Off Air... with Jane and Fi - Don't Bother: A Self-Help Guide

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

It's the last day of the good ship Fi and Eve. They're sailing away. Well, Fi is. She's off on her holidays. There'll be no podcast tomorrow, but Jane is back on Monday. Today, Fi and Eve chat breathable summer shoes, whether high arches are born or made, well-stocked bedside tables, and how to boot someone out of book club...Plus, Varsha Gohil, who spent almost a quarter of a century fighting to prove her former husband had concealed his wealth in one of the longest-running divorce disputes in British legal history, joins Fi.You can buy tickets for Fringe by the Sea: https://www.fringebythesea.com/off-air-with-jane-fi-and-special-guest-jan-ravens/ Our next book club pick will be a collection of short stories! 'Interpreter of Maladies' is by Jhumpa Lahiri.  You can check out our YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@OffAirWithJaneAndFi Our new playlist 'Coiled Spring' is up and running: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4tmoCpbp42ae7R1UY8ofza Our most asked about book is called 'The Later Years' by Peter Thornton.If you want to contact the show to ask a question and get involved in the conversation then please email us: [e-mail] us on Instagram! @janeandfiPodcast Producer: Eve SalusburyExecutive Producer: Rosie Cutler Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You're on. You're on. You're on. You're right. Pet. Yeah, how are you? Yeah, I'm all right. We're all a bit full of... I was just full of the summer headaches, aren't we? There's something... There's something going around. Something afoot. Yes. But you're better? Better than yesterday.

Okay, excellent. I have to give you all of the emails in very small font today, because I've got my funny, spinny eye. Oh, that's okay. We'll muddle through. Okay, so Eve is going to be my eyes. for the next 20 minutes or so, and that suits me as well, because there's a lot of footwear incoming. Yes. And somebody has pointed out my complete and utter,

inconsistency, hypocrisy, vault fast. Bring it in. You've done a bit of a garvey. I have turned tail on my own opinion. Arch comments about Les Snowdom. Hi, Fee and Eve. Fee, you've done a garvey-worthy quantitative. on former declarations

within a day of the first statement. You wax lyrical about how the sight of men's unshod feet makes you sick. Today, or yesterday, you commented on Les Snowden's oversharing about the height of his arches, then admitted you'd like to see them. I know.

Perhaps the second foot mention was an off-the-hoof-the-hoff remark. Loving Les reports, by the way, even though I have no interest in sport. Thanks, Les. Glad to know feet is not your arch enemy. That's a very good pun. That's from Kay.

Yes, so I do apologise to that because you're absolutely right. I openly on air asked a man to send me pictures of his feet. But it was a pedicured foot. It was a pedicured foot. And actually, I don't really want to see the toes. It's the toes that really do it for me. But I am intrigued by how high his arches. I'm just curious about it.

It's just, it's my journalist itself. Of course. That's why it's an investigation into the high arch. Are you born with high arches or do you develop high arches? Is it a bit of both maybe? Can you sort of train them if you do lots of ballet? Can you force yourself into having higher arches? I really don't know.

I don't know either. It must be mostly genetics. It must be because the opposite is being flat-footed, isn't it? Yeah. And that's a condition that you can't really turn around. That was always a reason for not being able to enter military service, wasn't it, if you had flat-foot? Which I really don't understand. Surely you'd be more stable.

Yes, and I would have thought that there was still many, many things that you'd be able to do. It feels a bit harsh. Yeah, I know that it was definitely one of the medical reasons why people couldn't sign up to military service and national service and be called up to fight in the war if you had flat feet. Isn't that strange? That is really strange. I have to admit, I didn't know that flat feet could hold you back so much.

I believe that they can. This is going to turn into a whole foot fetish thing. Send pictures of your feet. And I'm not here next week. You get it out of your system, people. Get it out of your system. I would accept photos of very high arches, but like you said, no toes.

No toes, please. And thank you very much indeed for your picture, Carla, because you sent a picture of your beautiful feet. And what a lovely man you've got. You're wearing the burkeys, the double-strap burkeys. but the man that you're with has very sensibly put some crocs on and has what you say is a bluey gibbet

and both these things belong to your burly husband who also says that men showing toes is a definite no-no what's a what's a bluish gibbet it's a crock accessory is that what it's a gibbet they're called gibbets you pop them in the holes of your crocs so you can personalise them so I have seen them

