Woman's Hour - Camila Batmanghelidjh

Episode Date: February 25, 2021

In her first in-depth broadcast interview since winning the High Court disqualification case regarding the disbanded children's charity Kids Company, its founder, Camila Batmanghelidjh, psychotherapist and author, joined Emma earlier this week. The High Court judgement came about because the Official Receiver claimed that Camila Batmanghelidjh, and seven former trustees of the charity Kids Company, had failed to properly manage the charity in the final months of its existence. After a three and a half year case, and 10 weeks in court, Mrs Justice Falk praised Camila Batmanghelidjh for the “enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years” and her achievements in building a charity that “until 2014 was widely regarded as a highly successful one". Camila tells Emma why she fought so long and hard to be cleared.Last week, the BBC obtained videos in which Princess Latifa, the daughter of Dubai's ruler described being held in solitary confinement after trying to flee the United Arab Emirates. Now BBC News has seen a letter from Princess Latifa which asks Cambridgeshire Police to re-open an investigation into her sister’s disappearance 20 years ago. Emma discusses the story with Jane McMullen, the BBC journalist who broke this story for Panorama with her film The Missing Princess and Rothna Begum, a senior women's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch.Producer: Louise Corley Editor: Karen Dalziel

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Good morning. Today, an exclusive interview. Two weeks ago, Camilla Batmanghelic, the founder and director of the disbanded charity Kids' Company, won a High Court disqualification case. It's part of a battle she's been fighting for six years since the charity was forced to close. Today, in her first in-depth broadcast interview since that verdict,

Camilla lifts the lid on her battle and talks about some of the powerful figures she alleges led to her own personal public vilification and the closure of her organisation. Founded in 1996 in South London, Kids' Company provided practical, emotional and educational support to up to 36,000 deprived and vulnerable inner-city children and young people. It closed its doors in August 2015.

After a three-and-a-half-year legal case, a fortnight ago the High Court threw out claims by the official receiver that Camilla Batmangelich and seven former trustees of the charity kids company had failed to properly manage the charity in the final months of its existence. Mrs Justice Fawkes said if it had not been for the unfounded allegations it is more likely than not that the restructure would have succeeded and the charity would have survived. The judge praised Camilla Batmanghelij for the enormous dedication she showed to vulnerable young people over many years and her achievements in building a charity that until 2014 was widely regarded

as a highly successful one. Facing cash flow difficulties, a plan to restructure the organisation's finances had been agreed with David Cameron's government. But the charity did close its doors in 2015 after the Metropolitan Police launched an investigation into sexual assault allegations following the broadcast of a BBC Newsnight report. The police investigation concluded in 2016 after finding no evidence of criminality. When it shut, Kids' Company had four centres, a therapy house and worked in more than 40 schools in London, according to its website, which also describes work in six centres and six schools in Bristol.

Kids' Company employed 600 paid staff, as well as working with a pool of around 8,000 volunteers and 500 students. Over 15 years, it received more than £40 million worth of public money. I started by asking Camilla Batmanghelic how the recent High Court case disqualification verdict made her feel. Well, I was really delighted on behalf of the staff, the children and our donors, what really upset me is that these people would feel betrayed. And Justice Falk, who was the judge residing over the case, was so detailed. And she really scrutinised everything. And we're delighted with her verdict. And I was very lucky to have a really good legal team. Rupert Butler from Leverett's and his team were really brilliant. Really brilliant.

Is it important that you got a judgment one way or the other after such a public fall from grace? decades at least a hundred thousand people have volunteered their work their contributed to it not to mention all the companies that supported us it's important for all of them to know that they invested in something and built something up that was authentic and what was happening with the false news that was generating is that the whole organisation was being rewritten by people almost who'd never been there. I mean, how journalists could say there were no children at Kids' Company when we had thousands of volunteers and workers there? They must have all been pretending to work with children. I mean, let's get to some of those details, which I know we will in just a moment.

