Off Air... with Jane and Fi - The ski lifts beckon, darling

Episode Date: January 26, 2023

Jane and Fi are joined by 'Diva Divorce Lawyer' Ayesha Vardag on her strict dress codes and high profile clients.Also, the news you've all been waiting for: what did Jane think of Othello?If you want to contact the show to ask a question and get involved in the conversation then please email us: [e-mail] Producer: Kate LeeTimes Radio Producer: Rosie CutlerPodcast Executive Producer: Ben Mitchell Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

VoiceOver describes what's happening on your iPhone screen. VoiceOver on. Settings. So you can navigate it just by listening. Books. Contacts. Calendar. Double tap to open. Breakfast with Anna from 10 to 11. And get on with your day. Accessibility. There's more to iPhone. Welcome.

And I know what you're thinking. What does Jane have to say about Othello? Well, don't worry. Fast forward. Within three minutes, we'll be back on track, kids. Off you go. Well, the funny thing was, I went with my dear friend. Don't need to name her. Well, actually, I probably wouldn't matter because she's definitely never listened to this.

She's the beginning of the menopause. She's slightly in denial. Claims she here to tell you she is she booked these tickets for othello and um i think i did make clear that i was slightly ambivalent about rounding off quite a long day at work with a shakespearean event in the evening and we got to the theater and it turned out that um she'd actually got the tickets which is very kind of a for monday and it was wednesday when we turned up and it was the, not the following Monday but the previous Monday. So they're looked as though, are you still paying attention? Like I said, I'm back

in, back in the room, three minutes time, you crack on love. Well there was a window for me to I thought, I can't help it, I'm human a part of me thought, oh shit, we can't go never mind, we'll go for a drink or something to eat instead. I don't mind.

And then we got other tickets. Not just any old tickets were on the front row. Oh, gosh. So now I'm really listening. So it was a company called Frantic Assembly. And they're very, very good. And it's very physical, lots of choreography, lots of dance. It was set around a billiard table and everyone was in tracksuits and baseball caps.

And it was amazing as a spectacle. But it was and this is going to sound utterly ridiculous, bearing in mind what I'd gone to see. It was very violent, very violent. Obviously, there's lots of death at the end. One poor female character just sort of passes away in a corner of the stage. Spoiler alert. Barely noticed by anybody else. At one point, Othello,

because I don't think this is really a spoiler, because I think people are aware it's one of the Shakespearean tragedies. Othello comes on stage bleeding profusely and holding a knife and says, do not be afraid. And I thought, I'm afraid at that point everybody laughed because it was quite scary. But very, very good.

Lovely. Janie has sent in this email which says, I love the normalcy and sheer lack of crisis in your ramblings. The stress of going away for half term and working out the needs for domestic felines. Wait for this, everybody. This morning, I've been coordinating with my husband a safe return of a bull elephant.

Due to climate change and human conflict, this elephant has found refuge on our farm in the Rift Valley in Kenya. However, at eight o'clock last night, he went wandering in the nearby area, which is highly populated with small farms. At six o'clock this night, he went wandering in the nearby area, which is highly populated with small farms. At 6 o'clock this morning, when we realised the danger he and our neighbours were in, we coordinated with the Kenya Wildlife Service and the local administration to persuade the elephant to return to his safe space at the farm.

Thank goodness for mobile phones and dedicated people, we were able to gently herd him back into the farm. This is a huge privilege despite the stress and disruption to the daily running of a mixed farm. I know, sitting at my desk listening to your podcast and A Different World, a sante sana or thank you, says Janie. Well, that puts my shall I do two cat litter trays, to shame, doesn't it? And it almost makes a mockery of my review of Othello. Almost.

No, darling, your crit was lovely. It really was. Janie, I just would like to know more, please. I want to know about where you are exactly. And I really did not know that elephants, or bull elephants in particular maybe, I don't know, have had to move where they are. They've had to leave their natural habitat because of climate change or human conflict. When you think about the damage that humans have done to the other inhabitants of this planet, it is food for thought, isn't it? Very much so. But also, Barbara's not eating normal cat food. She is refusing normal cat food.

And I had to go out and buy a tin. And I thought I would never do this as a lifelong pet owner. Gourmet cat food. You know the stuff that's twice the price but half the size? That. She's only eating that. She's a naughty little thing, Barbara. She's gone gourmet.