But I didn't realise they were called a gibbet. Yeah, I think that's the official brand. Okay. I'm going to look that up for the other definition of gibbet, and I'll do that in a minute. Thank you very much indeed to Janet. Greetings from Tooting, in brackets, near Balham, who sent a picture of some very nice summer styles,

the Hoff range, I'd never come across these before. They're kind of like a trainer, but actually they've got, and I did zoom in on this, they've got a kind of crocheted element to them, so they're highly breathable and that's what you need because it's one of those very odd things, isn't it? In the high tech world of trainers, there's a lot of advertising of how breathable

all of the various things are and they're highly, highly engineered. And obviously the best breathable technique for your feet is access to air. Not, you know, this multi-leisure complex thing that your feet end up being encased in. So the Hoff range looks very good. Kath has got two copies.

of Go Set, a Watchman, in her bookcase, because due to a printing error, one has lines of text missing from several pages. It was a gift from a friend who bought me another copy when she found out. She thought that the one with the errors might be worth something. I did try and give it back to her,

but she refused. Wouldn't take back the gift. So I think if it is ever worth megabucks, we'll have to share the proceeds. Anyway, that's the answer to your question fee. And the Huey Morgan autobiography is excellent, very honest about his struggles with men. health and not at all what I expected.

So thank you for that. And we might start something on the Instagram and I have to leave this in your very, very capable hands for next week because we've also got a suggestion that we could just photograph our bedside tables because they contain a reflection of your true self. I have one here from Polly. Yeah, Polly's is great. Polly's is amazing, actually.

It is good. Sapiens, the Beljar, George Orwell. can't see which one. Rory Stewart, Marina Hyde. And, oh, who's that there? Did I say that out loud? Okay, so let's just revisit that list. We've got George Orwell, we've got Sylvia Plath, and then we've got us notes on the chuff of life.

Did I say that out loud? Just in case you needed to know the title of the book before doing a search. It's a very, very impressive bedside table. It's quite a nice mix. And also, you've got the huge compilation of Nora Ephron's works, which I don't think you can ever re-read often enough. I think that woman was a genius. And it was the first time that I'd ever read really tiny moments of life and particularly

female life, just delivered by someone with such a huge brain, but just taking it all really, really seriously. So the essay that she writes, I feel bad about my neck, which is also then the title of one of her most famous collections of pieces that she wrote, I think this was for the New Yorker, is just about her group of friends late in life who she suddenly started to notice whenever they met up in cafes for lunch, they were always wearing turtlenecks and it then turned into a polo neck. And it was just about how that first little wrinkle, that kind of juleppy turkey-style wrinkle on your neck starts to define a whole new set of conversations and a kind of profound level of wisdom in older age.

And if you've never read her collection of essays, then your life is just not complete. It's as simple as that. Do you still have this joy ahead of you, or have you already brought into Nora? I have that joy ahead of me, and it does sound like a joy. Yeah, you'd love it, Eve.

Your generation would absolutely love it. Dolly Alderton wrote a new introduction to, I feel bad about my neck, because she's such a huge fan of Nora as well. and so that's why that would appeal to your generation I can see why they asked her Hello Dolly So you're in very good company there on that book

Just amazing company Absolutely amazing company So you could send some more in dear listeners If you like to Just photograph your bedside table Don't mess around with it Because we have ways of finding out If you have

There's no need to be pretentious The least pretentious the better Snap it as it is And also everybody Has got at least one book on their bedside table that they will never read. They've put it there, they think they're going to. I've got quite a collection actually in books.

I'm never going to read there on my bedside table. I look at it because it tells me that I'm actually, I'm thirsty for knowledge, wisdom, profundity and great, great eloquent literature. But actually, I'd rather read Peter Granger. It's not that thirsty. I'm just not that thirsty. On my bedside table at the moment is interpreter of maladies.

I started it last night after I killed a mosquito with it. I then actually opened it and used it for its purpose. And I've finished the first story now, which I think puts me ahead of Jane. I think it might do. But let's not let Jane's slight door approach to this book club episode, Dullar enthusiasm for the project, Eve. Did you like it, the story? Yes, I mean, it was short, so I can't fairly judge the whole collection yet,

but the one that I read, I found quite moving. Yeah, I've really loved them. Okay. I really love them. And because some of them really are short, short stories, but they really pack a punch. And if you can also fend off a mosquito. It's 799 very well spent.

The whole book packed a punch. Jane Rankin is long time and twice mentioned. listener. And she says, Eva's doing a brilliant job deputising, and you are. Fee, I was glad to hear you mention the death of the marvellous Penelope Keith, by way of coincidence. I went to see the truly wonderful high society at the Barbican on Saturday, and Felicity Kendall was fantastic in it. I reminisced about the good life, which was very much part of my growing up, and I pondered on whether Penelope and Felicity was still in touch and indeed friends. How sad then to hear the news yesterday. I don't actively follow Twitter,

but a notification popped up on my screen of a post by David Badeal, which simply said, somewhere I can hear a voice saying, well, thank you very much, Jerry. Such nostalgia in only six words. Yours never having missed an episode. And I like that, you must. I'm going to see High Society tomorrow.

