Woman's Hour - Deborah James; Colin Pitchfork Parole and Falling in love with an object

Episode Date: July 14, 2021

Deborah James is a the host of the BBC's You, Me And The Big C podcast, a campaigner, writer and mother of two. As @bowelbabe she blogs about living with stage 4 bowel cancer since Christmas 2016. After trialling experimental drugs she was told she had ‘no sign of active disease’, not once but twice. She joins Emma to discuss her recent experience of liver failure followed by sepsis, how she attended Wimbledon only 12 hours after leaving hospital, her mission to protect cancer care, and why she is rewriting her next book, How to Live When You Could Be Dead.Yesterday the Government's challenge to a Parole Board decision to release Colin Pitchfork was rejected - paving the way for the double child killer to be freed in the next few weeks. Pitchfork has served 33 years in prison after being jailed for raping and murdering 15-year-olds Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth in the 1980s. A judge-led independent review rejected a bid by ministers to halt his release. Philip Musson, the uncle of Dawn Ashworth tells Emma how disappointed the family are by the decision. David Wilson Emeritus Professor of criminology at Birmingham City University and former prison governor, is concerned that Pitchfork has “gamed” the rehabilitation system. Belinda Winder, a Professor of Forensic Psychology at Nottingham Trent University, whose primary field is sexual offending explains how carefully parole boards come to their decisions and the importance of reintegration into the community. Have you ever been in love with an object? Yes, that's right. Not a person: a thing, or maybe a building? There's a new French film out called Jumbo, and it's about a young woman who falls in love with a fairground attraction. Zoe Wittock is the director.A number of high profile gruesome cases of women dying after their partners claimed “rough sex gone wrong” as a defence led to a change in the law earlier this year. The Domestic Abuse Act states that even if consensual, the infliction of serious harm, or worse will lead to prosecution. The veteran labour MP Harriet Harman was instrumental in getting the law changed but she says it’s not always working in practice and she joins Emma Barnett to explain why she’s calling for the Director of Prosecutions Max Hill to review two cases of particular concern.

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. Hello and welcome to today's programme. After the news that despite the government's efforts, double child killer Colin Pitchfork is to be released from prison, we turn the attention back to the schoolgirls he murdered. I'll be talking to the uncle of Dawn Ashworth next. Also in today's programme, Labour MP Harriet Harman joins us to highlight two court cases she's concerned about. Deborah James, aka Bal Babe if you know her off social

media, will be here to tell us about survival and going to Wimbledon 12 hours after her latest health scare. And ever fallen in love with an object or a building? No joke. You are not alone. And the director of a new film loosely based on Erica Ifill, there's a clue for you, will be revealing all. As ever, do get in touch if there's something that you wish to say or an experience you wish to share or review on 84844.

That's the number you can text me on, on social media. We're at BBC Women's Hour or email me through our website. But first, yesterday, the government's challenge to a parole board decision to release Colin Pitchfork was rejected, paving the way for the double child killer to be freed in the next two weeks. Sixty one year old Colin Pitchfork has served 33 years in prison after being jailed for raping and murdering Linda Mann and Dawn Ashworth in the 1980s. A judge-led independent review rejected a bid by ministers to halt his release. The details of the two murders make for grim reading or listening. In November 1983, Colin Pitchfork left his baby son sleeping in the back of his car and raped and strangled 15-year-old Linda Mann in Narborough,

Leicestershire. He then drove home and put his son to bed. Three years later, less than a mile from where Linda died, he raped and murdered Dawn Ashworth, also 15. She wasn't discovered for two days. The pathologist who examined her body described it as a brutal sexual assault. Dawn's mother Barbara spoke to BBC Radio Leicester in 2015 about her fear that Colin Pitchfork might be released. I would hope that would never be the case if he was released. I would feel that it was a matter of time until these feelings came over him again.

Once he's out again in the community, it would be quite easy for him to think, oh, I'll pick up where I left off. He has no right to any freedom at all because he took the lives of two girls' freedom and their choices and life and hopes and dreams were just taken away from them. And why should he be able to continue his life normally the worst of it for me is that i suppose i haven't moved on i haven't found that i've been able to the only way that i can look at life now is looking into the past because i don't feel that I've got much ahead of me anyway now and certainly it's just a matter of having to exist and carry on.

I see people with their girls and they have a lovely relationship and all that has been snatched away. Dawn's mother, Barbara Ashworth, speaking in a documentary called The DNA of a Killer back in 2015. Pitchfork did plead guilty to both murders in September 1987. He was the first murderer to be convicted using DNA and was sentenced to life in January 1988. The judge said the killings were particularly sadistic and he doubted that Pitchfork would ever be released. And yet, he could now be out by the end of this week.

The uncle of Dawn Ashworth, Philip Musson, joins me now. Good morning, Philip. Good morning. Thank you for talking to us today. We're very grateful. And I wanted to make sure that we did spend some time actually remembering Dawn in the middle of all of this. Do you mind telling us what she was like as a girl, as a person?

