Woman's Hour - Access to Transcripts in Sexual Assault Cases, Multi-generational Living, "Relationship Anarchy", Women at the French Open

Episode Date: May 29, 2025

On Friday, a one-year pilot, which gives victims of serious sexual assault access to transcripts of judge’s sentencing remarks, will end. The Ministry of Justice has said the scheme will be made permanent, although it will stay under review as more victims access the service. Anita Rani is joined by BBC London home affairs correspondent Sonja Jessup, along with forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes, to discuss the success of the pilot and how the experience of being a victim-witness might psychologically impact victims. With housing costs rising and social care stretched, more families are choosing - or needing - to live under one roof. Anita speaks to two women navigating the ups and downs of multigenerational life: Alison Taylor, who moved her parents in with her children, and Katie Fforde, who welcomed her grown-up children and grandchildren back home. A new report conducted in collaboration with the dating app, FEELD, has suggested that in reaction to the loneliness felt during and after the pandemic, more people have looked at exploring the different types of romantic relationships available – such as consensual non-monogamy and polyamory. How do those engaging in new relationship hierarchies navigate "relationship anarchy"? Anita talks to Ana Kirova, CEO of FEELD, Ana Kirova and to author, Chloe Seager, about her experiences with non-monogamy.And Anita talks to Catherine Whitaker about the primetime night session slot on Court Philippe Chatrier at the French Open where, according to reports, a women's singles match has not taken place since 2023.Presenter: Anita Rani Producer: Laura Northedge

BBC Sounds music radio podcast. Hello, I'm Anita Rani and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Welcome to the programme. Now, relationship anarchy. Are you in it? We'll be finding out what it means and discussing being in a variety of romantic relationships from polyamory and consensual non-monogamy. And is the French open snubbing women's tennis?

This is what Angebert had to say about it. Whoever is making the decision, I don't think they have daughters because I don't think they want to treat their daughters like this. They don't show women's sport, they don't show women's tennis. And then they ask a question, yeah, but mostly they watch men. Of course, they watch men more because you show men more, so everything goes together. We're also discussing multi-generational living today. Families who find themselves all under one roof. Three, possibly even four generations. We'll be talking about the highs and lows and how you make it work with two women who find themselves unexpectedly living

this way. There's plenty of room for disagreement and arguments. However, this morning I want to hear what is the thing that brings all of you together in your family? The crowd pleaser that never fails? That even the grumpiest teenager or the hassled parent or the stuck-in-their-ways grandparent will come round to? Is it a movie or a specific meal or a game of some kind? If all hell has broken loose how do you bring your gang together? What's your preferred deflection method if you like? Get in touch with me in the usual way. The text number is 84844. You can email the program by going to our

website and you can also WhatsApp me on 03700 100 444. That text number once again and remember you can share your opinions and thoughts on everything you hear on the programme. It's 84844. But first, the Ministry of Justice has now been running a pilot which gives victims of serious sexual assault in England and Wales free access to a transcript of the judges sentencing remarks and this week it's been made permanent. Previously victims of sexual offences had to pay to receive a transcript of the trial. Shortly we'll hear from a woman who's participated in the pilot but first I'm joined by BBC London Home Affairs correspondent Sonia Jessup to tell us a bit more about the scheme. Morning Sonia. Morning. So the

Ministry of Justice, I'm going to start with what they told us in their statements, they said we know the value scripts can have for victims of rape and sexual offences. This is why the Lord Chancellor confirmed last week that this vital pilot will be extended to improve transparency and support for survivors of these awful crimes. So why are transcripts of the trials so important to victims of these serious sexual offences? For lots of reasons we were hearing. Firstly, victims were describing to us how it can be a really important part of the healing process. So they've gone through all that trauma, the

trauma of the crime itself, and then the trauma of actually giving evidence in court. And actually being able sometimes to come away from that and take stock and see in black and white what those transcripts said to just kind of review what happened in court in their own time is part of them perhaps coming to terms or moving on. I mean, some of those sentences won't be ones that perhaps people would use, but sort of part of that journey of going over what happened in court and what happened in that event and making sense of it, it might be helpful, for example, in their counselling process. And particularly with sentencing remarks, in cases of guilty verdicts, hearing the words of the judge, people were saying what could be very, very comforting. The other

thing is that sometimes in the court process can be very confusing, can be very traumatic for people, it can be a lot to take in. There may be other vulnerabilities, someone might not have English as a first language, for example, they may not have understood everything that was going in court, or they might want to challenge something that was said in court. So having those transcripts would be essential to that, they were saying. And also, a lot of the time, victims were saying that they were advised not to go back into court after they'd given their evidence. And sometimes that was because there was concern that perhaps in sentencing, there might be disruption in court and we've been

told well you know that can be managed, that can be got around, people can be told about expectations of behaviour in court, what to expect. But also because sometimes police and legal representatives were saying to victims it might not be a good look before the jury, particularly in cases for example with rape or sexual abuse, you might be giving evidence behind a screen. If you then go and sit in the public gallery, how does that look to the jury? And so we had situations where victims were saying, I didn't go back into it, I gave my evidence, incredibly personal evidence, and then I left court and I then was told it was a not guilty verdict. And I don't know what happened. I wasn't there.