But I asked about it because obviously that answer is important from your perspective and for that bigger picture that you're describing. But I also asked the question because you were the face of not only the charity, but also those news reports. And I suppose on a personal level, I wondered how that verdict has impacted you and your perception of yourself. Well, for six and a half years, the members of the public thought I had taken the cabinet office's money and gone through to one of my three mansions. So when I walked out on the street, I remember some scientists

taking me out for dinner. And this man ran into the restaurant and shouted, where have you hidden the money? You know, so I had encounters like that. But I also had encounters where people would walk towards me and say, you know, Kids' Company saved my life. So it was a mixed bag. And I think I just hung in there as much as possible. And the reason I fought, Emma, was because when Kids' Company was open, not only we looked after children, but children from across the country used to send me letters and pictures and I felt like I owed it to them to fight because they invested trust in us and that's why I wouldn't give in because of those children and donors you know I've genuinely loved our donors. Each one of them were unique and I felt loyal to them all.

And the staff, the staff were so confused. You know, they couldn't even dare put kids' company on their CV. You know, and all these people were owed, you know, the truth. And that's why I fought so hard and wouldn't give in. You sound incredibly emotional. Well, I always get emotional about kids because I felt what the journalists did. It was a handful of immature journalists who generated this story and probably some of their political masters. Well, again, I promise we will get to the journalism

and some of that detail in a moment. But I suppose I wanted to use this space at the beginning of the interview to hear from you because a lot has been written about you and this is you in your own words and this is us having that conversation. Three and a half years in terms of the the court case it's a long time in terms of that particular battle a lot of people would have had to give up by now because they just they couldn't either keep going and financially uh you know the legal side of things just to talk about logistics that would have been very difficult. How have you been able to fund this case?

So it's coming, August will be six years. So I've been six years in this space where my life is completely held hostage to this agenda that got created. And during this period, it's fascinating who helped me. You know, there were my friends, but also there were a half a dozen philanthropists who absolutely didn't believe what was being done and said. So they helped me stabilize the children. So for the last six years, whichever child we could get hold of that we needed to stabilise, those philanthropists helped me do that. And I'm grateful to Bristol

because Bristol really took care of the kids and tried to cushion them. But the children... Sorry, when you say Bristol... Bristol Social Services and City Camp because we worked in Bristol as well. Right. So you've continued, I mean, I asked specifically. I didn't stop one day.

Okay, so you've continued to work with children, but without, I suppose, the organisation of kids' companies. You're sort of doing it freelance and have been doing it. For the last six years. And just specifically on the court case, did those same philanthropists bankroll your defence? No. What happened is initially I had to cash in my pension and then the insurance decided that they would take me on. Because bear in mind, I was not a director of the organization but the official receiver was trying to turn me into a director and then ban me posthumously and actually eventually I got absorbed by the insurance but also towards the end the money wasn't enough so my lawyers worked

for free that's what I mean about, I saw so much kindness during this period from individuals. And I think the thing though, to start to get into if I can is some of your approaches or style is perhaps what people had also questioned in and amongst this. And so for instance, just even the fact that you've continued to work with the children and support them, you know, some will say, well, that's laudable. That's what she was always about. That's what was driving her and kids company. But some may be thinking, how have you done that? Have you been on the phone? How have you got these kids details? Children's details are incredibly protected for a reason, obviously. I'm not making any

accusations about the work you've been doing since, but freelancing in that space is quite difficult, I imagine. How have you done that? First of all, the kids contacted me because my telephone number is the same. Secondly, there's a charity, Oasis. Steve Chalk was the first person to reach out to me. And together we did Christmas for the kids. And then since then, we've been collaborating and I've been trying to stabilize the children. Some of the ex-staff of Kids' Company who've been out there have also helped. Okay. So you have been doing this through Oasis and through a formal infrastructure.

Well, I've been collaborating with a number of charities and I have been working with the ex-staff of Kids Company to stabilise the children. It's unprecedented times. Those kids were all left. Yeah, and we're now also, you know, within that six years, we now also entered into a global pandemic for the last year as well, which is, you know, I know you'll know some of what has been going on there in terms of children. But I suppose taking a step back, Camilla,

is there anything that you do regret about the running of Kids' Company? Because there are things that are just fact about, for instance, the state of the finances. What about the state of the finances? Well, we can get into that. For instance, if you were to just look at the Public Accounts Select Committee, describing the amount of public money that was handed to Kids' Company during its existence, they said it was staggering staggering and that the charity's methods, for instance, bore the hallmarks of an expensive failed experiment. And they laid the failure at the blame of the trustees. This isn't about striking anyone off.