Yes, she was bright. She'd got her future ahead of her. She was... She'd got something about her. She'd got a future. She was going to secure that future and quite what it would have been i don't know myself and my family have been left to speculate about this year on year of course and we were just listening there to to your sister and what she had to say about her fears that this day

could come how are you and how have the family been in the last 24 hours since this news broke? Well, I am on behalf of my family. We're deeply disappointed that the parole board decision was upheld. And what it says is about the worth of the lives of my niece and his other victims. I think there are some crimes, not many fortunately, which so offend public sentiment and traumatise the communities where they occur that rehabilitation isn't appropriate. And the rape and murders of children, Dawn and Linda, was in my view one such crime. And I think the remit of the parole board ought to consider the gravity of the crimes and not just the issues about the protection of the public.

So you have that fear that your sister was talking about back in 2015, about him being released? Well, yes, yes, it's an event that was feared. I suppose there was a risk of it coming down the track at some point in time, and we've lived in fear of that. And we're conscious of the messages it sends. For me, it says to sex offenders and child killers that they can commit heinous crimes that are worstly manageable in the knowledge that they may be able to resume their lives

at some point, even though, as my sister was saying, they've taken, they've deprived the victims of those, of their own lives, which somehow it seems to offend a sense of natural justice. It also says that the human rights of offenders trump those of their victims and their families. And to pick up on the point that you were mentioning, Emma, about the risk issue, it also sends a message that the authorities are willing to expose the children of the families who live where he's to be relocated to an experiment as to their safety. And, you know, I appreciate that risk assessments are made, but this is far from an exact science. As the cases of John Warboys and Zahid Yunus show, both were assessed as minimal risk or the risk can be managed and that assessment was wrong.

Yes, and the government have also fought this. I mean, we've got a full statement from the Ministry of Justice this morning that, you know, it's this huge disappointment on its side. What do you make of that? Because often when we talk about the messages something sends it's usually from legislators yes well this is the uh i suppose this is the result of the the triad the independence of the judiciary but um i i do believe it's the government's intention to look at the remit of the parole board and as i've said i do think it ought to include the gravity of the offence and the effect of the parole system, which we'll report back later this year. And we are changing the law so that child murderers such as Colin Pitchfork face life in prison without the possibility of parole as the default sentence. What do you make of that? Well, I think that's the right response to offences of this nature. I'm surprised. I have

sort of read, it might be speculation, that I've read that had he committed the offences today, he would have received a life tariff. And it seems curious to me that in perhaps more enlightened times in terms of sentencing policy, he would get a harsher sentence now than he did then. Is that a source of immense frustration for you and for your family? That yes, while things may be changing for others who so tragically could be affected like this, you're still going to be left with the reality that the man who so brutally murdered your niece is going to be out within days. Yes, it's an outrageous decision. And I suppose I just wonder,

because we heard a little there from your sister about how it has been, I mean, do you think it will change? It's been such an awful time for her and I imagine for the whole family. Will this change the complexion of that, how you live with this every day? I don't know. My sister's never, as she was saying, never really been able to get her life back on track.

And, you know, I'm intimately aware of the effect that these offences had on the immediate family and on the community and those people who knew Dawn and Linda. Yeah. You know, it just offends natural justice that he is able to resume his life, having taken the lives of two children in such horrific and unspeakable ways, really. And I also think that the message that it sends to women and girls generally, that the call for a real change in the response to male violence against women and children.

We need a step change in this and this is the current rhetoric after the, in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard isn't it? But I mean it must feel like nothing more than empty rhetoric for women children who don't have the need to have this step change realised in such an appalling decision. Philip, just finally, if I may, you said what she was like as a girl and you've had to speculate about what she may have gone on to do, Dawn. How should we remember her? A loving girl with a future so brutally taken from her and leaving a void. Thank you for talking to us today. We really appreciate it. That's the uncle of Dawn Ashworth, Philip Musson.

I'm now joined by David Wilson, Emeritus Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University. He's a former prison governor. And Belinda Winder, a Professor of Forensic Psychology at Nottingham Trent University, whose primary field is sexual offending. She's also the co-founder and vice chair of the Safer Living Foundation, which is focused on reducing sexual offending and re-offending through rehabilitation and preventative initiatives. David, if I go to you, first of all, what do you make of the Parole Board's decision?

