This is a rare article I am copying to both my theatre blog and my playwriting site. I normally try to keep the two things separate, but for once the same subject has arisen that is relevant to both. As most people connected to Brighton Fringe will know, Brighton Fringe has, out of the blue, decreed the Rotunda to be an “unauthorised venue” and sent out dedicated email warning acts of the consequences of performing with them. This came as a bit of a surprise because all of the biggest festivals have prided themselves on their openness (Edinburgh, Brighton and Buxton), welcoming all acts and all venues. So for one of these festival to turn on one venue without warning is unprecedented.

So far, Brighton Fringe has persistently refused to answer all question from multiple organisation as to why they have done this. However, whilst they have stopped short of claiming the Rotunda have engaged in wrongdoing and their exclusion is necessarily to protect Brighton Fringe participants, their communications very heavily imply this is why.

And before I go on, I want to make one thing clear: these are my own opinions. I have not co-ordinated this response with anyone, and if you want to accuse me of being a shill, good luck proving it.

I’ve got to be careful here. I stand to lose a lot from this decision: my Brighton Fringe performances of It’s Not Cluedo is my highest-earning creative activity, and in my performer shoes I am angry that I have had this situation imposed on me by Brighton Fringe without notice, let alone consultation. However, I have to look at the greater good. I have repeatedly berated venues and festivals for doing nothing about sexual harassment and racism on their watch, and similarly challenged performers siding with individuals engaging in wrongdoing (be it out of self-interest or active complicity). I cannot turn a blind eye the moment my values become inconvenient to follow.

I have worked with Ross and Michelle for years and – whilst I feel they have something overreacted in past disputes (such as pulling out of Buxton Fringe) – I have always considered them to be principled and scrupulous. But I don’t know everything. Rotunda could be engaging in wrongdoing I don’t know about. Caravanserai, Spiegelgardens, Lantern or Laughing Horse could be engaging in wrongdoing I don’t know about. Brighton Fringe could be engaging in wrongdoing I don’t know about. And, of course, The Warren did engage in wrongdoing I didn’t know about. Whenever there is reasonable grounds for suspicion, we must always apply due diligence, and – if warranted by the evidence – take action.

But alongside my opposition to turning a blind eye, there is one other dearly held principle: the right to presumption of innocence. If you are going to punish someone for wrongdoing, the accused party has the right to know what they are being accused of, see evidence is against them, and have a chance do defend themselves. Brighton Fringe has done none of these.

Quite simply: Brighton Fringe has accused the Rotunda of wrongdoing without evidence, and this is despicable.

And make no mistake, they are accusing the Rotunda of wrongdoing. They have clearly worded their latest statement to try to make you believe this – but in a way that allows them to deny that’s what they meant later. Here it is:

Come off it – you wouldn’t have put those two paragraphs together if you didn’t want to us to believe Rotunda has breached your “high standards of safety, care, and respect”. And if you think you can deny meaning that later, I’ve got some bad news for you: defamation law does not see it that way.* Also, the claim about a “clear strategic decision” is also provably false. Chortle has done the work for us hear, checking out the email sent to rotunda, and in their words: “it is big on corporate words, but scant on detail,” which Brighton Fringe refused to clarify. Brighton Fringe also refused to answer Chortle’s queries of whether Rotunda had done anything to contravene the festival’s rules to uphold aforementioned high standards, and Brighton Fringe again refused to answer. (I suppose it’s possible that either Rotunda or Chortle could be lying about the content of the email, but Brighton Fringe could easily correct that if the Chortle article contained falsehoods. They haven’t.)

*: And your friendly reminder: the last time I make a firm call on legalities and got a torrent of abuse and accusations I was deluded: I turned out to be right. Ignore what I say at your own risk.

Even if there is a a legitimate reason related to duty of care, there are numerous things wrong with this. I get that in the post-Russell Brand era a venue could be implicated in something that can’t be made public, but that’s no excuse to accuse by insinuation – either state clearly that a venue has done wrong or shut up. If you can’t go into details but it’s so bad you have to act now, the correct procedure is to announce an individual has been suspended without prejudice pending investigation. Duncan Lustig-Prean said himself that they want to give venues not living up to standards (whatever that means) time to respond – why is there a different rule for Rotunda? Why does the appeal procedure in Brighton Fringe’s rules not apply here?** And the obvious question is that if there really is something bad that artists need to be protected from – why aren’t Brighton Fringe warning us what it is? Is the new Fringe really CEO callous enough to wait for something to happen to someone who didn’t take the vague allegations seriously?

**: One argument I’ve seen Brighton Fringe make is that there is no agreement with the Rotunda to break, which is true insofar as all agreements between Brighton Fringe and venues are for one year at a time. But it’s still poor behaviour. Just because there’s no law against behaving like an arsehole doesn’t mean it’s okay to be one.