She's going to be trouble. I can tell. Brian's completely normal. He's happy to take it all. He's the one who purrs first, got a lovely little fat tum on him. Abrazo, gourmet! Right.

This is all a long way from Kenya, Janie, isn't it? But a little insight there into feline antics round at Fiona's. Thank you so much for that insight into your life in Kenya, and I'd like to know more about that. You would as well, wouldn't you? Very much so.

A farm in the Rift Valley. That is absolutely fantastic. This from Louise. My husband is in his 50s and is part of a male mate's WhatsApp group. Now, they regularly share videos and images that are degrading to women. I think he does feel a bit uncomfortable about it and sometimes shows me the chat. Examples would be their sexist comments about our mutual friends, porno videos, just inappropriate stuff. They wouldn't put it on a mixed WhatsApp group.

They just don't think it's bad and it's funny with no thought about women. It does make me sad to think that my friends are laughing about images that are degrading to women. And I'm really not sure what to do about it. Louise, oh God, mulling that one over. I don't. It's a hard one, that, isn't it? Because this is our husband and she loves her husband and he sounds like a decent bloke. But he's got mates and there probably are things, let's face it, that men say to other men and in the company exclusively of men that they wouldn't say when there are women around.

And there are things that women talk about when we're on our own, often about men, that we wouldn't share with men. But this sounds as though it's a little bit worse than that, doesn't it? I can genuinely say in all of my all-female WhatsApp groups that nobody's ever circulated anything that's horrendously degrading about men. Because I know what Louise is talking about. We all know what Louise is talking about.

And there's just more stuff out there that is degrading to women. But it's such a tricky one because I bet in lots and lots of ways, Louise, your husband's lovely and thoughtful. And, you know, I'm sure a lot of the other men on that group were presenters being lovely and thoughtful too and perhaps they just genuinely don't know that if I suppose you could

just ask him if you published all of that or somebody found your phone and published all of that really would you be happy with it would you feel okay would you feel that was a fair reflection of how you think about women I suspect that it's not until it's flushed out into the open that lots of men would think, oh, I'm not sure about that. Well, there's been a lot of stuff, hasn't there? A lot of talk about the police WhatsApp groups where people who clearly we should have expected higher standards from were sharing really inappropriate stuff amongst each other. Sorry, go on.

I think you're right. I mean, I'm in lots of WhatsApp groups and nobody has ever attempted to share a pornographic image on any of the WhatsApp groups that I'm a member of. And I would be horrified if they did. But I suppose you've got to say, how would Louise's husband be treated, how would he be thought of if he were the bloke who called it out and said to the other members of the group,

I'm really sorry, I'm going to have to leave because I'm finding this really uncomfortable. And I respect women and I love my wife. And please stop sharing this stuff. Well, Louise starts her email to us saying, I was listening to your podcast yesterday and you were discussing men who are unwilling to change and don't see their behaviour as sexist or inappropriate. And that's the point, isn't it? Just lots of men who don't think that they're doing anything wrong because the overwhelming tide that has swept them along as young men, teenage boys into adult life has kind of made it acceptable to watch those images of women and i suppose you just do have to get to a time when you you need to you need to both be looking at it and your husband needs to understand how it makes you feel so yes it might be uncomfortable to be that man but maybe he should be it but he's closer to it than Louise is so that's what we were saying wasn't it that women trying to call it out it's just it's just not working Jane

let's accept failure on that front because we're seen as po-faced or you know oh it was just a joke or you know whatever it is so it's like it is up to men to say I'm not sure well Louise that hasn't helped you very much, I suspect. And it's slightly putting the pressure on you to tell your husband he ought to leave the WhatsApp group, which is not easy, because if that's the way he communicates with his mates, that's quite a tall order. But all of us have been in conversations, haven't we,

or been at nights out when the conversation takes a turn that we don't like and you know if somebody said something racist at the my um primary school night in tomorrow night i'm not at primary school but these this group of women that i meet with every friday night to air our concerns about our week um nobody would but if they did somebody would call it out yep and it's the same thing really there's a really really brilliant email an anonymous one can i read all of this yes just because i think it's very good isn't it so so important um so it's along the same kind of lines and it's based on the conversation that we were having off the back of the interview with emily atak in the times which is her saying am i in any way to blame for all of the trolling that I get