Of course, not all documents are available for us to see what they base that on, but with your experience? I used to have a rule of thumb that when I was identifying particular offenders as to whether I should support their parole application or not, would I want this person to live next door to me? And if I couldn't be honest about that answer in the positive, I would err against parole. And I have to say, I was incredibly disappointed by the parole board's decision. I sometimes think the parole board just doesn't get it, just doesn't get. In fact, Philip was absolutely right, what sort of message does this send out to women and to girls? And of course, it comes hard on the heels of the parole board's desire to release

John Warboys not so many years ago as well. So I was disappointed by the decision. I don't think any of us, I know Belinda's work really well and I respect her work, but I don't think any of us can put our hand on our heart and say that Colin Pitchfork is no longer a risk. I haven't read all of the reports, but I don't think I would be prepared to say that given a number of behaviours that he displayed within his two murders. And quite apart from that, I mean, I'm absolutely somebody who believes that it is possible to rehabilitate people who have done the most heinous crimes. I absolutely get that. But some of the evidence that's been put forward in support of Pitchfork seems to me to include programs, which Belinda will know much more than me, are actually programs that have been evaluated to increase rather than decrease offending behaviour and leave

the whole issue of rehabilitation to one side, which is what Philip was really talking about as well. I just believe... I was going to say, let's come to some of those in just a moment and get into that detail. But Belinda, let me open this up to you. What do you make? Do you agree with what David is saying there? What do you make? Do you agree with what David is saying there? What do you make of this decision? How do you read it? So I don't agree with David with all respect. I mean, it's not for me or indeed David or any individual expert to to undermine the thoroughness and the care of the decision making by the parole board. And to do so would really be to overreach ourselves

um and i would say not only is it inappropriate for us to do so given that i haven't read and you know and david and other people won't have read the 1100 page dossier i wouldn't have questioned and the psychologists and other staff etc so so to kind of to do so would be not only inappropriate but really damaging i think think, to the public. And most important of all, damaging to Philip and to the victims' families who not only now have to endure this unimaginable sorrow and loss. And I cannot even begin to contemplate what that feels like. But it's going to be exacerbated by the thoughts that their horrors may be relived by another family. And I think for newspapers, for tabloids, for individuals who have not been at the parole hearing,

have not read all the information, who have not questioned the people, have not gone through this so very carefully, that it just ups the fear and the anger and the concern and the worry of everyone, really. And I think that is really unhelpful. I do know, I don't know Colin's, Mr Pitchfork's case in which I haven't read the records, haven't been there. But I do know how carefully the parole board make those decisions. And some of the cases mentioned were not released by the parole board make those decisions and some of the cases mentioned were not released by the parole board you know if anything i would call for more parole board more decisions to go to the parole board so that it can be very carefully uh sifted and assessed over any individual's behavior over

the last you know 30 40 years you know how did they end up committing such horrific crimes and such horrific acts? And what have they done since? The sex-funded treatment programme that David referred to, yes, there were issues with it, and no one intervention is going to solve anything. And it's not about any one intervention. It's about looking at each person who's committed this crime, looking at what traits, what characteristics, what environment, what factors underpin that and crafting a kind of a way forward so that when, if the parole board, and let's remember it's perhaps one in something like one in eight decisions that go to parole board will end up in release. So if the parole board make a release, then we can trust them. I suppose there's two things at the heart of what you're both saying. One is whether you trust the parole board or not. And the other, which we're getting a lot of messages about, is whether you

think people who've committed these crimes should ever be released. If we put that latter one to one side for a moment, you do sound like, Belinda, that you have faith in the parole board. And that's what I want to come back to you on, David, because if I read to you what the parole board spokesperson has given us in a statement, they say the parole board has immense sympathy for the families of Dawn Ashworth and Linda Mann and recognises the pain and anguish they have endured and continue to endure through the parole process. In the reconsideration, the decision that the judge remarks that the terrible consequences of the brutal rapes and murders of two innocent girls will forever darken the lives of the family concerned. However, parole board panels are bound by law to assess whether a prisoner is safe to release.

It has no power to alter the original sentence set down by the courts. Legislation dictates that a panel's decision must be solely focused on what risks a prisoner may pose on release and whether that risk can be managed in the community. If I come back to you on that statement, David, are you saying you don't have faith in the parole board's decision making? Yes, I think that is what I'm saying. And I absolutely understand Belinda's position. And I would say this is why we have a root and branch review of what's happening at the Parole Board. I'd also say to you, if it isn't for people like us who are experts, if it isn't for the public to challenge these kinds of quasi-judicial procedures and say they've got it wrong,

then who is it for? Who is going to challenge those decisions? And let's also be honest, that statement could have been made by the parole board, and indeed something very similar from the parole board was released when John Warboys was going to be released. And it was only because there was such a public outcry at the fact that they were going to release Warboys that we suddenly saw people rowing back. And I return. It isn't, as Belinda was saying, it wasn't just that there were problems with things like the SOTP. The SOTP was thoroughly evaluated as actually exacerbating offending behaviour. You're talking, just for our listeners to be in the swim with this,

you're talking about the Sex Offender Treatment Programme, the core Sex Offender Treatment Programme. Which is one of the programmes that Pitchfork has gone through. There will have been other interventions, but crucially, Belinda, he has never gone through, as far as I'm aware, something like intensive therapy at HMP Grendon. He's never put himself into a position whereby his offending behavior really would be challenged on a day-to-day basis. So I would simply say, hand on heart, I haven't read that 1,100-page report. There was a similarly lengthy report in relation to John Warboys.