Are you? Yes, I'm going to my mum. That Society. So I'm looking forward to it very much. So I'm glad to hear that she had a good time. Excellent. Oh, you're very, very cultured, aren't you? Yes, yes, yes.

I found myself at the South Bank last night. Did you now? In the National Theatre. It was just to meet some old school friends, actually, for a catch-up dinner, which was really, really fantastic. Did you go to Fawzer? Yes. How was it?

It was your recommendation, wasn't it? Do you know what, Eve, it was really lovely, it was a great recommendation. So Fosda is a, they call it small plates, don't they these days? I just think it's really annoying saying that. I don't, I haven't got a better title, but small plates. I agree. I don't know. It's like skin contact.

Yeah. You sort of feel like you're being scammed. You do. Why am I going to dinner just to have smaller plates of everything? Yes, and also they're not that small. No, they're not. I mean, I've been to large plate restaurants. They're serving less than a plate than a small plate.

It doesn't accurately represent anyway. No. So they described themselves as small plates. It was a great recommendation. Oh, I'm so glad. Because it's a huge, huge dining room, so you really feel like you're part of something. And I really love that sometimes in London.

It's very, very loud, not particularly great if you're a bit hard of hearing. But, you know, that happens everywhere these days. The food was delicious, like really, really good small plates. So we had a deep-fried cauliflower, which sometimes can be that, you know, the little florets that they serve can seem parsimonious when they're on the plate. And if you're trying to share, you don't really feel like you've even had a waft of cauliflower. But these are like great, big, fat shunks of the cauliflower head, all deep fried and crispy. So they were just delicious and it was so reasonable.

For a London restaurant that looks out over the Thames, you know, you really do feel like you're absolutely in the throng of it all. Some of their small plates are £5, £7, whatever. So between the four of us, I will be vulgar about this. I think our bill came to no more than £28 each. Wow. So I passed that on as a tip, and I'm grateful that you recommended it to us. And it's just fabulous.

Set into the National Theatre Building, isn't it? Which just feels... It's in a building, yes. It's quite exciting that you're sort of... In the actual... Totally. Totally. And there...

You know, obviously, it's the scene of many, many cultural things of note. At the moment, it's Sandra Owen, the misanthrope, isn't it? and I feel very much that I attended a performance simply because I walked past the Luz at the same time as everyone else was trying to use them. Yeah, so I've been cultural this week. I've been there. But yeah, it was a great recommendation.

And the South Bank, I think, remains one of London's glories. And sometimes it kind of goes, it's gone through peaks and troughs in my 40 years in London. I think is at a real peak at the moment. It just seems to feel vibrant again. And I rather love the fact that you can walk within, I mean, it must only be a kind of half a mile stretch along the riverbank on the south bank.

And you get the absolute naffness of all of the merry-go rounds and the candy floss. And then you get that deliciously, what does, there's something about an underpass that just smells, to me, of teenage years, childhood and Britain. So there's that there with the skate park that, you know, never ever changes. And then you come to this kind of high art of the South Back Centre in the National Theatre. I think it's just wonderful. It does feel like a proper representation of London.

Yeah, glorious. Right, so sorry if you're listening outside of London, you're never going to come to London, you're not interested in London and you like a large plate. Coming back in is Sue, who loved the discussion about shoes in summer because she simply loves shoes. I once heard somebody say, if you have uncomfortable shoes, you wear them on your face. I love that. Isn't that glorious? It's very true. As a 64-year-old still clothes-conscious person, I've had to move on to the comfortable shoe, but still all is great. My summer shoes consisted of trainers, Adidas and some posh ones, yes, warm with skirts and dresses, ugly sandals. All from Russell and Bromley, a collection I've amassed over a few years, very comfortable, supportive and keep your feet

fairly clean. But also I no longer think they're ugly. They call them fishermen sandals and also Sue has some pointy flats for dressing up, all organised in sort your life out style and I admire them every time I open my wardrobe. Well, that's the thing that we can only aspire to. Yes, but I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying the ugly sandal. self-driving cars we talked about this our guest yesterday was james peng he was an entrepreneur and we followed up an interview with him with dr jack stillgo's thoughts about the ethics of everything that's happening in the driverless car world and many of you have got in touch to point out that of course the fantastic thing is the independence that the driverless car will