because I post pictures of myself in bikinis and whatever? This reminded me of something I dealt with as a teacher in a co-ed secondary school, which comes back to me every time this topic is discussed. In a pastoral role, I had to tell a basically decent teenage boy that he was being suspended for sending a dick pic to a girl. He was in tears of distress at the thought of the humiliation of this, but it was not difficult to see that he was also experiencing genuine heartbreak. And he kept saying, I thought she liked me. She had confused

him by being what he had interpreted as a bit flirtatious. And his dick pic was a modern version of what we used to call a clumsy pass. She had a collection of such pictures sent to her by the cool boys that everybody fancies, it turned out, which she had not reported to the school authorities. I don't want to relate this story, says our emailer, to encourage victim blaming, but my heart bled for him and I do think that if we want decent men, such as the one I'm sure he's grown up to be, to engage in discussions about misogyny, we need to be careful not to accuse them of trying to defend the indefensible when they the problem effectively, which is quite simply, why? And I just couldn't agree with you more, because I think it is of absolutely no surprise to me

that some teenage boys are part of groups where porn is circulating, are sending pictures like that to girls, because there are some girls who are sending the equivalent pictures to boys and so to blame it all on men all the time I think is incredibly unhelpful and how you're meant to learn the rules of engagement at the moment I just don't know because there are mean girls as well as difficult boys And if we don't let boys speak up and explain what it is that they're facing, actually, and what they think they're being asked to do, then you're absolutely right. We're never going to get to the heart of it.

And I hate that kind of, you know, I hate that all men will turn to it. It's just not true. It's just not true. But it must be so confusing at the moment. And also, who'd be a teacher at a secondary school right now? I'm not sure I'd relish the prospect. No, but you sound like an absolutely lovely teacher because you've been able to see the nuance in what is undoubtedly an incredibly difficult

and just embarrassing situation, actually. Yeah. The dick pic used to be something that... difficult and just embarrassing situation, actually. Yeah. The dick pic used to be something that, well, it was unthinkable, wasn't it? I mean, absolutely unthinkable that this is where we've ended up. And it's sort of half tragic, occasionally does make you laugh,

just at the sheer absurdity of it. And our emailer is absolutely right. You know, a modern version of what we used to call a clumsy pass. Yep. Sometimes I just think, what would my nan say? Honestly, what would they make of it? Yep. But also, girls do send pictures.

Oh, God, I mean... Two. Yeah, absolutely. But equally extraordinary. Very much so. That we can agree on. Right. I'm going to end, by the way, we're going to hear from our big guest today on our Times radio show. But I will end with a little bit of advice from Kirsty Allsop.

Oh, please do. No, that's at the end. Oh, that'll make everything better. Well, I like... Is it about craft? It isn't, although I like Kirsty. I think I love Phil, although I like Kirsty. I think I love Phil Spencer and I like location, location, location.

But I'm mainly interested in theatre. Now, our big guest today was Aisha Vardag. She is known in some quarters as the divorce diva. You might know her as someone who spends quite a lot of time in headlines in the newspapers, banging on about how she doesn't like cardigans. She's someone who likes a particular statement office efficient wear in her incredibly salubrious offices at Vardags, which is her uber successful marital disharmony legal company, which she runs with her chief executive husband, who's her second husband. Two of her children are also working for Vardags. You could say divorce is a family affair for the Vardags.

So Aisha is a woman who is the go-to person if you're absolutely loaded and tragically your marriage is falling apart. And she describes in the interview how frankly if there are two really rich people getting divorced it's whoever gets the mobile phone first and dials her they get her she can't represent them both she'll just she'll just go for the person who calls her first it might be just worth making a note of Aisha's number if you are married and minted and listening to this podcast so So I began by asking Aisha, is it true that she had actually banned the cardigan? Very much so. Cardigans and anything woolly, or as I put it, anything that you could cosy up by the fire with would not be okay. Because your people are not cosy, because you don't want them to be comfortable,

because you think it looks sloppy. What is it? So we're talking about the old dress code now, which was very much a classic city legal look. So tailored suits, it was jackets, not cardigans. It was tailored skirts or trousers as people preferred, classic shoes, classic hair. It was just a very classic legal look because that was the professional standard that we were adopting. And your customers are high end. They have to be because the last time anyone could get a figure, you were charging about £1,200 an hour plus VAT. Dare I ask what it might be now? I think that's still the case. I think that's still my rate. Although, of course, I have a strategic role in the majority of cases. And then we have a whole army of other lawyers who actually run things day to day under my direction. So in the nicest possible way, Aisha, you don't deal with run of the mill divorces, do you? What's your starting point? How much money has to be involved? How much property? What are we talking before you'll enter the mix?