I haven't read that report, but hand on heart, I wouldn't be prepared to say he no longer is a risk. Belinda, if it isn't for experts and the public to say, as David is saying, and to question these decisions, and also, as just been discussed, some of the rehabilitation programmes that we know he's probably been subjected to have been questioned or even withdrawn. Why or how do you have such faith in the Parole Board, especially when we've heard from the Ministry of Justice that it's actually going to be launching a big review of it? Okay, so firstly, the Rooton Branch review, absolutely. I think part of that is very much about Philip's point about was this an appropriate amount of time for someone to,

a prison sentence for someone who had committed such dreadful acts and absolutely understand that and have absolutely every sympathy with that because it feels, it is always helpful to think through to reflect and to review uh what people are doing and i have no problem whatsoever with any member of the public uh questioning i guess what i do have problems with is with an individual who has not read all the evidence and dossier and uh see you know knowing what uh the mr pitchfork or anyone else in this in this case has done and his behavior and his actions and uh all the factors and the information that we would need to make that decision is saying actually they they believe that their decision

is maybe better uh than the probable one i just think that's wrong. And, you know, we have the parole bill that is the society's gatekeeper for us. And if we then start to undermine that in a way that actually fuels the fear and anger of the public, I don't think that's helpful for anyone. Just to come back on the safety, because we've got quite a few messages around people who live in the area where this happened, and they are concerned. To come back to you, Belinda, on this, what about the idea that obviously individuals who've been involved, and this has been shown in Colin Pitchfork's case, in these sorts of crimes, are known to be known deceivers, liars. They go about being extremely convincing,

trying to do what they want to do. How can we have faith that somebody has been rehabilitated? Because that's what you also work on, coming away from parole board for a moment, because that's also a big part of this. Yeah, it is. And, you know, you don't, people are using the word faith. It's perhaps not so much faith because that implies belief um it's it's a trust um but i would say that uh we are aware that people lie deceive manipulate you know we're aware that the more you have to lose the more any of us might lie deceive manipulate and that is something that we will be very aware of i mean this in this instance i understand there's going to be uh polygraph testing, there's 38

different license conditions. And we know that this is a possibility. And that is, you know, for anyone in high risks, high pressure situations. And that is going to be something that people are going to be very, very aware of and mindful of. Aware of and mindful of, but you still think somebody like him can be rehabilitated and released. That's what you're arguing. What I'm saying is that I don't know because I haven't read the dossier, but I do know that the body that we set up as an independent body to make this decision, to read through these 1100 pages, to put someone through a suite of different intervention programs to watch their behavior, the changes, when they slip up, when they lie,

when they manipulate, when they make good progress, when they do good things. This has all been so carefully considered by the parole board. And I would say that I rest against that parole board decision. Yeah. And David, if this changes so that people in the future who do what Colin Pitchfork did can never get out, what do you make of this decision, I suppose, in light of if that's where it's going to be going, which it seems like it's going? Well, Philip was absolutely right.

If Colin Pitchfork committed these crimes in the way that he committed them today, he would have received a whole life tariff. There's absolutely no doubt about that. So actually, poor Belinda, who I think has done admirably in trying to support something which is probably indefensible, has done her level best to kind of put forward a decent argument in relation to supporting the parole board. But the parole board would not be in this position today because colin pitchfork if he committed these offenses now would never be released no i'd agreed he wouldn't be he would have got a whole life order and i'm absolutely not arguing against that what i'm saying is that we can look at the parole board decision making

and we can rest against that knowing that they have done extensive amounts of work and consideration and discussion and questioning looking at it. But I suppose it's a risk our society is having to take because the law was different in the way that the sentence was given out then. And that's sort of the reality we're left with. Thank you very much to both of you for talking to us this morning and bringing your evidence and your experience to bear. David Wilson, former prison governor and professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, and Belinda Wynder, professor of forensic psychology at Nottingham Trent University. Many messages coming in on this. Just to read a couple here. I lived in the area where Pitchfork brutally attacked and murdered one of the girls.

The effect this ghastly event had on the families and community cannot be expressed in words. This is not a question of releasing a sex offender. This odious and truly evil man bragged to his drinking buddies about what he had done in fooling the police by getting a mate to replace his DNA test. That is not the action of a normal person. He will always be a risk. That's an anonymous message. Ev also says shame on the parole board for allowing that evil man to be released. I lived in Leicestershire and the effect it's had on Narborough is palpable even today.