And they found that very, very difficult. So there were lots of reasons why people wanted to know what happened and wanted those transgressors. So tell us about the pilot scheme that the MOJ have been running. Yeah, so this is a pilot scheme for England and Wales. It launched May last year and it was a year long pilot scheme and it was for rape and sexual abuse victims who had a guilty verdict in their case. And under that they could apply to get their sentencing remarks for free. Now, 500 people we think under that scheme were able to get their sentencing remarks. Campaigners were worried because firstly they

were quite critical of the way the scheme was done. They were saying to us that for the first few months it didn't seem to be advertised at all. So they were very concerned about whether there could be a lot of people who didn't know it was happening. They were doing lots to try to raise awareness of it and they felt it could have reached more people. But also they thought, goodness, it's coming to an end. So they were getting in touch with us and saying, we're worried about this ending. We think this could help lots more people. Last week we heard in the independent sentencing review this recommendation that it should be continued and made permanent. And the government then said that they would accept that recommendation.

So there was a lot of welcome of that from the campaigners and they'd like that to go further in future too. So what about people outside of England and Wales? Do they have access to it? Yeah, there was also a pilot scheme in Scotland actually, which was launched slightly earlier than this other pilot scheme and that's just been recently extended for another year. Again, that was aimed at rape and sexual abuse victims, But in this case, it went further. So it was it was not just in cases where there was a guilty verdict. You could have a guilty verdict, not guilty

verdict or not proven verdict. You could still apply for court transcripts. So not just sentencing remarks, court transcripts. And the Scottish government put £100,000 worth of funding into that. And the Ministry of Justice have also said we want to bring down the cost of transcriptions in criminal courts without compromising on accuracy and looking at how to use emerging technology to do that. So how much does it cost to provide a transcript? Well it really ranges from what we understand and that's because in order to apply for a transcript in the first place, the case has

to be recorded. So some cases are always recorded, for example, Crown Court cases are always recorded, magistrates court cases, they're not recorded. But then once you've got this recording, you would have to then pay for someone to transcribe the audio. And the kind of quotes we were hearing were around £92 per hour. That was what some people were quoted. So if you were asking, for example, across days of trials to be transcribed, one person, for example, they were saying they were quoted £7,500 for a 10-day trial to get hold of that. So that's a huge example, a huge amount, but in sentencing remarks, so for example in this pilot we were hearing

much lower values, so for example we were hearing between £30 to £300. Now London's Victims Commissioner Claire Waxman was saying to me, you know, that might not sound very much £30 to £300, but actually to some victims they were saying that was very prohibitive particularly for example you were a domestic abuse survivor you may not be able to meet those costs and people just felt it was exploitative as well you know they were saying why should I have to pay anything I'm a victim this is my case and I want to know what happened. And it says they're looking into how emerging technology might

bring the costs down I wonder what part technology will have to play in this. It's a good question, isn't it? Because AI technology, if people are listening might think, well, couldn't that solve something? The government is saying that's something they are looking at. Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood was saying that they want there to be further progress on AI. She said, I don't believe we're far away from having that accurate technology, but of course it does have to be accurate and it's not quite there yet. So we also understand that the provision of a transcript requires careful deliberation by an individual judge. So provision of transcripts will be kept under review going forward. Does

that mean that the transcripts will be at the discretion of a judge and what impact will it have on a victim if they're denied access? Yeah so what the Ministry of Justice says about this is that it is a judicial decision so a court can refuse to provide part or all of a transcript in certain circumstances and they give an example of that they say where there are reporting restrictions and there is evidence that the applicant may disregard them. So the MOJ says it is working closely with the judicial office to keep this current provision, providing these sentencing remarks to victims of rape and sexual offence victims under review

and it says to ensure it works for all parties. I mean, as far as the impact, campaigners would say that this is an important part of open justice and the fact that this is about, you know, them knowing what happened in their case, so it would have a detrimental impact on them. So it's very important to them to have that access. So what's the plan going forward? Well, the plan going forward is we've heard that the government has accepted the recommendations to continue with this scheme for victims of rape and sexual abuse who had guilty verdicts in their cases to have sentencing remarks for free. Campaigners have welcomed that. They have said they would like that

to go further. So for example, we were hearing they'd like it extended to other victims of other crimes, particularly with particular vulnerabilities, such as domestic abuse victims, stalking victims, people who are victims of hate crime, you know, those sorts of people, again, where there could be particular trauma involved and they may not feel comfortable going into court. So they would like that extension.

And there was also a plea for extension to people in cases where they had a not guilty verdict. Because in those cases, particularly, you know, not knowing what happened, they wanted to move on. Now, of course, in those cases, there aren't sentencing remarks. The person has been found not guilty. But they wanted to hear, there was a sense of, could we have the summing up remarks? It may not be the whole of the transcript, have the summing up remarks. It may not be the whole of the transcript but the summing up remarks by the judge would help us understand what had happened in court. Well we can hear now from Lucy,

this is not her real name, who is taking part in the trial. Her attacker was convicted of rape among other charges and she was advised not to attend court so she didn't hear the judges sentencing remarks. She spoke to the Today program and her words have been voiced by an actor. I decided to apply for the court transcript while it was free because one, I definitely wouldn't be able to afford to get it otherwise. And two, I didn't know what happened in court when the sentencing was taking place. It's probably one of the most empowering documents any victim of rape will ever hold in their hands. It's so validating seeing written down what the judge said about me,

about how brave I was coming to court, but also about how controlling and manipulative my rapist was. It was just so powerful for me to read her words and really helped leapfrog my healing, to know that somebody else completely understood what he was up to and how manipulating he was towards the court. It's the best document I have, and I keep it in my bedside drawer, and I often look at it when I'm feeling vulnerable.