This is just talking about financial mismanagement. And I just wondered, on that point alone, sort of almost away from what was on trial in this particular court case, do you regret how big and how fast you grew and how difficult that was to manage financially? Because the amount of money that you guys received was huge. You see, this is a really interesting collage of assumptions on your part, okay? And it's worth unpicking it because the money that was given to us by the government

was to pick up what they were failing to address, which is child protection failings. The government didn't give kids' company money willy-nilly. They gave money so that we could work with the most disturbed kids. And they audited us every quarter and we passed every audit. So that is really important to understand. And that's what this court case did, because Justice Fork was financially very, very aware. And she actually went through the account.

So Justice Fork looked at the facts properly and did not jump to conclusions. In terms of why did we grow, we had lots of children self-referring to the organisation. The plan with government was that we should extend outside London because they were planning to fund us like a national project. And if you want the proof for that, Sir Christopher Walmart, who was head of the civil service inside the Department of Education, actually gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry to this effect that they were thinking of funding us nationally. He also confirmed that his company only got 2% of voluntary contributions. So this whole idea that we took vast amounts of

money is exaggerated and born of envy. Okay, and that's very important to respond on. Do you have any regrets about the way that the charity managed money, public or otherwise? What do you want me to have regrets about? Do you want me to say, sorry, I bought clothes for the kids? Well, no, I can't answer the question. I can't answer the question. I just wondered if you did. It's interesting.

It's interesting because it's actually a very complicated space running a charity like that. It's really complex. And I don't want to give a pat answer in a 20 minute know, the judge has already done it. The judge has said nothing was spent inappropriately on the children. She actually released that as a statement. And the bulk of the expenditure of Kids' Company was on staff because we had to have psychiatrists. We had to have teachers, social workers. I was asking a slightly different question to what the judge was looking at, though. I was asking again, because it's you that I'm talking to and you are here to give the answers as you see fit. Do you have any regrets then? Not even about the money. Do you have any regrets about the way you run this charity? Just out of interest?

Yeah, I think I underestimated the political games that get played. And I think I underestimated other people's envy. And of course, as you start at the beginning, you run a charity, you're inexperienced and you learn as you go along. So you get better at it. And I'm sure we would have got better as we learned more. So I would not say that we did it perfectly.

What I would say is that we grew to learn how to do it. And that's the reality of running an organisation. Do you think you were getting better with it? Yeah, we were because we were learning from the children more and more how to do the work. And what you've got to understand is I didn't run the accounts department. There was a massive financial team. There were really experienced trustees there who were scrutinising the organisation.

Do you feel failed? Sorry, just on that point, because you're going to make a bigger point. But do you feel failed by them? No, I think they did their best. I really do. I think you don't understand how tough that work is because you're in the middle of very high risk situations, very volatile neighbourhoods. Children are coming to harm. You're trying to get the child into social services or child mental health. They won't take them. We had to take so many local authorities to judicial reviews because they wouldn't meet the children's needs. It's a tough terrain. It's not easy work. And I think the trustees did their best. And I think the staff did their best. I suppose that's the question here, because obviously Kids' Co. is no more, and you have had this ruling, and that's not what I'm calling into question. It's just interesting for people to take the space and time to hear from you about any of your regrets about this, because it did mean a lot to a lot of people. Yeah. Where do you want to position me?

I'm not trying to position you. For instance, I was looking back at some of the things actually that the children had said. You may say the very fact that they were being spoken to, you may not accept.

One of the youngsters helped by Kids' Company told Radio 4's The Report that when she was given money, because just to remind people, some kids were given money directly, which, you know, was talked about

whether that was a good method or not. Putting that to one side, quote, she said, we would queue up, sign our names down, get an envelope with 30 pounds and an oyster travel card. Then we would go to the shop and buy whatever we wanted with that money. Quote, it was weed heaven on a Friday. You could smell weed coming down from the landings. So kids using money from a charity to go and buy weed, is that reality? Is that what we just have to get used to?