I don't think the fact that he may or may not be rehabilitated should even be a consideration, i.e. we're having the wrong debate. He brutalised and murdered two beautiful children, lied and schemed to avoid detection. Life for each murder is the case here and no release ever should be the outcome. Shame on all those responsible. And Ziggy's got in touch to talk about Philip's contribution to our conversation. Of course, Philip Musson, who you heard from first, the uncle of Dawn Ashworth, who said Philip Musson's extraordinarily articulate expression of impact and issues has been very moving indeed. And thank you to Philip for taking the time and talking to us today as he did about his niece. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said,

we are disappointed with this outcome given we felt there were grounds for the decision to be reconsidered, but we respect the independent judge's decision. Our sympathies remain with the families of Linda Mann and Dawn Ashworth, but they can be reassured that Pitchfork will be subject to close probation supervision for life independent judge's decision. Our sympathies remain with the families of Lindemann and Dawn Ashworth, but they can be reassured that Pitchfork will be subject to close probation supervision for life and faces an immediate return to prison if he fails to comply with his licence conditions. And I read to you that statement from the Parole Board.

Keep your messages coming in on 84844 and anything else that you hear. And also you can get in touch with us through our website. But a couple of months ago the artist Tracey Emin came on the programme. You may remember our conversation. I certainly do. I won't forget it for a long time. And if you missed it I recommend catching up on the whole conversation back on BBC Sounds.

But apart from her visceral descriptions of what illness had done to her body and mind and also of course we talked about her art and her creativity I asked her about an object dear to her heart I've got to ask after your spouse the rock the stone you married a stone in 2016 not a rolling stone a very fixed stone in France was it yeah how are they my stone? My stone. You still married? Yeah but of course I haven't seen him for quite some time and I might be looking elsewhere you know but the whole thing

about the stone now this is the truth okay so I've got this land in France where my studio is and we cleared off all this like you know bush and vegetation and everything and giant rock boulder appeared and I just thought oh my god that is the most beautiful stone I've ever seen and decided because I found this little ring and put it on my wedding finger and realized that that was unlucky so I thought what can I do about this and if I took it off I'd have to throw the ring away I didn't want to do that so I just thought get married now stone I love the stone I married the stone but later we cleared off some other land behind the stone and I found another giant great big boulder and I reckon the fact the year and a half that I haven't been there I don't know

something might have been going on between them I'm not sure sure. It's really funny. If I ever have a crush on anybody or like someone, my friends say to me, male, female, human. Yes, they've got to check now what's going on. Exactly, human, yeah. Well, it turns out Tracey Herman is not alone. Have you ever been in love with a thing, an object, maybe a building? Age seven on my first trip to London, I definitely felt the earth move between myself and Big Ben. No joke, I was in awe. There's a new French film out called Jumbo and it's about a young woman who falls in love with a fairground attraction. Zoe Whittock is the writer-director and Jumbo is her first film. She joins us now. Good morning, Zoe.

Good morning. I should say, anyone who can relate to this, text me on 84844. If you had to be with something that wasn't a person, what would it be with? Let us know. What would you choose? This story is based on a real person, isn't it? Loosely? Yes, absolutely. It is. I read an article about Erica Ethel, and I see her last name kind of gives it away saying that she married the Eiffel Tower and I just got so curious how can anyone do that how can anyone have that strength and the craziness to do like such a public act which is a crazy act which is to marry the Eiffel Tower and so I just got really curious and I tracked her down talked to her and got even more

curious after talking to her because you know and it's it's actually what I was hearing about the person that was on um that married the her rock um is that when I talked to her she had such a sincere and normal and very reasonable you know um story about why she fell in love and how that was expressed, you know, for herself, that it just got me really intrigued. You know, I was expecting a freak, you know, someone that was completely out there and kind of out of this world. And I found someone who was, you know, who was very, very courteous and very, very normal. It was just so surprising. We did try and invite her onto the programme, Erica Ifill, today.

We did email and see if we could that we haven't been successful yet, but you describe her having, you know, being somebody you could take seriously about this. What was her reasoning? Why did she want to do this? Because I understand she used to go and go and

visit the tower quite regularly until security around it changed. Yeah, exactly. Well, I think, you know, it's just, of course, at first, it's the sort of falling in love with the beauty of the Eiffel Tower. And that I think can't be, you know, opposed by anyone. Anyone recognizes how beautiful the Eiffel Tower is. We just don't have the same exact reaction to it. And I think that she felt that the Eiffel Tower was communicating and creating, you know, something in her that she just could not avoid. And so she decided to obviously consume that relationship with the Eiffel Tower and married her.

And then, yeah, things changed a little bit when security changed around the Eiffel Tower because she always did get private access to the Eiffel Tower and married her. And then, yeah, things changed a little bit when security changed around the Eiffel Tower because she always did get private access to the Eiffel Tower because the guards there knew her and knew her story and had empathy for her allowing her to kind of get through it. Yeah, no, I mean, and she's not here to talk and you're explaining it on behalf

and you've now, we'll talk about the film and why you picked the fairground attraction in just a moment, but there'll be people listening to this thinking, how can we be talking sincerely? I mean, I did say I really liked Big Ben when I first came to London from Manchester and I looked at it, it was beautiful. I hadn't then thought about going back

and, you know, asking him to marry me. There is a difference between being in awe and loving an object and then feeling or building and then feeling like you're describing that it's capable of having a relationship. I mean, is this something women do more than men when you looked into this or other people have done? Yeah.