I look at it and I remember that I was brave and I was brave enough to go through court to get that guilty verdict. The experience of one woman there, Lucy, not her real name. Another woman who we're calling Tulip, also not her real name, reported her ex-partner to the police alleging he'd raped her but he was found not guilty and was acquitted. She said she was told she would have to pay £7,000 to access a transcript of the whole trial, just as you were telling us there Sonia. She believes complainants like her should have a way of accessing a transcript of part of the trial

for free too. She spoke to Woman's Hour and her words are voiced by an actor. Well, court was, it was worse than what had happened. Much, much, much worse. It was humiliating. It was degrading. I felt completely on my own. And I didn't attend the rest of the trial. I've been told not to. I was told it would look odd. I've since been told that lots of people are told that expression, it would look odd. I've since been told that lots of people are told

that expression it would look odd but what that means is that we don't know what's happened in court once we've been cross-examined and we've gone home. We're left in the dark and it was just devastating hearing that verdict. That's the only word I can think of. It was just absolutely devastating and it's really when you're probably at your most traumatized because I would imagine that the most traumatizing time in this whole process is probably after a not guilty verdict because up until that not guilty verdict you have hope. You hope that there will be justice. You have

hope. But once you get that not guilty verdict it all feels like it was for nothing. You gave up three, four years of your life providing information for the police and the CPS and in the end it all came to nothing. I got in touch with the court and I was quoted I think it was around seven thousand pounds. I got in touch with the court and I was quoted, I think it was around seven thousand pounds. I just felt on principle that it was wrong to have to pay for them after everything that I'd gone through. I thought it was really, well I'm going to use that word, humiliating again, humiliating to be told if you want to know what's happened you've got to find, borrow, quite

a big chunk of money. So I don't know how the case was summed up which would be really useful to hear. I mean I know that it's been really really helpful to people to have the sentencing remarks. It acknowledges what people have gone through and if I was to see the summing up, you know, maybe I'd have a different view. It could be healing, hopefully. So I definitely think the pilot should be extended to us too. Well I'm now joined by Kerry Daines, consultant forensic psychologist and chair of the National Stalking Consortium. Kerry, welcome to the programme.

We've heard that two very different experiences. What does this tell us about the benefits of victims and survivors having access to the transcripts of their trials? Well, I think it's essential really for justice. I really do. I think that what comes across in what we've just heard is the extreme stress that victims are put through when they have to give evidence in court and the whole process it's so personal, it feels so exposing and humiliating. Being cross-examined is a confrontation and then of course waiting for the verdict and hearing that verdict for good or bad. I think that extreme stress really does impact on victims' ability to, well, encode what is going on and then remember it at a later date. So having a

transcript can be so essential for them just to really understand what went on for better, for worse, and to be able to process that whether that's by themselves or with a professional. What's the psychological impact on survivors and complainants when they go to trial? What happens? Well, I think that it's very telling that many victims say that they find the trial just as traumatic as the attack itself or even more so. And so very often I have victims tell me that they have a re-emergence of anxiety, panic attacks, not feeling safe, but

also a huge amount of low mood and guilt and shame which of course is not theirs to carry, but they've internalised the blame that society puts on them for what men do to them and of course then it's been it's been well exacerbated by the whole process of of the court process particularly the cross-examination as I say which can just feel like such a personal attack. So to come out of that experience with a clear memory of what has gone on or a really clear understanding of, for example, if a perpetrator is found guilty of sentencing, why their sentence was the length it was, what went into that because that's not often explained to victims either. It's just such a maelstrom of emotions. We can't expect victims to process it in that moment. They need help to do so.

Some survivors say that they experienced memory loss during the trial. Why might that be? What do you know about that? Well, an optimum amount of stress is good for memory. So an optimum amount of stress is a small amount of stress. So for example, you might say that I'm under a tiny amount of stress in talking to you publicly today because it's hard to be a public speaker. But extreme stress is something absolutely different. So that impacts memory by cortisol, the stress hormone, flooding the hippocampus, which is the brain's region crucial for encoding

new memories. So short-term memories have difficulty converting to long-term memories. So remembering those details of the court, the court process, what they were asked, you know, the sentencing remarks can really be a difficulty. We heard from Tulip there, arguing that the scheme should be expanded so that for cases where defendants are acquitted, the complainants can get a copy of the judge's summary remarks. What's your opinion on that? Yes, absolutely. This scheme needs to be extended. I think for those who don't get a guilty verdict, they don't get an innocent verdict, but they get a not guilty verdict. It's crucial for them to be able to work through, you know, how and why that happened, often with a therapist.