What do you make of that? I think that's really interesting, yeah, because middle-class people give their children pocket money, right? Yeah. When it gets to poor children getting pocket money, straightaway it becomes drugs money. Whereas actually, if you know what goes on on the street, these children often don't need the cash to buy drugs because they are given it for couriering. So of course, if you put a microphone in front of a

teenager's mouth, or you get a teenager to say things and some journalists were paying children as well that's another thing that happened well i've got no evidence of that okay but but i'm just going to say i don't so there we go so the kids will say things and maybe they go and smoke weed with their friends on a Friday. But then what secondary school doesn't have that problem? And what you have to do is then deal with that and get the children off drugs, which is what we were doing. And that is a big school and college. I was going to say that was a big part of the other bit of your work. There were many bits of Kids Code work.

I suppose I actually am, again, just I suppose going towards that point of when you hear those things, whether you believe them or not, but if we were just to say you believe that particular account, do you think that kids should be given money directly from charities? That's actually a question that charities listening, charity bosses may be interested to hear your view on. So why did we give money to children directly? And it wasn't young, young children, but we had to do it because a lot of these kids didn't have ID, so they didn't have bank accounts. And then we needed to see them weekly to make sure they were OK. We gave them money because they needed money for food, for their travel passes when they had to pay for college canteen, for the electricity meter.

You know, money is something that people need to live on. And we had to give it to some of our children and young people so that they could live on it. And if you do, if you did it through the bank account, right, and they go to the cash till and take the same money out, what difference does it make? Absolutely zero. Would you do it again, though? Because the big difference here is, sorry, the big difference,

if I may just say, if I may, the big difference, of course, between, as you put it, that's not how I put it, middle-class people giving kids pocket money, is it is, they would argue, perhaps, it is their money to give. It is money they have earned. It is not public money. This is an argument that I'm sure you'll be familiar with. What, Emma? You know, it's actually Louise Casey of the Home Office, who set up our living allowance scheme in 2002-3 using an accountant from the Home Office. Government knew we were giving living allowance to the kids,

they were funding it, and they understood that it was necessary. This sort of narrative is a red herring. You should be asking, why are so many children who were so vulnerable making their way to kids company and they had nowhere else to go? I agree with you. That's a very important area. And, you know, we have been running reports about, for instance, the children's commissioner who's just finished her term and talking about that. And we will and do and should continue to focus on that. I suppose I again, in the spirit of you've had this hanging over you for six years, you've had a lot of time to think about things. I wondered if you'd do it again like that.

It sounds like you would and it sounds like it was government policy. I definitely would do what works and that worked. Nothing was hidden and it was necessary to give the kids resilience so that they could survive the neighbourhoods they were in. Would you ever run another charity? I don't know yet. You're still thinking about it? What is problematic now is the way the media abuses their position

in relation to the children. I think there has to be some kind of contract between charities and the media. I actually think the media really abused their position in relation to Kitt's company and the way they behave towards the children, but also Newsnight's behaviour in broadcasting those false allegations,

which ultimately brought the charity down, which is what the judges said as well. So sorry, we now need to remind our listeners as well, they'll not be as familiar with this as of course you are. You're talking specifically around accusations around sex abuse of clients of the charity, for which I should say, you know, to date, the Met has identified no evidence of criminality within, for instance, the 32 reports, which would reach the threshold to justify a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service, nor did they identify any failings by the charity in respect of them carrying out their duty to safeguard children or vulnerable adults. I should say there were a few Newsnight reports and Newsnight in a statement to us has said they stand by their journalism. Can I ask you about just to also take people back to six years ago? It wasn't long after the country was reeling after revelations about Jimmy Savile.