give and can give to people who can't drive their own cars themselves. So, you know, that is everything from the kinds of disability, physical disability that prevent you from driving to conditions like epilepsy, which can mean that you're not allowed to drive. I was interested in this from Rosemary, who says, I'm visiting friends in Vancouver, Canada, and last night my friend drove, in inverted commas, me home in her driverless car. As someone who loves driving, I was surprised that I loved it. It felt very safe, and I felt much safer as a passenger than I do with some drivers I know. Overall, it felt the car was more cautious than one with a human in charge,

but I wouldn't get one myself as quite apart from not being able to afford it. I don't want to support the trillionaire who owns the car company. Well, that is a massive problem at the moment, isn't it? And I agree with you there, Rosemary. You're obviously referring to the complete twunk that is Elon Musk. I didn't realize that you could buy a driverless car yourself. I knew that there were licenses becoming available across the world for driverless taxis, but I didn't realize that you could have a personal driver's car.

Am I being really thick? I thought that the Tesla had a sort of driverless function. Yeah, where they kind of park it for you. But I didn't know how far that went. Okay. Do you know what I mean? I'm still not sure. Do you know what?

We definitely need to look into that, don't we? Because, I mean, it's too late for the interview, obviously, that we did with Jack and with James. That's true. But, yeah, I just wonder whether, because it will be the prerogative of the insanely wealthy to have driverless cars. Are they necessarily better drivers?

I don't know. I'm just putting that out there. I don't suppose what, I just suppose there'll ever be a survey, well, of how rich you are compared to how badly you drive. Yes. But I would like to think that usually the successful male, and our world of entrepreneurs is dominated by the successful male. James Payne claimed he was a great driver, but I don't know.

I've got no way of checking. It will be something that continues to interest me because I'm currently six points on my own license. I didn't want to say. I think I'm insanely interested. But that's a good point in itself. You just might be above a candidate for a driverless car. So here's a question, Eve.

If you can no longer drive your car because you've had your licence revoked because you've got too many points on your licence, can you be the safety driver in your own driverless car? Yeah, difficult to know. Can you have a drink? Yes, good point. Yeah, I mean, all kinds of things.

things. How much is that responsibility revoked from you? And if you are uninsurable, you know, because you've been involved in an accident, which has been proven to be your fault, then can you still be the safety driver in a driver in a driverless car? These are questions. How much emphasis has put on you as the operator? That I should have thought of before yesterday. I apologize. Well, no, it was a thought-provoking interview and it's provoked further thought. we should have we should have provoked previous thoughts me me in particular i'm not going to blame it on you absolutely me in particular right we'll get to the bottom of that

and jane will update you next week but club boors now this is such a dilemma i'm putting this out there and leaving it to you wonderful people in the hive to offer your advice incoming from somebody i only saw that just in time Yep. Swerve to avoid it. I wanted to share my experience of being in a book club with you and your listeners and get your advice as I'm sure many of the hive are in book clubs too.

I've been in a book club for about 10 years that's made up of a group of women who didn't know each other very well before we joined. There are a range of characters but we get along well enough. Don't always agree. But I always leave each book club having had an enjoyable evening. However, about a year ago, an interloper joined. She had somehow found out about us and turned up one evening. We are not a closed shop, but we don't advertise ourselves as we like the group as it is. And to be blunt, she's awful. From the first time she turned up, she was incredibly opinionated, patronising and overwhelming. We tend to like historical fiction, and she's an expert on every period of history that the books are set in,

and we'll happily sit and educate us on the inaccuracies of every novel we read. Her reviews of the books are long and pretentious to the point of being. difficult to decipher. I could go on, but I won't. I'm good friends with one of the members of my book club, and she has openly told me that this woman has spoiled the whole experience for her. There is a rival book club that one of our members has started to frequent recently, and I'm sure it's because she doesn't like our new edition either. I'm annoyed this woman has spoiled the book club. I don't know what to do about it. I've spoken about her to a couple of bookish friends, and they reckon that book clubs often attract people like her. They have had similar experiences.

what do I do, Jane, Fee, Eve and The Hive? And we're not mentioning anybody's name because the other person in the book group might be Times Radio listeners, she might be listening to this. Have you recently joined a book club and noticed people's eyes rolling back in their heads as you talk? Is it you? It's very tricky that one, isn't it?

Can you ask somebody to leave a book club? Well, no, because the whole premise of the book club is welcome. And I find this tough because my boyfriend's mum actually said to me once, she's in a book club, that the perfect formula for a book club is to not be too good friends with them because otherwise you'll sit around just chatting. So it sounds like they've really struck on a good dynamic by not being too close. Can you just arrange it for days that she's maybe busy? It's very difficult, isn't it?