And I think just to know what was being spoken about, as Tulip said, you are encouraged not to attend. And so you're thinking what on earth has been said about me in that time or what has been said that has convinced a judge and a jury. So just having that gap, that space of information, it needs to be filled for victims. They should be fully part of their own story. They shouldn't be written out of their own story. Is this something about validation and power? Absolutely, yes. I think

that just to be able to read what a judge has written about the perpetrator and about you is so validating. We live in a world where, unfortunately, so many women are not believed when they say that they have been assaulted. Or indeed, you know, violently assaulted or stalked. I do believe that this scheme needs to be widened to every violent and psychologically violent type of offence. And earlier we were talking to Sonia about the cost of this and one of our listeners has just got in touch, I'm going to read it out to you here, says Kerry. I'm a lawyer and the law against recording in court should be reformed so that the lawyers involved are free to make recordings. It's very often the case that at the end of a hearing the judge

asks one of the lawyers to look at their notes about exactly what was said. It's very often the case that at the end of a hearing the judge asks one of the lawyers to look at their notes about exactly what was said. It's equally often the case that lawyers' notes are unclear or ambiguous. If the lawyers were allowed to record the proceedings, it would save everyone a great deal of time and money. There would be no risk of breach of confidentiality as lawyers would be under a professional duty not to disclose the recordings to unauthorised people? Well, I don't disagree. I think that, well, I've read a lot of lawyers' reports and usually they're quite incoherent, I have to say. I think that when they're trying to concentrate on a trial as well, that can be a difficulty. I would say that we have the technology, or we are very soon going to have the technology, to be able to record transcripts of everything that is

said in court very, very cheaply. And so I don't see any reason why in the future this scheme cannot be offended, maybe to all victims in fact, of any type of offence, but particularly as I say to victims of sexual crime, violent crime or psychologically violent crime. Kerry Day Eaddees, consultant forensic psychologist. Thank you so much for speaking to us and to Sonia Jessup, the London Home Affairs correspondent. Thanks to you as well, Sonia. 84844 is the number to text. Now, as house prices soar and social care becomes harder to access, more families are rethinking how and where they live. For some that means moving in together, parents, grandparents and grandchildren all under one roof. It's something that's happened in many cultures for a long time, but it's

becoming a more mainstream trend, driven not just by the housing crisis and the cost of care but by love, loyalty and sometimes sheer necessity. Well today we're joined by two women at the heart of this shift. Katie Ford welcomed her adult son, his partner, and their children back into her home in her 70s. And Alison Taylor did the opposite, moving her aging parents in with her young family in Yorkshire. Katie and Alison, welcome to Woman's Hour. I'm going to come to you first, Katie. So just give us an overview. What's the setup in your house?

Well, they've left now, but they moved in with us because they were having major alterations to their house to make their little two bed house into something that can take a family of four and sometimes five. So they moved in with us. And of course all building projects go on twice as long as anyone ever anticipates. But in fact I loved having them. It was, I'm not saying it wasn't without stress, but it was sort of good stress and once you realize that things were going to get broken

and it was going to be noisy and the walls would be scribbled on from time to time. And you just realise that not to cry anything over anything that can't cry over you. It was great. I loved getting to know my daughter-in-law on a one-to-one basis, which I had, I did know her, of course I knew her, but I sort of knew her better and to get to know the grandchildren better. And halfway through the process, my daughter-in-law's mother from Russia came to stay and she doesn't really speak English. That was a bit of a strain. I mean, fortunately, we do have bathrooms, enough bathrooms, so that wasn't a problem. But we all had to squash around the table a little bit.

And of course the cooking was always quite exciting. My son did most of the cooking, which was lovely, except he's a very splashy cook. Nothing ever happened without the back of the cooker being covered in grease at any meal. That's the sort of thing that could trigger some people over a period of time, that could become the thing that breaks this, what sounds like a very beautiful setup in

your household. Now, I happen to know quite a few people that live in these extended family setups and it's not always as rosy as yours sounds to be. Well, I had a rule to myself is keep my mouth shut at all times and only offer advice if it was asked. Not comment on anyone else's parenting skills. Try to be helpful but try not to be pushy. My daughter-in-law, whose Russian was wonderful, in that if I did say something, she would say, Katie, you're stressing me out and I'd know where we were and I would shut up and withdraw and that was fine. I fell out with my son about once but never with my daughter-in-law but you do have to constantly think how would it be

for you if you were living in this situation but I am pretty laid back and my husband is as well and I'm always the sort of person that has to tidy up because one of her children is coming to visit because I'm always the most untidy person in the world. So it worked well, I think, because I'm that way around. It might not have worked so well if I'd been the tidy one and they'd been the untidy ones. But I mean, I have to confess, I mean, it was quite nice when we could watch Pointless again. I know. Right, as opposed to what? What happened? What were you watching? Well, it's just this other stuff going on and we didn't have another room with a television in it which we could have done but we didn't organize it. And to be honest, I could have had one in my bedroom but would we really have gone up there to watch Pointless when there was so much

going on downstairs? People were cooking, you might be needed to peel something or look after a child or just do something else. So there was too much life going on really to watch Pointless. And although I do love the quiet lifestyle, I do miss that sort of family all being together thing. 84844, is this you? Are you in a multi-generational joint family set up and does yours work as smoothly as Katie's? Get in touch and let me know. Alison, you're in your late 40s and you left the South to move back up to your home turf of Yorkshire and living with your family, three kids and your parents who are both in their 80s. How did this happen? Well I moved back to Yorkshire in 2020 after being in London for 20 years. So that was due to having twins as well as a toddler so that kind of

tipped me over the edge as it were. So we moved back to my home village and then over a period of a couple of years probably hatched the plan and mooted it to mum and dad about moving not necessarily into our house although they are in our house now but where the longer term plan is to build an annex for them, a one-floor sort of bungalow because we're lucky to have some space for that. So, and then my mum had had a few health problems. She'd been in hospital for a while. My mum's actually 78.