I mean, it depends whether you're talking about Vardags, my firm, and broadly, I think that the easiest rule of thumb would be to say that we deal with millionaires, which is a much bigger category nowadays than it used to be. For me personally, it's generally cases in the hundreds of millions that I am personally fully involved with. Right. We are talking really, really wealthy people here. And do you think these people simply have unrealistic expectations of marriage? No, I don't think anyone goes into marriage with unrealistic expectations. I think marriage is incredibly hard, partly because we all live a lot longer than we used to, partly because we're all more independent. We have a lot more autonomy than we used to. So women,

for example, didn't used to have a lot of choices if they were unhappy in a marriage. for example, didn't used to have a lot of choices if they were unhappy in a marriage. And the combination of two autonomous people going through long phases and changes in their lives means that inevitably there can be shifts, there can be partings of the way. The problem is if people start saying, well, if that happens, it's a calamity, it's a catastrophe, everybody's failed, somebody's been very bad. The smart thing to do is to say, OK, we have this time together and now it's a new chapter and let's just manage all of that really fairly and really decently. If only it would be most people's experience of divorce.

It should be possible. Perhaps it does happen and perhaps you try to make it possible. Can I put to you the accusation, Aisha, that all too many divorce lawyers will actually make relations between the two parties worse and not better? I very much agree with that. I think it used to be worse in the past. And there was a sense that people wanted a divorce lawyer who was going to be nasty and aggressive and make the other side feel bad. And they would channel the kind of aggression and the hurt and anger of the wounded party, as it were, against the other side. That really, I feel, has absolutely no place in divorce law. In divorce law, you're generally dealing with two perfectly civilized people. Nobody's a bad person. Nobody's done anything dreadful other than all of

us as we are all are very imperfect. And what you're trying to do is resolve things and sort things out between them in the context of them very often remaining a family, albeit a family that's parted and gone in different directions because there are very often still children there in the mix they're going to carry on co-parenting them in a perfect world they'll still have dinners and birthdays and graduations together or even holidays together and so what you want to try to do is to get everything sorted out for them so that your client gets the absolute maximum that they can, but that that's done in a decent civilised way. And nasty, snipey,

threatening behaviour has no place in family law. Are you still shockable, Aisha, or have you seen and heard it all before? I think it's hard to shock me now. I think you don't go into family law if you're very shockable. You have to be very open to how dreadful people can be sometimes in extremists, dreadful people can be sometimes in extremists, how cruel they can sometimes be, how ridiculous they can be, and how vulnerable they are. Often family lawyers, it's a very particular part of the law. People go into it who've loved literature and psychology and understanding people and their stories. When you're that kind of person, you're not really a very shockable person. Can we go right back to the case that made your name, really, the landmark case about prenups? And I was reading a little bit about this. It was between a German heiress and a French husband,

and the heiress had quite a bit of money to protect. And just explain how you made your name around that particular case. So there was a conventional law on prenuptial agreements that in England they weren't recognised. They were void, actually, as contrary to public policy because they contemplated divorce. And then any time the court thought about them, they said, well, you know, it's very mean to women, these poor women. You know, they sign these things and then they're left in trouble and we shouldn't let that happen to the poor things and uh and so broadly i said first of all well the idea that it's void as contrary to public policy that is out of the window once we're contemplating divorce the idea of a prenup that just would manage things upon divorce being void because of that is just outdated obsolete you need to throw that away. And that was thrown away completely, completely

eradicated from the law of hundreds of years of that sort of that outdated notion. And then the next thing I very much took was, if women want their place at the table that they deserve and equal opportunity and equal access to power and money, then they need to be willing to have equal responsibility. You can't say on the one hand, I want my place at the table. And on the other hand, oh, I'm such a flimsy, fragile little thing. And I get so kind of all fluffy about the idea of getting married that don't hold me to my bargains. And I said this, this idea, this paternalism within family law is doing women a huge disfavor. Now, it was very helpful that in this instance, it was the woman who had the money. Usually it's the other way around. I think that helped the judges to focus their minds on the reality of the situation and look at this from the perspective

of equality and the idea that also that the couples ought to have the autonomy to determine their own affairs. My other very strong position was that there's a contract anyway. It's a state contract at the moment. The state jumps in and tells you how you're going to organize things. Why shouldn't couples be able to agree those things between each other in the good times when they respect each other, when they have a choice about whether they're going to get married or not, rather than just have the court impose it later. Because having that happen, having the court impose these huge orders of 50% of someone's entire net asset, for example, was stopping people from getting married at all.