Or phase her out? And what you don't want to have to do is to go to the bother of setting up another rival book club. I mean, it does sound like people have thought that's going to be the only option. But you can't all apart from her set up a rival book club somewhere, the knowledge of that will seep out.

But just how infuriating, how infuriating. If you had a really good thing going and now it's all gone tits up, then if you don't see her that much, is it kind of easy to avoid her and not let her know that you've got to get everyone on side if you start having it? Maybe you could just choose a whole series of books

that you know she's going to hate. And so she just volunteers herself out of it. Sounds like the kind of person that would kick up a fuss if that were to happen. Yeah, well, yeah, but maybe that's where you do a bit of back-channeling. And just suggest that you read Jiddy Cooper's entire back canon and see whether or not, you know,

changing Uvra pushes her out. Or, you know, only read self-help books by men. I'd leave quite quickly. See, that's not true. I've found some of them immensely helpful over the years Eve. Let's not let this terrible misanthropic behaviour enter our podcast. Do you know what, at the time, what's he called Peck book, The Road Less Travelled, is it Scott M. Peck?

Let's look that up. I always said, I just sometimes find the insistence on putting your initial in, just really annoying. I did when I was reading that. M. Scott Peck, sorry, I got that the wrong way around. I do remember enjoying it when I was in it. I can't now tell you anything from it though, but I definitely remember thinking,

oh, some of this is intriguing, I want to read the next chapter. But that was back in the days where the self-help section was quite small in a Waterston's foils or a dawns, rather than being a whole floor. It's exploded now. Maybe we should set up a rival Just don't help yourself Don't bother

Don't bother, that would be a good sexual Don't bother helping yourself Just don't bother at all So this is our final podcast for the week Isn't it? It is I'm off tomorrow as well And then Jane returns from Bordeaux

Baring chicory I would imagine And she has had an okay time Yes Yes And she did get there As we know Because she sent the voicemail as well

but also we had pinged before. Because I genuinely, Eve, I was a bit worried about that journey because it was still, I think, 40 degrees in Paris and you've got to get across Paris of your Euro-starring down to Bordeaux. And that can seem like it's going to be an easy thing. And I don't think it is. I've come a cropper on that transfer.

And those trains get very hot. They do get very hot and sometimes they get stuck. You know, there've been a lot of Euro stars that don't make it because there's trouble on the tracks. So I was genuinely a little bit worried. So fingers crossed, Jane will be back, safe in one piece, and all has been good, and you and her will be together for the whole of that week,

and then you're off. Then I'm off, yep. And you two will be reunited, and then we'll all be reunited, and God knows when. Yeah. Yeah, so it'll be me and Jane next week. So let's start a couple of things. We would love your instructions on how to get somebody else to exit a book club.

or what to do about that. We would also really love more pictures of bedside tables. Don't mess around with them. Just send them absolutely as they are. And if you've got some suggestions as well of decent wearable shoes that don't cause an affront to the human race, we're so happy to put those together. I just wanted to give a mention actually

because Helen, you were the person who sent in a really thought-provoking email about how much drive you. cars would help your son, who's 25 works eight miles away from home. He has epilepsy and would not be able to drive. So actually, driverless cars arriving in the Derby area would be a wonderful thing, too. And I just wanted to say hello to Helen, who had been to see the cure at Blackweir fields outside Cardiff in 35-degree heat and absolutely loved every moment. I think probably when they played a forest

everyone felt shady and hello to Mary you've only just got it oh my God the work the work is just lost on her absolutely lost on her forgive her because she's in her 20s

thank you that's quite right and Mary just wants to say thank you for the Peter Granger novel's recommendation honestly I'm unable to put them down and now on my third in a row and they're just bliss.

During the heat when you really can't think they're easy enough, during the UK political shit show, they're distracting enough. And I'm hoping during our inevitable dropout of the World Cup, they will be comforting enough. Can I also recommend him following on from the thread of us about teachers because he said some really wonderful things about being a teacher, and we both had that feeling, didn't we, that if he'd been our teacher, we'd have absolutely loved him.

Good point. Yeah, I think he would have been a... a fabulous teacher, and hence the kids giving him the nickname of the wise owl. And he was saying something important, wasn't he, you know, a good couple of years ago, which could have made such a difference to kids' lives. You know, don't swallow the pill that says university is right for everybody. So yes, all hail Robert Partridge. And I completely agree, Mary, I think his novels, and that's the reason why he sold a million copies of them on Amazon without having a publishing deal.

they're clever but they're easy and actually i think that's such a difficult trick to pull off right eve and i are going to go and put pen to paper we're going to think of a self-help book that we're going there don't bother section and i will talk to you again in about 10 days time but obviously stay with the podcast and have a lovely lovely week incoming is an interview that you do not want to miss it is with a woman who has changed legal history by seeing the vulnerability caused by her own divorce and not wanting that to happen to anybody else. It is well worth your time.