So just correct. Yeah. Oh yeah. Very important. Yeah. Not in the, absolutely. Yeah. My dad's 80, 84, just turned 84 yesterday and he's sort of, you know, struggling

with mobility a little bit. sort of, you know, struggling with mobility a little bit. But yeah, I think for me, I mean, I have a very, very close relationship with mum and dad. And I know it wouldn't be for everyone, but I just, I don't know, to me, it just made a lot of sense. Like we've got the space. It's a future-proofing situation. Like at some point, most people have to sort of have some level of care for their parents. And I think this sounds a little bit like the Waltons or something, but I just kind of wanted to want to make the most of the time that's left as well. And, you know, I had kids when I was older. So it's, you know, like the twins are only five, Albert's eight, you know,

so it's great they get to spend lots of time with their grandparents as well. I am going to pass on Katie's advice to my dad though to keep his mouth shut. That was really good advice. Go on, explain more. Actually what I was intrigued by was, you know, I read obviously about both of your experiences and it all sounds really great on paper. I'm like, gosh, they're making it work. For me with you, Alison, I wondered how does your, I mean, I guess it takes, they're your parents, you have the loving relationship with them, you know Yorkshire. And I wondered how a partner kind of adjusted to it all and does it take them to be able to make it easier? Yeah and I've been asked that before. Simon, my partner, he's amazing, he's really supportive.

He was obviously a massive part of the decision. You can't just move parents in without asking, can you? Well maybe you can but yeah, and I know that he'd sort of experienced with his grandparents how difficult it was trying to move them when they were older than my parents and suffering with their health a lot more. And so he was a driving force relay. I mean, yeah, I, you know, I guess, yeah, the dynamics are different, aren't they? I find myself sort of trying to preempt what mum and dad would want me to do in a certain situation and sometimes like trying to be the good daughter. Obviously, he doesn't have that. I mean, dad and him came to blows over how to turn off the sky remote the other day

and that sort of escalated. I had to have a word with my dad afterwards. But you know, I don't know. I guess. Go on. So how do you deal with something as simple as that? You know, the sky remote came to blows and you are the, I guess, you know, you're called the sandwich carer. You're the one who's looking for parents and the kids and husband partner. So what did you do? How did you bring everyone together? Well, I just kind of didn't do anything in the moment. Me and my mum were sort of giving each other, you know, the stare as if to say, oh gosh, you know, here we go again. And then I just had a word with my dad afterwards and said, look, you know, maybe this is how I saw it

from the outside. I said to him, I need to give you a bit of feedback, which I realized sounded very sort of like a business meeting, like, you know, but yeah, he took it on the chin. It's all good. It's, you know, it's a small thing, isn't it? But it's, it's just also, I do think once they're in the, in the annex, which has not been built yet. I mean, at one point we didn't even have planning permission before they sold their house so that was kind of like a ballsy move I guess but it did

somewhat keep me awake at night. But I think once they're in there we will have that little bit of space they'll have their own place again and but then we've still got that closeness which But then we've still got that closeness, which, you know, is fab. You know, it doesn't last forever, does it? And what about parenting and parenting styles? I mean, do you know what? I've never had a problem with that with mum and dad. Like they, I think to Katie's point as well, they don't interfere with that. Occasionally maybe

I get the sense that perhaps they think we're a little bit soft on the kids, but you know, they sort of know better than to try and interfere. I don't mean that because they'll get my wrath, I just mean it's not constructive generally, is it? It's quite funny though, some of the... I wrote in the Times piece about this moment where, because we were listening to Bonie M, which was an album from my childhood and all dancing and singing to that. And then I was recounting a memory of being in the car when I bit my brother and my dad sort of whacked me from the front seat which was kind of normal in the 80s but then that sort of prompted a multi-generational discussion like mummy, mummy you bit your brother you know it was sort of and having to explain being walloped by your Yorkshire father.

Can you relate to that, Katie? Well, we didn't have any of that sort of thing. I was a very, very relaxed parent, I have to say. I'm not saying my children, I mean, my children, my children, but they said, well, we always knew we were outbound as well. They seem to think I was quite sort of on it. But I never said no if I could say yes. And I avoided arguments if I could. That's saying that they did know what their boundaries were. And they did feel safe because they felt, you know, we cared, obviously. But I used to do a lot of explaining. I never punished them

But I used to explain so much. They'd probably rather be grounded than having to explain Well, whatever they've just done is a bad idea yet again so that was my tactic and My grandchildren, they're very different people my granddaughter my daughter-in-law was potty training my youngest grandchild who was just, was she even two? She wasn't even two. And to be honest, it worked very well. But it did mean that we did have the potty in the drawing room with us while we were sitting around watching her do a poo. And as long as we allapped it was fine. Perfect. And I think wondered whether this would go on into her later life and she would only be able to perform

if there was an audience but she seems okay now so it's all right. I think children mostly survive whatever it is happens you know if they're loved there can be quite a lot of mistakes and they turn that all right. Alison I've got to ask you because I'm from a South Asian background and this is quite normal historically for people to live in multi-generational families. It is changing as people are becoming more affluent and just like lifestyle is changing and all the rest of it. And what my observation has always been is that the most put upon people tends to be the sort of daughter-in-law, the sort of one in the middle,

the middle carer, the person who's having to look after the parents and the children, and it's often the daughter-in-law because they move into the family. So how do you kind of keep yourself sane in that set up? Can I say, law and order? That sounds ridiculous, but I've got this terrible habit of going to my room and watching reruns of Lauren Oda and I just so now anyone who's listening is my friend will be laughing at this because I'm actually admitting it publicly but no I you know I just once the kids have gone to bed I must admit I power down and need to not talk for a while and just do my own thing, I guess.