And that wasn't good for anyone. So fortunately, those arguments persuaded the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and that was how we changed the law. the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. And that was how we changed the law. Do you think that this country does have a very fair divorce system? And do people come here to use it? Whether it's fair or not depends on your perspective. If you're the one who doesn't have the money, it is very, the perspective is that it's very, very fair because English law has the principle that there's no discrimination between breadwinner and homemaker. So if you were at home, either supporting your spouse through the building of a home or taking care of children or doing whatever and they don't like to get into it doesn't matter that he or she was out there bringing home the you know the money um you

just share it all equally and you view it as a partnership one big pot that you built up together you share it out broadly equally um of course if you're the person who made the money that can feel very unfair and it feels even it feels much more unfair when it's someone who really feels that their spouse hasn't made a contribution in fact has been positively unhelpful and and then it then it feels very wrong and the fact is the law can't can the, as one judge said, we don't like to rummage around in the attic of the marriage to see how someone actually behaved.

So really, there we go. Sure, but that must be fair. It must be fairer for women who have largely taken the domestic role throughout history. One hopes that it is changing now because apart from anything else, it would just

be very difficult after maybe 10, 15 years of being at home to suddenly pick up a career that would enable you to make the same kind of money that your spouse had made. The way it used to be was that you would meet both parties' needs. So if you had a spouse that had been working at home, perhaps was unable to get a position in the workplace, then they would get either a lump sum or maintenance that would meet their needs for whatever period they were going to need that, be that their whole lives in some cases. That's different from potentially dividing up a billion pound fortune and splitting it down the middle. And that is where people debate,

is it really fair to give the person who didn't earn the money, didn't do any part of it, but did stay at home providing the contribution that they were making, is it fair to give them the share of that whole giant fortune or should you just generously meet their needs? That's where the debate is voiceover describes what's happening on your iphone screen voiceover on settings so you can navigate it just by listening books contacts calendar double tap to open. Breakfast with Anna from 10 to 11. And get on with your day. Accessibility. There's more to iPhone.

Our big guest this afternoon is divorce lawyer Ayesha Vardag. Ayesha, when you've got a pair of really successful people who are splitting up, and I guess there's a fair chance that they both might want your services, do you pick the woman, do you pick the man, or is it just a question of whoever picks up the phone first? Yeah, it's whoever gets to us first. Really? Yes. It's as simple as that?

Yes. I wonder how many people have you on speed dial. Well, I'm thinking in the rare chance that I get married again, I certainly would just take I should, although I'm not sure I could afford it. Do you have to like your clients or does it not matter one iota? You don't have to like your clients and you have, you know, you have to be very conscious that as a lawyer, you actually have a real responsibility to try to do justice. And when you have a client in front of you, it's not your job to judge them. It's your job to put their case. However, it's actually quite difficult not to like your clients.

Usually you get very involved with them. You're involved with their side of the story. They often have very raw emotions and they turn to you with their sense of need. And getting involved, helping someone like that, it forms a very strong connection. It's very difficult not to like them. Yeah, so empathy is required, which probably isn't true in all areas of the law, is it? Yeah, that's absolutely right. I think there are probably areas of the law in which empathy is a disadvantage. I used to work in the city doing, you know, bond issues and project financing power stations. And there, having a load of empathy wouldn't have helped me at all. It was intellectually interesting.

But that was it. Whereas now, my work is all about empathy because it's about understanding what your client really wants and then going and getting them that, not just telling them this is what it is, this is how it's going to be. It's listening, understanding, and then telling their story in a way that's really true and going to resonate with the court. Yes. Of course, we should say most divorces don't get anywhere near a court, do they? It just doesn't work that way for the vast majority of people divorcing. That's absolutely right. And that's a very good thing.

There has to be an awful lot at stake to make it worth going to court and spending a load of money on lawyers and having a conflict and the stress that that involves. It's much better to try and settle things around your kitchen table. As long as there's no inequality, no abusive position, much better people sort things out for themselves. You must have seen some quite strange clauses in the divorces of the very, very super rich and possibly very, very famous.