Varsha Gohull changed legal history when she divorced her husband after discovering his infidelity. She was awarded £270,000 and allowed to keep her Persho 306. She suspected he had more money than he had let on and she was right, left with three kids to bring up, forced to move back in with her parents, Varsha decided to do something about her situation. She trained as a lawyer and then represented herself in family court, the High Court,

then the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn that settlement, and she did, eventually setting a new legal precedent for divorce. And now, if you think your ex is hiding money, if you believe that you've been a victim of economic abuse, it's because of Varsha's work, that you could have the original agreement set aside and pursue a new settlement. The judge said her case would linger long in the memories of lawyers and judges and that her husband's conduct is at the highest end of the scale

in terms of dishonesty and its consequences. He recognised the toll that 23 years pursuing justice through the courts has taken and Varsha's new settlement is substantial. I spoke to Varsha earlier today, she started by telling me about her life before her marriage cracked, that of a good and decent wife and mother. It was a love marriage. I entered the family. I'm a Hindu, and it was an extended family, and that's quite common.

So as we're growing up, we're sort of conscious that we take on, not just the husband, but we sort of take on the whole family. So I entered a family. It was a whole extended family. and the marriage initially our relationship was very, very good. But moving into an extended family obviously made it a little bit difficult. But it was huge adjustment on my side more than anybody else. You were doing a lot of caring.

I mean, you had three children together at quite close an age. That's right. And you were within this extended family where the expectation was that you'd look after people. Absolutely. So everyone in the house. So there was the parents. parents-in-law and two sister-in-laws before they married and moved on. So I was literally, as soon as I married, I'd inherited a family and then had my children.

But anyway, it was ups and downs. So I would say fairly normal, you know, traditional roles. I'm looking after the home. He's going to work. Initially, I was working. But as soon as he made strides in his career, He didn't have to worry about anything at home. He said that I can and should stay at home and raise the children

because by then I was pregnant with my second child. And you were living a nice life. I mean, a good standard of living was there for you. That's right. I mean, I think it's not dissimilar to probably any woman who enters a marriage. You just trust your husband and you're playing your part and you trust him to play his part. So yes, the children were young, they were going to good schools.

So, you know, we had a life plan for all of us. And we were going along. And so, yes, arguably I was happy in that, okay, we were secure. What happened in 2002? So basically in 2002, all of that just blew over in the sense that basically I discovered a very long-standing affair. and it was horrific. And actually no woman should have to go through it, but I found his emails and the graphic details

that spanned two years. And then I went through immense trauma of trying to sort of place what we were doing at the time while he was cheating on me. So that was very, very harrowing. And as soon as I realized that that really was the end of the marriage and it just couldn't go on.

So I instructed lawyers and decided that I would issue a petition. You then went to live with your parents and took the children with you. And in that original divorce settlement, tell us what you were awarded by the court. Yes, I was awarded 270,000 and I was allowed to keep my runabout, my Peugeot, and maintenance which is £300 per child and £500 for me per month. So that is by no means even back then a very generous or eye-watering settlement, is it? That's what your husband said he was able to afford in order to keep you and his children living a decent life. Yes, that's right.

And really that was the only deal on the table. It was take it or leave it. And yes, it wouldn't have provided us a house. It may be a studio flat. So, yeah. But I think that was his intention to make sure that I wasn't so empowered that I was going to have a good life after leaving him. Right.

I mean, he was the one who had the affair. So, yes, we can make of that what we will. Yes. Why did you think? Hang on a sec. There's more money in the pot. This shouldn't be all that I'm awarded. Because throughout our marriage, there was bits of information.

Although he looked after our finances, there was bits of information provided to me. Don't worry, you know, I'm earning really well. Or yes, we have lots of money. And just before we separated, there was just coincidentally a incident where he did say that, you know, I'm wealthier than everyone in this room and I'm worth 10 million. So that was the first time ever that a figure was put on our wealth, the wealth that he said, don't worry, we've got it.