But I really like that you describe this as your master plan to keep your parents alive for as long as possible. Can you tell us about that? I mean, that's obviously a joke, but yeah, I guess it's sort of just I mean I mean you could you could there is actually you know research to that suggests that you know loneliness is as detrimental to your health. I think there was something about as 20 cigarettes a day I mean you know this was some research recently but I think I do think that it could be good for their health and certainly their mental health and us too, you know, to have that contact. But that's not really where that comment came from. I guess it was more just to be able to spend more time with

them and yeah, and I guess support and be there and care and just, yeah, keep the dream alive. Katie Fjord and Alison Taylor, thank you very much for getting in touch to tell us all about your family setup. And Amanda's been in touch to say, I have my mother, 88, my three adult children, 21, 25 and 30, and my grandson, 18 months, all living with me. And she says, it's great fun. She's obviously someone who has a lot

of love and possibly a lot of patience as well in her life. 84 844. Katie says I leave jigsaws out on the kitchen table when grown-up kids are due back. The casual conversation it creates are great. Now are you watching the French Open? The Tunisian tennis player Ons Dribbe has criticised the Roland Garros tournament for snubbing women's tennis in the prime time slots. This is what she had to say. In Europe in general, it's unfortunate for women's sports in general, not for tennis, but for in general.

And I hope whoever is making the decision, I don't think they have daughters because I don't think they want to treat their daughters like this. It's a bit ironic, you know. They don't show women's sport, they don't show women's tennis, and then they ask a question. Yeah, but mostly they watch men. Of course they watch men more because you show men more. Former world number two, Anjoubur speaking after a match at the French Open yesterday. According to reports, not since 2023 has a women's singles match occupied the prime time night session slot on court. Philippe Chartier, a run stretching to 19 successive matches.

Well, joining me to discuss this is Catherine Whittaker, co-host of the Tennis Podcast. Catherine, what exactly is the issue? is the issue? Well the organizers of the French Open and the heads of the French Tennis Federation have told us exactly what the issue is. They've said the quiet part out loud. Amelie Mauresmo, the tournament director, of course former Wimbledon champion, former coach of Andy Murray back in 2022 when she was asked about the lack of women's matches in the night session, a session that is advertised by the tournament as the match of the day, she referred to the relative attractivity of men's tennis over women's tennis. It was a jaw-dropping moment at the time and she doubled down on that the following year when she was asked about the same issue. And then this year, Gilles Moritton, a couple of days ago, the president of the French tennis federation, he came in to speak to the press and he explained

that decisions about the night session schedule are based on what's better for fans. He said, for the night session, we choose the better match. So the French tennis authorities here are not trying to hide. They are telling us loud and proud that they value men's tennis over women's. And thank goodness, Theron's Jouveur for speaking out against that. What's your reaction to that? Honestly, I come to the French Open every year. And as I said, Amelie Maresmo told us back in 22 how she and the authorities here feel and every year I think I'm not going to let their decisions about the night schedule and

their obvious feelings about women's tennis, I'm not going to let them ruin my experience of what is an otherwise incredible tournament. It's a wonderful place to be, they do so many things right here and yet somehow they managed to plumb new depths every year. It's a wonderful place to be. They do so many things right here. And yet somehow they managed to plumb new depths every year. It was a really astonishing moment when Gilles Moritton said that in press the other day. It is it's astonishing to hear it said that explicitly in in 2025, quite frankly, and to see female athletes and hear them being disrespected and demeaned in this way. Ongoing debate at the French Open. What does it tell us about how women's tennis is viewed in France? Well, look, correlation is not causation, we know that, but there were twice as many French

men as French women in the draw at the French Open this year. And given everything I've just said, it's very hard to see that as a total coincidence or a total accident. The US Open, there are four major tournaments in tennis, the Grand Slams, the US Open, the one in New York, they introduced equal prize money for men and women in 1973. And Billie Jean King and her activism was critical in that. The French Open was the last of the four to follow suit and that didn't happen until 2007.

So France and the French Open has a history of this. Look there is still widespread sexism in the way that men and women are treated in sport and in tennis across the board. I think tennis puts up in shining lights in its headlines that it has equal prize money. It's still a bit of an outlier in the sporting world in that respect, but tennis only has equal prize money at the four Grand Slam tournaments. At the other tour events year round, there are more than 50 of them on the women's tour. The prize money in women's tennis is significantly lower than men's. There is still a major gap there and that's not even to mention the coverage gap in men's and women's tennis. You turn on the TV here and probably about an 80% chance that you'll be presented with a men's tennis match.