There was a particular time that this was in. And I wondered if you felt the suspicion of public figures working with children and charities ended up wrongly tarnishing you. I personally think it was a smear campaign. And I think there were two targets. One is, I believe, David Cameron, because he was seen to have chosen us as a big society. And I think the Brexit team wanted to discredit him, because I don't understand why Dominic Cummings, whom we've never met, was briefing against us in 2015. And I think another bit is that we were campaigning for child protection issues. And I think the country has no capacity to address its child protection problems. So I believe there's a propensity to slightly silence charities when they campaign forcefully on an

issue that the government doesn't have capacity to address. And I think we got sandwiched between these two concerns. And that's why there was such a ferocious attack on us. And I hope that we will be able to carry out sufficient investigations to reveal the sources of those attacks and what happened. There's a lot that you've just said there. And having done my research before coming to talk to you today, I am quite familiar with some of what you're saying there just to unpack the first part of that Dominic Cummings was working at the time as an advisor to Michael Gove who was the education secretary he of course is now a household name has as he rose to become the most senior advisor to the current prime minister before he left in December. He, of course, working for the Vote Leave side,

David Cameron working for the Remain side of things, to remember those days, which in some ways seem a long time ago, but won't to you. You did become the poster woman in many ways for David Cameron's big society, again, to remind people. I just wonder, now we are all these years on, and you have just had this verdict very recently, has David Cameron been in touch with you?

No. And by the way, I never chose to be part of Big Society. I didn't actually agree with it because I don't think volunteers can work with highly troubled individuals. It needs professionals. Would you like to hear from David Cameron after this verdict? Well, first of all, Samantha Cameron is phenomenal and completely genuine. And she visited Kids' Company. And I don't have anything but goodwill for them. My focus has been on trying to clear the name of Kids' Company

for its staff and its children. I totally recognise that. David Cameron is not someone that I've had to worry too much about. I ask because I just wonder if you felt, because you did get caught up politically, if you were owed an apology by anybody who's been running the country. I think Michael Gove was really disingenuous because I have a letter from him to someone

saying that kids' company is an inspiration and the country should be proud of it. And this is 2014. And Michael Gove was the person who gave me my CB in the Department of Education. And I took lots of children there to receive it because I felt it belonged to them. By 2015, he was saying he never wanted Kids' Company funded. And I find it very difficult when people change colours. So there were a number of politicians. When the children were being chased by journalists and all their lives were being exposed in the media,

not a single professional politician, not a single governing body stood up and said, what is happening to these children is completely out of order. We have to stop it. And these are, I think, the problems that we need to consider moving forward. Who protects children in care when their own parents aren't there to protect them? And it should be the state. And no one from the state stepped up. Do you think Michael Gove, who is now one of the most senior members of this government, with what you have just alleged, of course, he's not here to talk, but let's go with what you've just said.

Do you think he owes those children an apology? Absolutely. And the staff. And you. Michael Gove. That includes you. Look. You were the head of it. I'm not trying to drag that out of you, but it's a fair conclusion.

I can live without Michael Gove's apology. But the staff and the children are owed an apology from Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, all these people who promised that they were going to help us resolve the fact that children were pouring in through our doors. And the reason I clashed with the Cabinet Office was because when I realised they're not taking responsibility in 2015, I asked them to bring in KPMG to review our database of children and families and to identify the cases that are the responsibility of the state. And they didn't want to do that. Well, we will get a statement from the Cabinet

Office with regards to that. Now you've brought it to our attention was boris johnson involved in any of this boris johnson uh was very interesting actually when they tried to get him to say anything against us he wouldn't because i think city hall knew that we were well run because they'd been in and seen our programs so boris did not trash Kids' Company. How much of your position, and I ask you this especially because we're on Women's Hour, how much do you think the fact that you are a woman, that you are a woman who... Is big and looks different? Well, no, I was going to say, I wonder how much you thought that could have played a role in the way that you have been portrayed?

I think it did play a role because if you look at the insults that were levelled at me during that period, you know, it was a foreigner go back to your country. It was I'm running Brussels. It was I'm an explosion in a Nigerian fabric factory. Then my size became a problem. You know, so all of there was incredible misogyny. And, you know, this attribution that because I dress colourfully, then I can't organise anything. I mean, you have to think, you know, the organisation was vast. And we kept the children safe. We had 500 trainees coming from social work courses, psychotherapy, NHS, they were all doing their placements with us. It was a proper organisation. They just didn't look like it could be run by someone who wore the kind of clothes I wear.