Yeah, which suddenly disappeared. Yes, absolutely. So, I mean, I think people listening will be absolutely astounded that there was a time where there was really very little that anybody could do to challenge what somebody brought to court as proof of their wealth. But this is a fact, isn't it? That he could just say, anybody in a divorce case,

you know, a wealthy wife could say, this is all I've got, this is all you're entitled to. Yes, absolutely. I mean, honestly, when I initiated the divorce proceedings, I was under the impression that I can go to a lawyer, tell him my story, and everything else would take care of itself. But absolutely, that was not the case. I had to prove that he had the wealth that I'm saying he had.

And that was impossible because the for me disclosure is the key document. And in that he didn't have anything apart from a small pot. And there was no way of saying, of kind of pushing him up against a legal wall to say you've got to show me more bank accounts or more expenditure. No, because you know what? legal proceedings are very expensive. Everything you do costs so much. So there's a limit to how much you can keep going. And if a person does not want to be honest,

they don't want to be honest. There's not much the court can do. And that is the problem. You know, there are penalties, but nothing so severe that it stops someone saying no. Well, we will come to your part in changing all of that in a couple of moments' time. But just tell us when you thought you're living with your parents, your world has really collapsed around you, you're looking after young children.

When did you think, right? Actually, for me, I want to go and do something with my life and I'm going to train to be a lawyer. Yes. Well, I was rock bottom. All I had was the 270,000. And a large chunk of that went for my legal fees. so I had very little left. And there was no way I was going to be able to provide my children with the lifestyle or even support them.

So really, I was rock bottom. And after a period of sort of processing what had happened, you know, I was so disillusioned. I was so disturbed that the justice system wasn't working and how could this happen to me. That after a process of healing, I did then one day, I woke up. up and I thought, right, what does the future look like for us? And that's when I decided to study law because I said, well, obviously he's not going to provide. Therefore, I will make sure that my children suffer no further if I can help it. So that's when I decided to study law. And by then, I'd done a couple of hearings. So I was feeling quite familiar and intrigued. And maybe it was my calling.

And did you also think I want to train to be a lawyer because I want to kind of re-investigate my own case? It wasn't as clear as that. I think I felt like why, why this injustice, certainly. I wanted to know why it had happened like that. But I think my primary reason was that, look, you know, the legal profession pays well. I was enjoying it.

And it's good for the children to feel like their mother, that domestic queen has. stood up and she's going to now be this wear the trousers. Well, it's no mean feat to get a law degree in the first place. It is certainly no mean feat to get a law degree when you're also bringing up three children. Yes. Oh, it was incredibly challenging because I had the three children. I had my hat as a mother. I was also having to litigate because no maintenance was forthcoming. And in relation to my studies, by then I'm in my, in my, 30s, mid-30s, and I'm saying, right, I don't have time to fail any exams. So I've got to

do it all, pass it. So I put in an incredible amount of work. So I used to drop off the children at school, go to university, pick them up, and then the mother had. And weekends. Just all hail to you for that. Thank you. Let's talk about some of the key dates then that happened in your case. I mean, your ex-husband revealed himself to be involved in some pretty unpleasant criminal stuff, didn't he, which alerted you to an opportunity to actually pursue the finances. Tell us a bit more. Yes, that's right.

So out of the blue, you know, it was, I heard that he was being investigated. And then he was charged for criminality. I had heard, never heard the names involved, didn't know anything about it. So for me, it came as such a shock. And for children, even worse, because it's such a, it's such a shaming situation, as if the divorce and how we'd been treated wasn't bad enough. So this was now another cloud of shame. I knew nothing.

All I could do was read what was being reported. And this was a fraud case. Yes, that's right. It was a fraud case. And like I said, I knew nothing about the names or what he was involved with. So I was just monitoring the situation to see what I could find out. And what did you find out? So slowly, slowly I found out mainly in his criminal trial,

which happened two years after he was charged, about the actual nature of the crimes and what was involved and what he did. And I must say, I was shocked. I didn't realize that. That was the sort of man I was married to. I knew from how he had behaved in the divorce that this is a character that I never thought would ever surface. But this one was a completely different kettle of fish.

So, yeah, it was a lot to take in. We suffered all the consequences of having him and his situation and how it impacted on us. At what point did you manage to get the court to agree to reconsider the original financial settlement that you have been awarded? That happened actually in 2008, about the time that he was being investigated and charged, because I actually had some evidence which was provided to me by his father. Because one of the methods in which he hid all the money was to say,

oh, that belongs to my parents or my sisters or someone else, friends, whatever. So the father was named as the beneficiary of certain assets. So when he came forward and he said, well, actually, no, sorry, I have nothing to do with this. This is nothing, I didn't buy that. That's my sons. That was powerful evidence. And so I had that. And I was progressing with my set aside.