I mean, research shows that more women tend to have these relationships and it also has a tendency to be from people with some kind of autism, which is not always the case and it's more or less mild. So I think it is something that's only possible for people that see the world differently and sense it differently. Like, you know, you could have people that, you know, there is a syndrome where you have colors kind of showing, appearing on your eyesight, and no one else would see that.

It's kind of tricks of the mind as well. But they're living this story and relationship very honestly. So I think that, yes, of course it's abnormal, you know, but I think the whole question that I had around this subject and that I try to do in my film is like question your normality. It's like when do we have to be boxed in by what we know and what is normal and when can we actually push those boundaries to you know open to somebody's happiness because these are not people that haven't tried to be normal and be in love

with a man or a woman and and usually they've all tried to go through these normal relationships um but they just haven't been able to. And then suddenly realize that when they were 13, they already felt something, you know, around one specific object. And so start exploring the unexplorable for most people. I mean, we are getting messages in, you know, for instance, genuinely, I think I fell in love with the statue of David in Florence. You know, when going around a gallery. Does that count as stone or human? You know, in the sense of, I suppose that's a representation of a human. So maybe that's different in itself. Why did you pick a fairground attraction for the

character in your film to feel something for? Yeah, well, first of all, I did not want anything to be of human representation because I think that was the easy way out. But the reason behind the fairground attraction is that what I've recognized from research and talking to Erica Ethel is that, you know, oftentimes these are people that have a part of them that have stuck in childhood in a way. You know, I think when we're all children, we have that imagination and we allow ourselves to believe that objects have souls and that they can move around at think when we're all children we have that imagination and we allow ourselves to believe that objects have souls and that they can move around at night when we're not looking etc etc and so I really wanted an object that reflected part of that and of course a fairground attraction is an object in itself that creates sensation you know the the French word

for it like you know is you know you attraction, attraction, which is in a sense saying being attracted to something. Right. So an object like that was, I think, for me, allowed a very specific subject to talk to a more universal audience, because I think anybody can say I've been scared, you know, afraid, happy, ecstatic on an attraction. Well, I do look forward to watching this it's called jumbo have you realized that you've loved something in your life an object a thing have you done this have you tried to assess your own uh your own loves and desires yeah I have of course you have because I think if you allow yourself to think that to think about someone living through a relationship like that, then you have to question your own sensibility. So I do know that, you know, being an artist, obviously, I've always believed that objects have souls in a way and that there is a way of communicating and that they bring things to us, you know.

So I have a tendency to collect a lot of things. I have that kind of thing but I've also realized that you know I've lost my driver's license because I had it from a foreign country so I haven't been able to drive in France for a long time and I feel that not having my car is like taking away that freedom and it's really become a frustration and an obsession about having you know my car back the car okay yeah the freedom associated with the car I I mean, exactly. But I think the other thing just to explore is if people have been disappointed by relationships, which you were starting to touch on with others, that perhaps they'll seek something else. But how can you have a relationship with something that doesn't communicate back? Because essentially, you're

just imposing your own feelings onto that thing, and then having it sort of with yourself. Because I mean, I have interviewed people before who've married themselves and have a relationship just with themselves. Is this an extension of that, would you say? I mean, if we want to take it from a very reasonable sort of down to earth perspective. Sorry, that's what I've tried to, that's what I obviously bring to this, but go on. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, there is obviously a reflection of oneself in that, but I think even if you talk about our human relationship between two human beings, I mean, we are choosing one or the other person because they reflect something specific to us, you know? And of course

that through eye contact and energy, but I don't think that an object is devoid of energy that I will, you know, even if I'm trying to be very reasonable, I think that an object is devoid of energy that I will you know even if I'm trying to be very reasonable I think that an object has an energy and it is full of history um and so from that sense I do think that it can project something back um and then yeah so well you can't you can't go on holiday together though not easily especially if you're a fairground ride or uh you know yeah no exactly but obviously it's um i think that people that make that decision to go that direction are you know like i said like they've tried relationships before and realized that they were hurting more of the people that they were with rather than you know obviously an object they they you know from an external standpoint they can't really hurt them although they do entertain that full relationship as in like well as i say we started this with a with

listening back to a clip from tracy emin the artist and there'll be others and they are getting in touch with with what their feelings are and the feeling that you feel when you have that deep connection to an object or a thing zoe whittle thank you very much for talking to us good luck with the film the film is called jumbo stella says i love big ben too thank you very much for talking to us. Good luck with the film. The film is called Jumbo. Stella says, I love Big Ben too. Thank you, Stella. It's another one here saying, it is a feeling we fall in love with, evoked by a person, a place, or an object.

