As a reviewing publication at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe 2018, Miro Magazine published a review of one of the shows in the programme, Tits ‘n’ Teeth.

The review was live for a number of hours before the editorial team received a message from Rosa Crompton, the director of this production.

In the interests of openness and transparency, Rosa has kindly allowed Miro to publish this email, in which she highlights her concerns regarding the content of the review:


Email: 17:27, 10 August 2018

Hello Daniel,

I’m Rosa Crompton, the director of Tits ’n’ Teeth. I was going to publicly post a criticism of your review, but our producer has urged me to speak to you directly and give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re open to apologising and acknowledging your harmful language.

Your review of Tits ’n’ Teeth inaccurately describes the sexual violence and misogyny in the play. By referring to the sexual assault experienced by Eve as “a first fumbling sexual experience” you are being irresponsible and dangerous. You use the term “toxic feminism” which is a phrase used by men’s rights activists and incel groups – it is incredibly damaging and preaches that women have gone too far with feminism and should stop being ‘man haters’. This is a dangerous rhetoric to perpetuate and I’m going to assume you have not fully researched this topic and do not understand the connotations as opposed to wilfully encouraging anti-feminism.

Please don’t interpret this email as a rejection of your criticisms of the acting/ directing/ writing /design – I have received far worse reviews in my life and never written to the reviewer. You describe the incident with the men on the tube as being “misogynist stereotype” and Tim as ‘misunderstanding’ – twice apologising for male violence towards women whilst criticising Eve for being conflicted and complex. You comment on how Eve describes the popular girls at school and how they peaked at 17 and yet don’t mention how one of them is photographed naked as a child.

The review reads like you are consciously looking to undermine the female experience of misogynistic micro-aggressions as well as abuse and assault.

I don’t want this review removed. We want an explanation attached to the review explaining how misleading and dangerous the language used is. It is important that people see how feminist theatre and theatre about the female experience is still being wilfully misunderstood and undermined.

Again, please do not think this is a response from a director with a bruised ego, I am just angry and hurt at the ignorance in this review and know from experience how language like this has very real and dangerous consequences.


Miro Magazine response: 23:48, 10 August 2018

As a publication that champions fair, constructive journalism, Miro Magazine apologises for any hurt or pain that this review has caused through our online platform.

It is vital that we champion open debate in a safe space that does not belittle or insult any individual. We have requested that our journalist, Daniel Perks, publish a response to this email and hope that the original review can be seen as an example of ignorant, inaccurate journalism, rather than a deliberate attempt to incite or abuse.


Josh Brown
Editor-in-Chief, Miro Magazine


Daniel Perks response: 09:15, 11 August 2018

As a theatre journalist and a privileged white male, I need to hold myself to account. And I need to continue to check myself and my language constantly.

Because it is unacceptable to publish a review such as the one I wrote on the morning of 10 August 2018. It is unacceptable to attempt to excuse the tone of the piece by stating that it’s the Edinburgh Festival Fringe and everyone is under pressure to write fast and file faster. It is unacceptable to be sloppy, lazy or ill-informed when commenting on a piece about the female experience.

Especially because, as mentioned above, I am a privileged white male and, through being a critic for this particular production, I am in a position of power.

I would never wish to come across as a supporter of anti-feminist or incel movements. I would never wish to belittle anybody’s experiences, especially those regarding sexual consent. I would never wish to perpetuate the idea that the current landscape is becoming “man-hating”, or a “manhunt”, or anything other than the continual, constant strive for equality.

But in this review, my sloppy language paints a picture of me as someone who supports misogyny and micro-aggressive behaviour, someone who is undermining the work of playwright Isla van Tricht and director Rosa Crompton. I use careless words/ phrases such as “fumbling”, “toxic feminism” “superficial, evolutionary peak”, “misogynist stereotype” or “victimised”.

And I apologise unreservedly for this piece of writing.

I do not write this note intending for people to think that by admitting my mistake, I am trying to rise up as some kind of feminist champion. I write this note to sit alongside the original review so that my indiscretions can serve as a reminder to all journalists, all writers, all editors.

I will always ensure to check my privilege and my work. I will ensure not to be flippant with my opinion, not to again make the mistakes that I have below. It is simply unacceptable. And it should not stand.

The playwright and the director brought their concerns to my attention through email, when they could have voiced their opinions over social media. They have the absolute right to do so – journalists cannot present opinions online and then claim immunity from any response through Twitter or Facebook.

It is wrong to assume that a journalistic piece is the end of the conversation. I would always want to be held accountable, and be challenged, on my work. I would always want people like Rosa and Isla to voice their concerns (and feel safe doing so) if they are unhappy with anything that I publish.

Fundamentally, this review should never have been written. I am deeply ashamed that it was. And I will strive to do whatever it takes not to repeat this in future.