And then this criminal case happened. And then it got paused. Right. I mean, the timings on all of this far. are just absolutely mind-bending. It has taken so long for you to actually get what you and your children deserved. So let's make a leap to, is it 2015 when the Supreme Court are looking again at this financial settlement? I mean, in brief, what has happened in those years between 2008 and 2015?

So as soon as the criminal case happened, the CPS and he both, were saying, sorry, it can't do the family case because we have to do this. And if I say something in that court, it's going to implement me in this court. And I was caught in the middle. It's like, it's like being caught hanging onto a bus and it's just moving forward. So I was stuck. I had no choice whatsoever. So what happened up to 15 was part of the process, which is I restored the case and then the courts made directions. And finally, in 2012, it was heard in the High Court over eight days. And I was granted set aside.

But then my ex-husband appealed that. And he succeeded on a very technical point, which I knew the minute it happened, that it was wrong. And then we had to proceed to the Supreme Court, because the only way you can reverse a court of appeal decision is to go to a higher court. Right. Okay. He really is a peach, isn't he? Tell us what has ultimately happened in this case. And I don't mean to brush over all of those subsequent years of fighting. But it wasn't until 2023 that a judgment was made. And is this the one that is very significant now in legal precedent? Yes, absolutely. So the Supreme Court judgment is the precedent for set aside.

And what does the term set aside mean in reality? Set aside just means that you've had an original order and now you want to apply to set that aside and have your financial settlement reconsidered. And you have to set it aside based on new evidence. Right. And it means, I mean, exactly is what happened to you. But if you find yourself up against an adversary who has hidden money, who has very deliberately denied access to records, if you can find something that means you don't believe him, you are now entitled to ask a court to look again.

Yes, it has to be a fundamental and material change of circumstances. But again, it's another set of proceedings. So, you know, you've got to have deep pockets as well. Can you just tell us what the judge's pronouncement ultimately was? Because I know for you it was quite moving to hear in legal terms the recognition of your personal struggle. So the judge has given this fantastic judgment in which he has articulated, analyzed, pointed to all the evidence. And the most difficult position in my case was that we had to separate the criminal proceeds of crime. and the judge had to identify what would have been potentially matrimonial going back two decades.

It's unraveling all of that and putting it in a judgment. And he came to absolutely the correct decision. So that has moved me tremendously. Did you ever wake up of a morning? Let's just pick a random date somewhere in March 2018 and just think, I cannot do this anymore? There were many times where I was worn out and I had to take a brief, break or I had to say right today I can't do anything and I had to pick myself up from all of that but

because of the evidence I had and because along the way they were I had achieved sort of milestones I knew that the case was strong so it was just a case of getting through all the criminal issues and carrying on and getting to the final hearing and that got delayed it was scheduled and then adjourned and postponed and oh it was hard and ultimately did you receive from your ex-husband enough money to even partly compensate from the difficulties that he placed you and your children's lives in I would say that actually we've lost 25 years of our lives and we've suffered tremendously. I mean, you can't bring back what you've lost. We've got something and the judge has in effect given compensation. But that compensation, I mean, I'm 62, you know, and I have

lost maybe the best years of my life. The children have suffered. So I think this is a fair award and it will certainly help us to get ourselves on our feet. and hopefully start fresh, but I don't know. I don't know. How can you compensate for all of that? But I'm pleased that it is sufficient and it will certainly help us. Well, I think I speak for everybody who's listening to this interview, Vasha. I think you're an absolutely remarkable, remarkable woman.

Your son is in the room with us and I don't want to put you on the spot at all. But she is quite something, isn't she? Absolutely quite something. Absolutely. Yeah. What a real pleasure to meet you. And thank you for all of you've done. I mean, you have changed the legal landscape for other women and it has mostly been women who have found themselves in your situation. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Varsha Gohill and anybody who's found themselves in the midst of divorce proceedings owes that woman just so, so much. The idea that full disclosure didn't really have. have to happen. Oh my goodness, how many lives that must have ruined before Varsha made it her business and her lifetime's work to change it. So what an extraordinary woman. Enjoy the next week or so.

Jane and Fee at Times Dot Radio is our email address and stay cool. Everybody, stay cool. Keep your feet to yourself. Congratulations. You've staggered somehow to the end of another off-air with Jane and Fee. Thank you. If you'd like to hear us do this live, and we do do it live, every day, Monday to Thursday, 2 till 4 on Times Radio. The jeopardy is off the scale. And if you listen to this, you'll understand exactly why that's the case. So you can get the radio online, on DAB, or on the free Times Radio app. Offair is produced by Eve Salisbury, and the executive producer is Rosie Cutler.