Are there any differences in the experience of watching men's and women's matches? Do they play differently? Yeah, they do. And that's that's quite a that's quite a sensitive thing to talk about, because that point is, is so often weaponized by by people that want to find a stick to beat women's tennis is there, there is there has been traditionally more unpredictability in women's tennis. there, there is there has been traditionally more unpredictability in women's tennis. And that could be viewed as tremendously exciting, but so often it's viewed as a negative

women's tennis, they're weak, they're unpredictable, they're inconsistent, you know, why can't they do what Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal have been doing for the past 15 years and show up and just win everything week after week But I personally find that that unpredictability incredibly entertaining a lot of men's tennis is very serve and and power Dominated it. Well, that's less the case in women's sport and like everybody is entitled to their personal preferences But I watched equal amounts of men's and women's tennis and I quite often enjoy them in a different way but there is no superior product there. Women's tennis as a product is every bit as good as men's.

And Angebo has spoken out, she's called it out. What has been the response to her remarks and what have the French Tennis Federation said? The French Tennis Federation haven't responded to Ange-Draboeur's comments. If they did, I suspect they would continue to double down. They've never shifted in their stance on what they consider to be, in their words, the better matches at this tournament. They consider the better matches to be the men's matches. So I wouldn't expect anything that Ange-Jabert has to say to change that. I mean, I'm sure she's getting a great deal of criticism. I

have a fraction of the exposure and platform that Ange-Jabert has, and I've had a great deal of criticism for speaking out about this. So I can't imagine what it's like for somebody with her status and reach. But I think that makes it all the more to her credit that she has said this because quite honestly, a lot of the women players after Jill Moriton made these comments were asked about them and they either didn't get the issue, the defending champion Ega Schiantech, she said, didn't bother her at all. She said, the night session conditions don't suit me, so why would I care? And look, I understand this is a demanding, selfish sport, but in a sport that has

the history of Billie Jean King and blazing a trail for women's women's sport, it's, it's disappointing to hear. So I personally punched the air when I saw those comments from from onster Burr and it matters the top players speaking out about this I'm I'm here today speaking to you because of what onster burr had to say and I'm no doubt you'll be back talking to us about a lot of women playing tennis over the summer thank you so much for taking the time out to speak to me this morning Katherine Whitaker co-host of the tennis podcast and we did approach the French Tennis Federation for statements but have not had a response back yet. Also, if you've been affected by any of the issues

raised in our previous item about accessing transcripts of judges sentencing remarks for victims of serious sexual assault in England and Wales, there are links of help and support on the BBC Action Line website. Now, a lot changed for many of us when the pandemic hit, but one aspect of our lives that was hugely impacted was our relationships with each other. A new report conducted in collaboration with the dating app Field has suggested that in reaction to the loneliness felt during and after the pandemic, more people have looked at exploring the different types of romantic relationships available, such as consensual non-monogamy and polyamory. The report also explores how we navigate the hierarchies of this type of relationship,

as in if you have a husband and a boyfriend, is one partnership privileged over the other? This idea is called Relationship Anarchy and to tell us more about it, I'm joined in the studio by the CEO of Field, Anna Korova, and by author Chloe Seeger, who's written about her experiences with non-monogamy. Anna and Chloe, welcome. So Anna, before we find out what Field is, tell us what Relationship Anarchy is. I'll try to keep it brief. Relationship anarchy is a type of approach to relationships where each connection you have with a person is discussed with the person involved. So as opposed to say monogamy where we just assume there's like one person and another and they're together and there's a bit of a blueprint or a story that we follow

relationship anarchy is You can have as many people as you want involved and you Negotiate the boundaries and you discuss and you explore how exactly you want to relate to each other could be friendships could be Platonic relationships could be romantic or sexual and they're like Chloe I'm gonna find out how that worked with you in a moment. Tell us about field, the dating app that you're the CEO of. Field is a dating app for open-minded people. It's quite an alternative space.

And what sets it apart is that people go on field to explore without necessarily having a goal in mind. So a lot of dating platforms promise finding the one and there's a lot of pressure in that and a lot of expectation and field is a space where you can just show up as you are and explore and meet people. It's quite an open space and a really fluid space too. And what do you find that does? I think on one hand it removes the pressure off from each other. I think we, when we apply our expectations onto others, we kind of box them and we don't really let them bloom.

We don't really understand them fully because we continuously compare them to what we expect or what society is making us expect of them. And when you remove that, you can see the person as they are and you can approach them with more curiosity and you can be surprised. I don't think we know everything about ourselves. I think the only way to find out is to explore. And it's a kind of space where people are really open to that. And Chloe, you did just that.

You explored. So tell us about your non-monogamous relationship. Would you describe it as relationship anarchy? No, I wouldn't. I probably had what would be thought of as the more typical open relationship setup. So I had a primary partner and then I was kind of exploring other relationships

outside of that. I think a lot of people typically think of an open relationship as something where you have a primary partner and then you're purely having sex with other people. I think for me it was a bit of a hybrid between that. So I'm actually not interested in purely just having sex with people. So for me it was more about meeting other people and being able to have sex with them if I wanted to, but kind of having, I suppose, for want of a better word, like flings with other people. Like it wasn't pure sex, but it wasn't full on relationships either. Can we discuss the logistics?

Yeah. How does this, I mean, so you started off in a monogamous relationship with your partner and then what happens? Yeah. So I suppose non-monogamy was something we'd always on and off kind of mentioned through so we were together for about seven or eight years before we explored non-monogamy and it's something yeah we'd always kind of brought up and then kind of brushed under the carpet maybe the next day after we'd been drunk and it had come up and I guess yeah it was as you say it was the pandemic so I feel it was the pandemic. So I feel like in the

pandemic, you're all kind of sitting there with a lot of time to reflect on what you really want. And you're kind of staring down your mortality. And we came out and we were like, okay, you know, let's just do it. And, yeah, logistically, I would say I would probably do it differently, if I had a chance to do it again because logistically we didn't really go in with any rules or boundaries. We kind of just went forth and I think we kind of worked out the rules as we went. And did that, so you do it differently because what happened? You became unstuck?

