeted children at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class - stabbing Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine, to death and injuring 10 others. It unfolded on July 29 as children enjoyed the workshop at a community centre. And the horror did not stop there, with riots tearing through communities due to misinformation online. Migrant hotels became targets as an information vacuum 'allowed disinformation to flourish', with investigators struggling to set the record straight. In the aftermath, The Home Affairs Select Committee called for a review of what police can put into the public domain. Last month, Epping made the headlines after becoming a hotspot for protests outside of asylum seeker hotels. The protest, outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, began peacefully but escalated into what officers described as "scattered incidents of violence" targeting police and property. Eight officers were injured and a number of police vehicles were damaged as missiles were thrown. The Warwickshire assault allegedly unfolded between 8.30pm and 9.45pm on Tuesday, July 22. CCTV footage from a nearby doorbell camera appeared to show a man walking with the girl at around 8pm. Cops detained the suspect on Saturday 26, and he was charged the following day. He appeared at Coventry Magistrates' Court on Monday and was remanded in custody. Both defendants will next appear at Warwick Crown Court on August 26. Warwickshire Police said in a statement: 'When something significant happens, we brief these partners and local elected officials on the circumstances of the crime, the investigation, the work being undertaken to arrest those responsible and how local people and partners can help a concerned community. 'Where relevant, sensitive information around locations, details of the crime and policing activity to catch offenders can be shared, with a warning that this is sensitive or confidential information and disclosure by those being briefed could affect future court hearings. 'Once someone is charged with an offence, we follow national guidance. "This guidance does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status.' 3
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump's plan to use a British bank to target the Democrats
The elements of the story could be taken directly from a thriller: a British whistleblower with military credentials, secret meetings with top justice officials, a trail of encrypted spreadsheets allegedly linking a British bank to Iran's military and terror networks, and now, an explosive political backdrop involving President Donald Trump and his vendetta against the Democrat prosecutors who once tried to dismantle his empire. At the centre of it all is Standard Chartered, the UK's fifth-largest bank and a household name thanks to its sponsorship of Liverpool Football Club. The bank has already been fined nearly $2bn by American authorities for breaches of sanctions against Iran involving its US branch – having admitted wrongdoing for the first time in 2012 and then again in 2019. It is now facing fresh allegations, which it denies but which could yet see it forced to pay much more. According to whistleblower Julian Knight, a former RAF officer turned compliance executive at the bank, Standard Chartered's transgressions go further than previously admitted. He alleges the bank also concealed an additional $10bn in transactions involving Iranian firms carried out through its New York outpost, which it is yet to answer for. Some of the alleged transactions are said to have been linked to Iran's military, nuclear programme, and US-designated terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. The bank has always denied suggestions it conducted transactions for terror groups. The alleged dealings, which are claimed to have taken place between 2008 and 2013, came after Standard Chartered had announced in 2007 that it would cease all new business with Iranian customers as Washington ramped up pressure on the Islamic Republic. Knight (who left the bank in 2011) says he and fellow whistleblower Robert Marcellus, a currency trader, discovered the supposedly hidden transactions after re-examining spreadsheets and documents provided to US authorities in the past. But when they brought the new 'evidence' to New York attorney general Letitia James's office last year, Knight claims, officials failed to act. His allegations have now been seized on by Trump, who has repeatedly clashed with James, a Democrat, in recent years. On July 27, the president used his Truth Social account to post an article by The Gateway Pundit, a Right-wing American news website, alleging the attorney general – whose slew of legal cases against Trump, including a $454m civil fraud case last year, have seen the pair repeatedly clash publicly – failed to investigate Standard Chartered despite the new trove of information presented by Knight. That followed on from a seemingly important intervention by the Department of Justice, which last month moved to review previous court decisions related to the saga. The article Trump's account promoted described the case as James's 'biggest scandal yet'. In the past, the president has also labelled the New York attorney general a 'totally corrupt politician'. Whilst James appears to be the focal point of the Trump administration's concern, it has also taken aim at his Democratic predecessors over the case – clearly viewing it as a potential Achilles heel. Kari Lake, one of the president's most trusted allies, who serves in the Trump administration as senior advisor at the US Agency for Global Media, says: 'This is a serious issue. President Trump – trying to undo the damage caused by Biden and Obama with their destructive policies toward Israel and America as well as toward the people of Iran – has put forth a maximum-pressure zero-tolerance policy blocking any funding to Iran and its terror network. 