I mean, are there things like, you know, I can't possibly live without the swans. You know, I really do need the helicopter on a Wednesday. Can you maybe entertain us with some of the lighter side of divorce there is a lot of that and we'd have people fighting for sort of months or even years over the very special pet rabbit until ultimately the rabbit dies and and then you know long long battles over the stereo system that would end up going on and costing more than the stereo system. But both sides were so entrenched.

One side was actually having a wisdom tooth removed. And it was very stubborn. I was in the dentist's chair. dentist chair but my assistant lawyer was ringing me from on site at someone's house where the man our client was trying to kind of dig up the garden lights because he said these are mine these should be mine and uh and i talk him down in between the drilling in my wisdom tooth so it's kind of um never a dull moment yes do you are you ever just driven to despair by the hateful pettiness of some individuals? I mean, I hate to say it, but hateful pettiness is kind of my stock in trade. I have to just absorb it.

And you understand people become a little bit irrational when it's you know they're feeling devastated there are bigger things that are hurting them a sense of loss of abandonment of worthlessness of you know never being happy again but that might cause them just to freak out about the coffee maker and you know all they're doing it's just symptomatics you have to try and understand where they're really coming from so So yes, pettiness isn't really necessarily hateful. It's just pain. Yes. And I suppose some of my sympathy is reserved for those people who are deeply unhappy with another person, but actually can't afford to split up. And you don't see those people, but they're out there, they're still together and they're eking out what could be decades of misery.

Yeah, and that should never happen. And divorce is now available to everyone. You don't have to prove fault in some way. You can engage in your divorce. And then it is just a question of though, of trying to make limited resources that were available to two people share out, you know, into two individuals and making it work with the family. And of course, the state needs to help with that in those circumstances,

and frankly, needs to be providing more legal aid for couples to get lawyers to help them in that. Cutting legal aid for couples to get lawyers to help them in that. Cutting legal aid for divorce financial cases was just a huge, was a disaster. And then making it available only when there's domestic violence results in people alleging domestic violence when, you know, when they shouldn't be just to get financial help. So that was a bit of a fiasco. That was leading divorce lawyer Aisha Vardag and um well neither of us could afford her hopefully there won't be a next time

oh I think that's very unlikely for me are you planning on a marital adventure again no not in a million not in a trillion billion gazillion years although of course health and safety coming up you You are better protected if you're married than cohabiting, aren't you? Yes. Legally, I'm talking about. If there's huge amounts of money involved, put a ring on it. That's all I'll say. Because then you've got some hope of getting your mitts on the squillions. Yes, but that's a terrible, terrible way to look at love.

You know how romantic I am? It's just the way I am. It's terribly romantic. I mean, I was interested in what she said about prenups, but it is a peculiar thing, isn't it, to sit there. She's right. She said, look, in the good times, that's when you're able to talk logically and sensibly

and there's no heat in the room about what you would do if you split up but who honestly truly does get married thinking well we're likely to break up it's a it's a peculiar set of circumstances clearly prenups are very sensible if you can afford them but it's a funny state of mind yes and i think prenups are a million miles away from entering my world. I think most people's worlds. It's a shame we didn't have more time actually with Aisha because she's got a fascinating life story.

Not least having two children in her 50s for which I really salute her. But there are so many questions I'd like to ask her just about tiredness, fatigue and also how that changes your horizon. We spent quite a lot of the programme today. And actually, we have this week, you know, talking about ageing.

There's something funny going on with our attitude to ageing at the moment, isn't there? Where we're celebrating this huge kind of ability to live longer. Yeah. Whilst at the same time, really, really already worrying about how people will afford that and whether or not you'll stay in good health whilst buying lots and lots of anti-ageing creams and drinking strange potions to make us look younger is all a bit of a kibosh.

But if you have children, I mean, she had a baby at 52, your horizon about your old age must be very different. I was fascinated. We'll have to get her back on. So she was 52, so the child will be 18. So she'll be 70 when the child enters adulthood. Yeah, I mean, it's just very different, isn't it? Well, I think it's pretty different, difficult to be 58 with a 19-year-old sometimes.

Actually, she's nearly 20. I can't believe that. I'm not going to have a teenager by February 5th. That's incredible. Happy birthday. Thank you. Yes, I was there. No, no, to you, to her.

