Campaign Under the Spotlight: Who’s Angela, and what’s changed?

In 2016, the county of Lincolnshire quietly set in motion a scheme that was simple in idea yet profound in intention. Staff in bars, pubs and clubs were asked to watch out for people on dates, or in social situations who might feel uncomfortable or unsafe.

And if someone felt they needed help, they could simply go to the bar and ask for “Angela”. That name—fictional, a kind of code word—would trigger staff action: discreetly separate the person from their companion, call a taxi, alert security, or do whatever worked to get them out of a threatening situation.

*The older version of the poster for “Ask for Angela” had been available in woman’s restroom 🚻 previously. But some male bar staff were unaware of the code sign scheme.*

The campaign was inspired by a real-life tragedy. The name “Angela” draws from Angela Crompton (née Phillips), a 34-year-old woman who was killed by her husband in 2012.

From those roots, the scheme spread: posters appeared in venue toilet stalls, and staff got training in “vulnerability awareness” and how to act when someone asked for Angela.

Why the campaign was established

Data showed that the night-out economy carries inherent risks: single dates, strangers, alcohol, poor lighting, and lack of support. The scheme was meant to give a simple safety net, especially for women, on first dates or in unfamiliar venues.
From the campaign website: the initiative exists because “7 in 10 women experience sexual harassment in the UK” and because “anyone who is feeling vulnerable or unsafe” should have an option. Ask For Angela
The mechanics: a guest sees the poster (typically in a toilet or restroom), realises the venue is part of the scheme, and then, if they feel at risk, they approach the bar and ask for Angela. The trained staff member then responds. See also areyouok.co.uk

The current debate: broadening vs diluting

Here’s where things get interesting (and a little messy). Recently, one of the founding figures of the campaign, Hayley Crawford (formerly Inspector Crawford), stepped down in protest. She claims that the steering body of the campaign removed the female figure from posters and moved to a more gender-neutral presentation—arguing this was to make men feel included. She says this weakens the campaign’s original grounding in women’s safety.

*The new gender nuetral and easily identifiable poster available to see in both male and female toilets*

At the same time, investigative journalism (including by the BBC) has exposed serious flaws in implementation: in a number of venues across London, reporters found the code phrase did not work reliably. Staff didn’t respond because they weren’t aware of the scheme or hadn’t had proper training. One male bartender apparently responded, “Who’s Angela? She doesn’t work here.”

So: Should the scheme be gender-neutral (“Anyone can ask for Angela”) or remain clearly pitched at the traditional risk demographic (women on dates, controlling partners, etc.)? And does making it more public and visible risk reducing its effectiveness?

Pros and cons of going inclusive and visible

Pros:

Inclusion: Vulnerability is not solely the domain of one gender. Men, non-binary people, anyone on a date, or anyone with a controlling or abusive partner—even in same-sex relationships—can find themselves in a dangerous spot. Making the scheme visible to all broadens its reach.
Awareness: Posters in all toilets, male and female, mean more people know the scheme exists. The more eyes see the code word, the more likely someone will spot it when they need it.
Normalisation: Safety isn’t just a “women’s issue”. Everyone having access to the scheme may help change culture.

Cons:

Dilution of secrecy: The strength of a code lies in discretion. If the “bad actor” also knows the code word exists, he (or they) might recognise the signal and intervene or stop the person from using it. The element of surprise gets reduced.
Training gap: If posters are everywhere but staff don’t know what to do, visibility alone doesn’t help. The investigative reporting shows this is happening: many male staff (or general staff) didn’t understand the scheme or how to respond.
Original focus might get lost: The campaign started with a clear reference to women’s vulnerability. If it becomes generic, some argue it loses that strong identity and may fail those it was initially designed to protect. This is the core of the dispute over the poster change.

What’s your view

I lean toward the inclusive model: yes, everyone should be able to use the scheme. Safety shouldn’t be gated by gender. But—and this is a big but—it only works if the mechanism remains discreet and effective. Moving posters into male restrooms is fine, but only if the staff behind the bar genuinely know what “asking for Angela” means and how to act and are trained to do so without hesitation or confusion and a new transparency of the scheme through inclusion carries a risk of diluting its effectiveness by uncovering its secrecy?

One of the biggest risks is visibility without readiness. You might plaster posters everywhere, but if male bartenders shrug and say, “Who’s Angela?”, you haven’t improved safety; you’ve given false reassurance. Worse: You might have lulled someone into believing a safety net exists when it doesn’t.

Also: Keeping some secrecy is strategic. If the “bad date partner” knows that asking for “Angela” will trigger staff action, he might block the person from going to the bar, force them into the toilets with him, or take their phone, etc. That’s a tactical risk. So perhaps the campaign needs tiered awareness: Patrons know there is a code; staff know exactly how to execute it; but the potential perpetrator doesn’t immediately recognise the exact trigger.

Finally, the fact that a founder felt the identity was being undermined is telling. If you make an inclusive campaign too generic, you may risk losing the clarity of purpose. The original female figure gave a strong message: “This is about women’s vulnerability in nightlife settings.” Removing that figure might make the scheme less sharp, less targeted, and possibly less persuasive for its primary group.

*Hayley Crawford one of the “Ask for Angela” founders has resigned after she was not consulted on the change of poster, and its audience.*

What could happen next / recommendations

Venues should mandate training for all staff (male, female, and new recruits) on the code word, scenario handling, safe exit, and taxi protocols. A poster without trained staff is decoration, not protection.
The campaign may benefit from dual messaging: a primary focus on high-risk demographics (women out alone or on dates) but with the explicit note “anyone can ask for Angela”. Transparent but subtle.
Posters in both male and female toilets are fine—but perhaps have dual versions: one tailored for female users (mentioning dates, controlling partner) and one for male users (mentioning being out with someone you trust, night out, etc.). This keeps nuance.
Maintain the “code-word” secrecy: while you advertise the scheme, the implementation needs to keep the element of staff readiness and discretion. Don’t inadvertently signal to “bad actors” how the system works in detail.
Monitor implementation: Audits or undercover checks (like the BBC did) should be done. If many venues fail to respond, you risk a false sense of security.
Keep the origin story alive: The campaign’s roots in one woman’s death give it moral weight and clarity. The historical identity matters; don’t let broadening the scheme erase that.

Headline Verdict

Yes – make it inclusive. Yes – put posters in every restroom and signage in every venue. But don’t let visibility replace effectiveness. Pressing “Angela” like a panic button only works if the staff are wired to act. Increase awareness, yes — but sharpen the training, maintain the code’s discretion, and keep the original identity strong in order to preserve impact.