The prejudice is incredible. And I think there is something about negating intellect in women often. So I ended up being described as not qualified. You know, I've got lots of qualifications, but constantly they said she doesn't have any qualifications. She doesn't have any qualifications, she doesn't have any qualification, you know. So there is a sort of minimising of intellect that went along with it. Camilla, thank you for talking to me. Thank you.

Camilla Batmanghelic there. We did ask for a statement from the government regarding the Cabinet Office and Michael Gove, but we've not had a response. Don't forget, you can always catch up on Woman's Hour or with Woman's Hour at any point on BBC Sounds. Yesterday, I spoke to David Watkins, one of the first single men in the UK to have a surrogate baby after a law change in January 2019. And with the help of surrogacy and egg donation,

David became a father to baby Miles in July 2020. We heard from Faye Spreadbury, who took on the role of surrogate. So you can catch back up with that on BBC Sounds to give you a flavour of what you may have missed in yesterday's programme. But last week, the BBC obtained videos in which Princess Latifa, the daughter of Dubai's ruler, described being held in solitary confinement

after trying to flee the United Arab Emirates. Now BBC News has seen a letter from Princess Latifa, which asks Cambridgeshire police to reopen an investigation into her sister's disappearance 20 years ago. Her letter says that her sister Shamsa also tried to leave Dubai and later, while on a family holiday in the UK, disappeared from the streets of Cambridge. The government of Dubai hasn't responded to a request for comment

but it has previously described Shamsa as adored and cherished by her family. Jane McMullen is the BBC journalist who broke this story for Panorama with her film The Missing Princess, and Rothna Begum is a senior women's rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. Jane, if I come to you first of all, how long have you been following this story? So my team and I started working on it in 2018, which was when Latifa escaped from Dubai and then was caught in the Indian Ocean. And she had recorded a video telling her story before she escaped. And when when that went wrong uh her friends released this video and so we then spent the next nine months making an hour-long documentary trying to um piece together her story and what had happened and as part of that we looked at the story of her older sister

shamsa because latifa in in the video that I just mentioned the 2018 video starts the video by talking about Shamsa and Shamsa was sort of like a mother figure to her and um when Shamsa escaped and then was caught in 2000 so um 18 years earlier this was clearly a hugely uh sort of you know a traumatic event for Latifa and was one of the sort of guiding um hugely sort of, you know, a traumatic event for Latifah and was one of the sort of guiding sort of motivations for her escape. And in terms of what we know then about where or what has happened to both princesses at the moment, you know, people are trying to perhaps remember what they learned last week about Princess Latifah and now what you're saying about her sister. Well, the answer to that question is that we don't know the current whereabouts, the current conditions that either Latifah or Shamsa are being kept in. As you said in your introduction, the government of Dubai has said

that Latifa is being cared for by her family. The UN has asked for proof of life. So we're waiting to see how that works out. And in terms of Shamsa, as you've mentioned, the government of Dubai hasn't commented. It told us in 2018 that she's adored and cherished. So we really don't know very much more about Shamsa other than what we were able to piece together for the piece that we've reported today, which is that after she was returned to Dubai in 2000, she was kept in confinement for a period of eight years and then subsequently has has spent the rest of her adult life she's now 39 she was 18 when she escaped she's now 39 in in the in the in her family but in a situation where she is controlled, she's been medicated at various, to some degree, and she really doesn't have a free life. Let's bring in Rathna Begum, Senior Women's Rights Researcher at Human Rights Watch at this point. Do we know anything or what is your take on the impact that these recent revelations by Jane and her team may have on the princess's future?