I was thinking, do you know what? I seriously do think it's about you. Well, I always do, obviously. But I do think birthdays are clearly for the mother, aren't they? No, they're not. So I'm going to university, to her digs not so I'm going to university to her digs and I'm going to turn up and say come on darling it's all about me me

so do you think that on your birthday do you think this is actually a day to celebrate my mum right let's talk you mentioned ageing and let's talk about Kirsty also who has said that she believes that being a little bit plump helps her to look young now this has been a difficult week for me because I

think it was on Tuesday I can't be certain at about 20 past three can't be absolutely certain may have been 21 minutes past three a listener texted in to say I wasn't fat I was pleasantly plump well I hadn't called you fat. That was the thing. You were talking about dropping 213 calories a day, which was a news story. 216. I'm so sorry. And you had said something about not being thin,

and I just lobbed in, well, you're not fat either. No. Well, and the listener, less than supportively, said, no, Jane, you're not fat, you're pleasantly plump. Alliteration doesn't help. But you're not even pleasantly plump. He thought so. Anyway, Kirsty has told Good Housekeeping, I'm always torn between the desire to lose weight and the desire not to have it fall off my face. I don't know what she means. Oh, the flesh. Yes, flesh fall off her face.

But anyway, much more important than that she says um that she does she is concerned about aging um she confessed that while she hadn't experienced ageism personally we have all witnessed it she says because the fact is you're allowed to go on for much longer as a man than you are as a woman and women have to work a lot harder than men to not fade out it isn't easy at all. She spoke about how she keeps herself mentally fit, saying it's about exercise and tidiness. And she added, the latter is a big issue for me. I have to have everything neat.

If I'm having a particularly busy day, I think of something our late queen used to say. This storm too shall pass. It's very true. There are always days ahead, says Kirsty, and the late Queen. Of course, that's a tonne. Not so many. She was 96. That's a good age.

Anyway, that wasn't the way that was supposed to end. It wasn't, was it? It was meant to be very, very profound. Yes. supposed to it was meant to be very very profound yes and if it was if it was a musical that's the moment where the the final perfect cadence would simply go dong yes dong but instead it went i'm really sorry i'm really sorry okay can we just have a very very quick word about happy valley oh yes go on yeah uh so we have both now got to the end of episode four. There are only two episodes left to go. What do you think is going to happen?

Well, I think what I am puzzled about is why he got away and what his connection to that crime family actually is. Why did he agree to appear in court, to plead guilty to something he didn't do? How has he sprung with the help of this crime syndicate? What's the link? And what does any of this have to do with the creepy chemist who's now murdered that poor woman who was married to the horrible, controlling, bullying PE teacher? I can't understand it. No, do you have a good feeling? Because this is the last series ever, isn't it?

Two more episodes to go. I will be horrified if Royce what's his name? What's James Norton's character called? Tommy Lee Royce. If he is alive at the end of episode 6 I will not be a happy woman. Yeah I agree with you. And actually Catherine has got to be alive. Yeah I've got this

horrible feeling though. You know when you read that it's the last ever the last ever and sometimes I really read things into people's tweets and so Sarahah lancashire's you know when she says we've only got two episodes left this is you know i'm loving it it's happy i just think oh no no are you gonna be all right they can't no i might not be able to watch that final final episode i'm just going to come into work on the Monday morning and just watch your facial expression. I think that's the week we're off. Oh, gosh, is it?

Oh, that's very difficult for me. Nice for you, but difficult for me. The ski lifts beckon, darling. Well, darling, they certainly do. They certainly do. I'm doing quite a lot of stretching. A lot of core work is going on at the moment. But obviously, as mentioned today,

absolutely no showering at all. Good night. Yeah. Bye, Pongo. You have been listening to Off Air with Jane Garvey and Fee Glover. Our Times Radio producer is Rosie Cutler and the podcast executive producer is Ben Mitchell. Now you can listen to us on the free Times Radio app or you can download every episode from wherever you get your podcasts. And don't forget that if you like what you heard and thought, hey, I want to listen to this, but live, then you can.

Monday to Thursday, three till five, on Times Radio. Embrace the live radio jeopardy. Thank you for listening and hope you can join us off air very soon. Goodbye. VoiceOver describes what's happening

on your iPhone screen. VoiceOver on. Settings. So you can navigate it just by listening. Books, contacts, calendar, double tap to open. Breakfast with Anna from 10 to 11. And get on with your day. Accessibility.

There's more to iPhone.