Now, it is entirely possible that Brighton Fringe has mishandled public relations, and the real reason is unrelated to wrongdoing. We know that not everyone is happy with public spaces being turned over to fringe venues for a month. We also know that not everyone is happy with artists performing without guaranteed pay, something that a free-for-all festival does not help. I am firmly of the view that open festivals are vital to give artists shut out by gatekeepers a fair chance to be seen, and if you want a guaranteed income this is the wrong festival for you, but maybe I’m wrong and full-time artists should be prioritised and artists shuts out by gatekeepers don’t belong here. Argue that all you like, and argue that the Rotunda doesn’t fit in the the model you want – but we’re owed a debate on this. It is wrong to impose these chances without an open debate. And it is DEFINITELY wrong to use ugly accusations as the pretext for these changes. If you want to radically change Brighton Fringe, it’s too late for next year. Have a proper debate and maybe we can consider what you want in 2028.

The most cynical possibility, of course, is that the Rotunda is completely innocent and Brighton Fringe are using this to cover up their real agenda. The accusation that Brighton Fringe doesn’t care about artists and just want a massive beer garden has rumbled on for years, and I’ve always thought it was unfair – but after this month’s stunt I’m starting to wonder. Only a few people within the board of trustees know their true motives are. But I have to tell you, the precedent from the north-east is not good. There have been three scandals where organisations suspected of wrongdoing tried to brush it off with boilerplate statements such as the one Brighton Fringe gave – and every time, it didn’t work. The truth got dragged out anyway, the original statements were discredited – and it resulted in resignations, or the organisation shutting down, or both.

To be clear, I absolutely do not want Brighton Fringe Ltd shut down over this. However badly they have lost their way since the arrival of their new CEO, we need it, and after the shutdown of the Vault festival it is needed more than ever. But if the current set of trustees double down of their line - that they can do whatever they like to whoever they like and accuse whoever they like of anything they like - this could well spell the end. Why should other venues and artists trust Brighton Fringe after this? What’s to say they won’t be turned on next? We learned from Leicester festival this year that umbrella organisations are not untouchable and not indispensable, and artists and venues can rally together without. But that would undo years of progress to make Brighton Fringe the proud asset to UK culture it is. Please do not make it come to that.

So this is my call for Brighton Fringe: Stop the insinuation and come clean over your real intentions. Either replace your back-hand imputation with unambiguous charges – or apologise to Rotunda for implying they’ve failed to meet these standards you talk about. And come clean over what these standards actually are. I had to question you repeatedly over whether these “standards” Rotunda contravened were these ones agreed by Equity before you gave me a straight answer, and muddying the waters like this only makes us think you are hiding something.

Alternatively, if you really can’t come clean over your intentions – if you know deep inside that what you’re planning would never survive an open and public debate – there is one other option open for damage limitation: stop hiding behind your boilerplate statement and backtrack completely. Retract all your accusations (overt and implied), apologise unreservedly to the Rotunda, reinstate them in the programme, end your covert dealings with Brighton council’s land hire team – and whatever hidden agenda you were pursuing, abandon it. Your climb-down will be rewarded with humiliation, ridicule, and a long-term loss of trust. But compared to the fates of Times Square Panto, Tyneside Cinema and SSD concerts, you’ll be getting off lightly.

To be clear: I am not saying that Rotunda has never done anything wrong – but the burden of proof is on Brighton Fringe. So far, they have refused to provide a shred of evidence to support their insinuated accusations; until they do, the Rotunda has no case to answer. However, the fallout from this matter calls into question the honesty of the Brighton Fringe Trustees, in particular the new CEO – and so far, Brighton Fringe ltd. has done nothing to counter the case against them.

I do not need saving from Brighton Fringe, and neither does the Rotunda. Instead, Brighton Fringe needs saving from itself.

I have never been more fearful for the future of Brighton Fringe.

Postscript: as for me …

No decision as yet of how this affects my plans for next year. It’s Not Cluedo was heavily dependent on ticket sales via Brighton Fringe box office, and I will have to think carefully about whether it would be viable to do this without.

The only thing I have absolutely decided is that I will not be moving it to one of the pop-up venues approved by Brighton Fringe – at least not how the situation stands. No matter how good the move would be for my personally, I cannot bring myself to reward Brighton Fringe for pulling this sort of stunt.

This also calls into question whether I can still justifying reviewing at Brighton Fringe. There is at present no indication that Brighton Fringe are going to adopt the same behaviour to accredited media as they do with accredited venues, but after this month’s behaviour, who knows? Should it come to that, I have plans on standby on how to respond. But, accreditation or not, I have not ruled out dropping coverage of Brighton Fringe completely. I cover Edinburgh, Brighton and Buxton fringes because I believe in the open festival. If Brighton Fringe ceases to values openness and inclusiveness, I will have to reconsider.

But if the worst comes to the worst – and we are not at this point yet – I am determined to make Brighton’s loss into someone else’s gain. I am still weighing up my options. As soon as I have a decision – whenever that may be – I will let you know.

Footnote: Brighton Fringe, when you read this, just to inform you that everyone on this blog has right of reply. In general I allow responses to be posted in full without interruption, but that is only a courtesy and not an obligation. Actually answer some questions and I’ll give you that courtesy – give further non-answers and I might not be so accommodating.

And if you don’t like the questions I’m raising about your integrity, sorry. Ross and Michelle didn’t like you doing that either. Have the grace to live and die by the same sword.