I think the new videos showing Shaykh Latifa talking about her forced confinement, being in a villa that's been converted into a prison with police officers inside and outside the house, really shows what we had feared for Latifa herself, which is that she was going to be forcibly confined. And that the proof of life that the authorities had, the UAE authorities had published saying that she was alive and well was completely not true. Latifa herself has actually public released these videos, which the BBC has now released. And now we don't know what has happened to her. It's been several months since her friends have been in contact with her. So there's a real threat to her actual life,

because this potentially means that she's ratcheted up her situation itself. And the UAE authorities may actually take a more punitive approach to her, not just forcibly confining her as they have done, but potentially even a threat to her life or torture and ill treatment. We know from Latifa's own accounts that her previous attempt escape was met with detention and torture and ill-treatment, which is what she describes, and that Shamsa herself was also tortured and kept in what she referred to as a ghost-like state.

So there's a serious threat both to her life or potentially imprisonment for the rest of her life, as is the case of Shamsa. Looking at the authorities' response on this, we approached the UK government for a comment about Princess Shamsa's disappearance from Cambridge in 2000, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office told us, this is a private matter between two individuals. The investigation was conducted by Cambridgeshire Constabulary and the FCO had no role in the investigation or outcome. I think the UK government's approach to this is signals just how bad the whole situation is. We essentially had a forced abduction from the streets of the UK 20 years ago, more than 20 years

ago. And there has been no full investigation into that crime. We have since heard about Latifa's escape, and yet the UK authorities have not proceeded to an investigation. And a British High Court last year said on the balance of probabilities that the two women had been abducted and forcibly returned, and talked about the fact that they were not a criminal court, and this was something that the governments will need to think about taking forward. And yet again, the UK government has done nothing to proceed to a full criminal investigation. If anything, that court case from last year revealed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office actually knew more and decided not to disclose those details because of a threat to the relationship between the UAE

and the UK. The fact that the UAE ruler of Dubai has simply been able to get away with forcibly abducting these daughters from international situations and confined them without any government really calling for the release of these two women, without any government really investigating these abductions, gives a signal of impunity. And it means that we simply do not know what's going to happen to these women going forward. The UAE authorities are hoping that this will become yesterday's news and they can continue to do what they like as they like. And right now, what we need to hear from the UK government is a serious and direct call for the release of both of these women and that they will take serious steps towards a full criminal investigation into the abduction that

took place more than 20 years ago in this country. Let's talk to Jane about that. Jane, where do you come in on this? Jane, in terms of the UK response and the reporting you're doing on that, I just read the statement that we got this morning. Yes. So we we've been asking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for more information about the events of 2000 and 2001. Since 2018, we've been asking them for information on this. What we do know is that around that time, the Sheikh's London office contacted the foreign office about this. So one of the things that clearly is in the public interest is to know what the nature of that contact was and whether it had any bearing on the way that this played out. Now the Foreign Office says that this was handled by the police and as you said earlier that it was a private matter between two individuals but I do think there are still questions that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should answer about what

exactly happened and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have acknowledged that they do hold information about this, but as Rothner said, that it would potentially damage their relationship with the UAE to disclose this information. The Foreign Secretary has said, Dominic Raab has said, that the United Arab Emirates needs to provide evidence that Princess Latifa is still alive. He has said that. In terms of just a final word to you, Rothner, I know, Jane, you'll continue to follow this story and we'll catch up again very briefly. Is that enough, Rothner?

Absolutely not. We've seen the UAE, you know, to actually show proof of life through the use of photos previously, but that gives us no indication of whether or not she is actually being forcibly confined. And we do not need another photo, which could be doctored, which could be from previous times, we need to see her released in a country outside of the UAE, where she can speak freely to her own situation, as well as the freeing of Sheikh Shamsa as well. Rothna, we'll have to leave it there. Rothna Begum, thank you for your time. Senior Women's Rights Researcher at Human Rights Watch and Jane McMullen, the BBC journalist who broke this story.

That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one. A new podcast series from BBC Radio 4. In the first stage of a poltergeist haunting, the entity will confine itself to making noise, as if it's testing its victims. The Battersea Poltergeist.

My name's Shirley Hitchens. I'm 15 years old. I live with my mum, dad, brother, gran... ..and Donald. Subscribe to The Battersea Poltergeist on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Treleaven, and for over a year, I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies. I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth.

How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in. Available now.