'And now a British bank who operates in the United States is accused of processing billions of illicit payments to Iran. And the New York attorney general's office led by Tish James knew about it and did nothing. 'The Fed should have spotted these payments and stopped them, but they did not. The question is was it simply ineptitude on the part of Letitia James and the Federal Reserve or were they complicit in helping the Iranian regime?' The president's political war against the Democrats threatens to drag the bank back into uncomfortable territory, six years after it was fined $1.1bn when a US criminal investigation revealed breaches of sanctions on Iran and other countries. That followed on from a damning August 2012 ruling which saw Standard Chartered forced to shell out $340m to settle claims that it had left the US financial system 'vulnerable to terrorists' by hiding transactions linked to Iran. The following month, then chancellor George Osborne is reported to have intervened on the bank's behalf amid concerns in London that American regulators might withdraw Standard Chartered's US licence over the scandal. By the end of the year, the bank had escaped prosecution and kept its US licence. Knight claims the bank's internal data shows a far deeper pattern of deception. He argues that he, Marcellus and a forensic investigator 'decloaked' Excel spreadsheets to reveal 'a vast number' of previously undetected 'concealed transactions with sanctioned Iranian entities'. He alleges these findings were presented to officials in a series of meetings last year, including with Chris D'Angelo, James's right-hand man within the New York Attorney General Office. 'They [the meetings] were held at the invitation of the NYAG. I flew to New York to be present for the first meeting. We cannot understand why these transactions were not previously disclosed by the bank to the NYAG,' Knight says. In pursuit of a payout Cynics might suggest the whistleblowers are simply looking to cash in, and that Trump's return to the White House was what they needed to turn their fortunes around. Knight and Marcellus have unsuccessfully to date pursued a payout for their whistleblowing under a federal statute which means those who expose wrongdoing can lay claim to proceeds generated by fines, if their intervention proves integral to legal action being taken. The pair's case, known as the 'Brutus litigation', argues they provided material to US law enforcement agencies that proved Standard Chartered had acted in breach of sanctions. The administrations headed by Barack Obama and Joe Biden appeared to refuse to back the whistleblowers' claims, with government agencies arguing the fines imposed on the bank were based on evidence unrelated to the material provided by Knight and Marcellus. Standard Chartered itself argues the pair have concocted 'fabricated claims' in order to seek 'personal financial gain'. But the tide may be turning under Trump, with the Department of Justice last month giving notice that it wanted to review previous decisions which effectively buried the whistleblowers' arguments. In the filings, seen by The Telegraph, the DoJ stated that it wanted a 30-day extension to 'confer internally' about the issue. Danny Alter, former general counsel at the New York Department of Financial Services, who led previous enforcement actions against Standard Chartered, says the DoJ's move was 'highly unusual' and 'suggests that there's been a significant change in the government's thinking'. 'If accurate… recently revealed evidence of the many billions of US dollars in criminal transactions that Standard Chartered allegedly conducted for Iran's military complex and terrorist proxies, like Hamas and Hezbollah, is mind boggling,' Alter says. 'It is a financial blueprint for how Iran built its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and funded global terrorism, despite years of US economic sanctions. 'You have to wonder if the enormous risks and costs of the recent US military operations to eliminate Iran's nuclear programme played a role in the government's seeming re-evaluation of Standard Chartered's case and the bank's potential liability.' Standard Chartered, for its part, remains defiant. Referring to the case brought by Knight and Marcellus, a spokesman said: 'The long-running qui tam lawsuit against Standard Chartered has been dismissed multiple times. The trial court already twice rejected the claims brought by a former employee and his associates who have for more than a dozen years sought personal financial gain through fabricated claims against the bank. 'The frivolous appeal of that rejection remains pending. The US government long ago concluded that there is no merit to the baseless accusations of sanctions and plaintiff's various arguments have been described by the courts as 'on the verge of vexatious and frivolous', 'without merit' and 'threadbare'. 'We will continue to vigorously defend against attempts to profit from fabrications and to damage our reputation.' But the DoJ's recent move may signal the case is not dead after all. Ultimately, Standard Chartered could soon yet find itself back in the spotlight - this time, not just as a defendant in a sanctions case, but as an unwitting pawn in a bitter political feud.