Like what went wrong? I think you probably do need certain rules or parameters before you go into it and I think for me probably one thing's worth timeline. So I had a friend who had an open relationship and they had a very clear three-date rule and that really worked for her and her partner. What does that mean, three-day rule? So three dates, so like you have three dates and then you're like goodbye and I feel like that's a very clear boundaries whereas we didn't really have that timeline. I think it was a little bit more difficult for us because as I say it wasn't purely just wanting to have sex with people so

the timeline was a little bit more hazy but I think if I could do it again I'd probably say okay maybe we have a two-month limit with other people or you know a different kind of timeline rule. Anna, relationship anarchy is being described as a radical response to our loneliness epidemic. We've just heard Chloe's curiosity was sparked during the pandemic. Have these types of relationships always existed? And it's just the terms being used to describe them on you like non-monogamy or relationship anarchy. Yeah, yeah, they have always existed. I think they've not necessarily been so accessible

and so interrogated in the mainstream as they are becoming now, but they've always existed. And specifically with relationship anarchy, I think one of the interesting things we found as a part of the survey was that once we give people a definition of relationship anarchy, one in five people who are not field members said that they actually have practiced it in some form or another. This whole idea of negotiating. Well, let's say you negotiate the balance between how much time you spend with your best friends, how much time you spend with your family, how much time you spend with your partner, that in itself, that practice of intentionally interrogating the times you spend, the boundaries between the different relationship, that does fit in the definition of relationship anarchy. And open relationships have existed forever, like all sorts of forms. So how do you

manage typically then, I guess, the hierarchies or the boundaries when you do open them up? With a lot of talking. When another interesting stat from the survey was that people who do practice relationship anarchy said that reported that what was extremely important for them three times more than other participants was self-awareness. So this idea that you are aware of your own boundaries and you can discuss them is extremely important. And how you do it is how did you do it? How did I do it? You have to be mindful that this is new, very likely new to you, new to the people involved.

So you need patience with yourself first and then with the others. You invite the conversation in your space and you're mindful of making sure that it's in the safe space for everyone involved. And then you just talk and you acknowledge that you're not really sure what you're talking about and you're going to figure it out by yourself over time. I think one thing to remember is that anything new that we start doing feels really strange, very awkward. We don't have muscle memory or knowledge necessarily how to do it. So it will be awkward in the beginning and then you'll start feeling it as you go. What about sort of basic things like how you make sure the other person still feels sort of comfortable and secure and how do you deal with something as basic as jealousy

or falling in love with somebody else? Yeah I think in terms of making your partner feel comfortable, I think it can be different on different days. Like, I think sometimes you can want to know information and have a chat about it, and sometimes you're like, actually, I'm not in the mood to talk about that right now. And I think, again, that can be so mood dependent and you feel your way as you go. But I don't know if the rules on making people comfortable with non-monogamy are actually that different to monogamy, right? Like actually it wasn't as different to navigate. Well, what are the misconceptions then around non-monogamy?

I think people always assume that it's going to be really messy, which I mean it was, like I think, and it can be. But I also think in a way that monogamous relationships are messy, just having relationships is messy, right? Like, I think sometimes in monogamous setups, you have people who are technically following rules, but might be having emotional affairs, and that's just as messy, whereas actually getting everything out in the open with your partner and communicating about it can actually be more straightforward and clear. It comes back to your point about self-awareness.

You have to face it if you've decided that you're going to be in a relationship that's not the kind of sort of in the vertical. Yeah, and you have to, I think, do it with care for yourself and the people involved and respect. And that's, it might feel as she said, it might feel messy, but I think we are messy. And if we don't look at it with judgment,

but we look at it with compassion and some warmth, we can go a long way. And can a person using your app tell the difference between someone who's genuinely wants to engage in an open relationship and someone who's using the community for, I don't know, might be having lots of affairs or having a fling or cheating or does it not matter? Well, I think to start with, the way to approach people would be with an open mind and take

them and accept them as they are. So what people show is, I think what we should like that like kind of accept as themselves. But then as with any kind of new interaction, through communication, through conversation, is how we can find out what people truly need and what they're there for. I think it would apply to any type of interaction with a human. And very quickly, Chloe, you're now in a new relationship, open, monogamous, what's going on?

Now that you're here talking about your personal life, we might as well get the details. I'm in a monogamous relationship currently. Yeah, never say never, but I don't feel drawn to it at the moment. Thank you both for coming in to speak to me, Anna Korova, CEO of Field and author Chloe Seeger. And on tomorrow's program,

I'll be talking to three times Oscar nominee, Carey Mulligan. That's all for today's Woman's £8 million, this would-be conquering hero will march at the head of an army of Highland clansmen, once the most feared fighting force in Western Europe. He doesn't speak their Gaelic language, but he will lead them to capture British cities, rout an army, and cause panic in the streets of London. The national anthem, God Save the King, will even be written because of him.

Subscribe to Pretend a Prince on BBC Sounds.