The fact is, we love how much we love, and that we are capable of, and that is the feeling of falling. Your message is still coming in, and do keep them coming in. 84844. But now to a woman who has defied death and continues to do so and she stared it in the face and very recently too. Who am I talking about? Deborah James, better known as Bowel Babe on social media, now campaigner, blogger, author and host of course of the BBC's You, Me and the Big C podcast. Diagnosed with

stage four bowel cancer in 2016, she was expected to live a matter of months. Four and a half years on, she is here to tell the tale and continue telling the tale. Deborah, good morning. Good morning, Emma. I have to say, your latest brush with death, and I don't say that glibly, was very recent.

Yeah, absolutely. I think I sent you a message, in fact, saying, well, last week when I was dying, I've always lived with this dark shadow. I have incurable bowel cancer. And I think people look at me and assume that it's OK, it's just a sleep and it won't come back to bite me. And then suddenly at the next scan or the next corner or whatever we want to call it, you know, I feel like recently I simply fell off a cliff, if you want to say that. It was one thing after another. And recently things were not looking great.

I knew my cancer was bubbling. The positive news is we had actually kept it to sleep for a matter of years, in fact, because of some new targeted therapy. And I always knew it was going to run out. People kind of think, oh, you know, this is tragic. But the reality is that I thought it would run out after six months and I got two and a half years out of it. So actually, it's such a positive story but I always knew this day would come and it came very recently and I think as much as I wanted to deny it kind of in the distance my liver started to fail and unfortunately I had a a tumour that was wrapped around my bile duct and anybody who has experienced liver failure or something very

cute in that situation will know that it is literally a matter of days where everything can just shut down on you and you know what thank god for the NHS because I was being rushed across hospitals to have a stent put back in my bile duct and so that was the first thing and the aim of the game was to get me back on chemo which I achieved until last week I got sepsis as a result of just a plummeted immune system so I'm currently sat talking to you I'm nearly 40 I can't believe I can say that but I'm currently back on my parents because sometimes a girl just needs her mother to pick her up and put the pieces back together and that's exactly what I'm doing and yes and you know you are prolific on social media even when the chips

are down as you've just described I mean just one of those things would be something that people would be perhaps fearful of in their life but you know your life is a series of of these these snakes and ladders if I could put it like that and then sepsis you know just in the middle and we were due to have a conversation and you did text me saying, sorry, I couldn't. Yeah, I was dying. I've never had a text like that from anybody. And here we are now, I'm very happy to say, having a conversation. But you in between these social media posts, because I know you're careful to show and try and show both sides, you know, you have to cope with that. And you've got your children and I know you've got your husband.

But there is something I read about you not being able to sleep and your mum just lying with you. And how important is that, that relationship between you and your mum to keep you calm during all of this? It's crucial. It's vital. And obviously my husband and the rest of my family and my father. But I think it's kind of you have people um who you can surround yourself by in the darkest of moments um and I think I I recognized

actually recently in hospital um just what um so many people must be going through because unfortunately um and well I'm interested to see what will happen on Monday, visiting in hospitals is still more or less banned. And I was actually only about six days ago, a very dark moment where mental health wise, I was really struggling. It was kind of another thing after another thing. And I have to be honest with you. Yes, I had sepsis, but I just wanted to discharge myself because I think when time's precious, you just kind of go, do I really want to be in a hospital room on my own? And I was going, you know, I was going into very, very dark places and I kind of had decided enough was enough and I want to give up on life. And it unfortunately took going to the very top of the hospital to get permission for my mum to come in. But by seeing my mum, who then did actually end up having to not hide, but unfortunately, had she left the hospital, she would have been a COVID risk.

So she decamped in my room for two days just to keep me in there to get more IV antibiotics in me. But that is the difference between living and dying. And I think it really brought home the impact that kind of, you know, the people around us can have on our mental well-being that pick us up in our darkest moments. And I think we've forgotten a little bit about that, especially in the pandemic, especially when, yes, we've had to protect people. But actually, 50 percent of the battle is the mental battle. Well, no, indeed. But that battle also propels you and that need to make every second count to do some incredible things. And I know 12 hours after you left hospital, because you do document things very well, you were at Wimbledon.

Yeah, I wouldn't advocate that. Is there a huge amount of effort that goes into getting you dressed, getting you looking how you want, getting to the venue? Yeah, 100% in that instance, certainly. And I think I was lying there and it was one of those situations where, well, it's the Wimbledon final, how often are you invited to the Wimbledon final um and it is literally a once in a lifetime opportunity and um I don't have the luxury of kind of saying oh well it might come around again I don't think any of us do actually and so you kind of have to grab it but unfortunately it does take a bit of

an army to persuade you you have that kind of conversation in your mind that says, can I do this? I can't do this. I don't have the energy. No, I need the help and support to do it. And, you know, it's snapshots, it's snapshots of two hour windows where you feel well enough to make the most of that opportunity. And I think people what people don't see behind the scenes is if I'm having a kind of rough period which I certainly am at the moment is it might take two days sleep in order to have that two-hour window um but people often say to me well you know they they see this image on social media of me as a very positive person and like you said hopefully I portray both sides of the story and they say how do you do it uh what's your best advice and I say actually sometimes um you know I well

obviously all the time I'm not positive all the time but the reality is that I can't think about the future I don't know what the future looked like but if I thought about the future four years ago I wouldn't be talking to you now. And sometimes in the moments of darkness, actually, I can only think about the next hour. It's kind of how am I going to get through an hour? And if somebody says to me, well, you know, I just can't cope with it. I kind of say, well, break your day down so much that you put things on your list, like get up and get dressed, because then you are already winning. And if you achieve that and that's all you achieve in the day, well done. Because sometimes we have such rough days that actually we have to celebrate

if we've just made it through the day. And actually that's how I cope. It's sometimes hour by hour, second by second. And then eventually it becomes day by day. And eventually when I get back on my feet, it becomes week or month by month. It's very good advice. And it chimes with something I know that our mutual friend, Rachel Bland, who I used to work with at Five Live and you obviously used to host the podcast with. She, of course, died of cancer. She called it the reverse Dalai Lama. If your insides are totally screwed, just work on the outside and fake the rest and Rachel you know

such a wonderful person and you could never tell I have to say from the outside what was going on absolutely and I love that I've taken on that mantra and people will look at me and say but Debra you look really well and I hope actually for me sometimes I want to just look in the mirror and see a reflection of somebody that doesn't look like they have stage four cancer and I think in itself um it almost people say you have to uh you know you have to become it or feel it before you can um you know actually be it but the reality is sometimes you just have to fake it and you have to look the part and you have to almost in a way um that reverse psychology makes you play up to that role.

So if you're faking being positive and I'm not for a second saying that I fake the positivity, but it's a mindset where I say to myself, OK, I have two choices here. I can choose not to get dressed for the day or I can use to put a little bit of makeup on. It might make me feel better. And you know what? out of ten actually it does work and so it becomes a kind of like don't sit around waiting for you to suddenly feel better just use every strategy and every tool that you have in the box to uh to throw us it because you know what sometimes we just need that extra bit of a boost well I bet those strawberries at Wimbledon if you did go for them tasted even sweeter after the the amount of sleep and prep to get you there and I certainly hope I know it's probably too far off to say it but I know you know your 40th as you say is coming October is that

right? It is October and I was told I would never make it and it's coming up to my five-year anniversary at the end of this year and I can't for a second think about even living to the end of the year to be honest I have both my children start their secondary schools in September, but I just want to see them to their secondary schools. And if I do that, I might see my birthday. Well, let's go with that, Deborah. We'll hold it there. We'll stay in touch.

And thank you for coming and spreading some joy with us. You are infectious with all of that. And, you know, I know you feel infectious in a whole other way a lot of the time or fear of, I should say. And there's some very serious points you raise there about the time we're living in and what's going on with cancer patients. And I know that you've been campaigning and working around that. But Deborah James, thank you very much for talking to us. Thank you, Emma. Balbabe, as you may know her.

If you want to follow her journey, check her out on social media. And to Peter, who's just got in touch saying, did Emma fall in love with Big Ben or the Elizabeth Tower? We need to know. Going back to our previous conversation. Yes, you are right. It is the Elizabeth Tower, nicknamed or the bell inside, nicknamed Big Ben. Sorry, Peter, I got that wrong. Seven-year-old me was introduced as Big Ben. So thank you for that. Keep your messages coming in and some lovely ones coming about Deborah as well. But let's update you on a couple of cases which have caught the Labour MP Harriet Harman's attention. Rough sex gone wrong should never have been used as a defence to harming or killing women, our politicians concluded. But it was, and a number of high profile cases of women dying

after their partners used that very defence led to a law change earlier this year. The Domestic Abuse Act states that even if rough sex is consensual, the infliction of serious harm or worse will lead to prosecution. Harriet Harman was instrumental in getting the law changed. But Harriet, the defence is still being used in two cases in particular. Is that right? Yes. And I mean, it's really, we've got to change this. And this is, as you say, a problem where a man says, yes, she is dead. I did kill her, but it's not my fault. I'm not guilty of murder. It's her fault because it was rough sex. It was what she wanted. I was only doing what she wanted. And then he doesn't get convicted of murder. He gets manslaughter. He gets just a few years and then he's out. And the case that started this change in the law, the movement for the change in the law,

was in 2018 when lovely Natalie Connolly who was a mother of this year age 26 mother of a young daughter was John Broadhurst was convicted of killing her by the most awful internal injuries and she hemorrhaged to death and he got three years eight months and he is out now and to their credit the government agreed that rough sex gone wrong could not be a defence that gets a man off a murder charge. So they used this domestic abuse bill which was passed and they put that clause in which says it's not a defence that the victim consented to the infliction of the serious harm for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification i.e consent to harm is not a defence. However, we then get to a situation, and I mean, these are such really sad cases. In 2018, just recently, Claire Wright was killed by

Warren Coulton, who put a sock in her mouth and tied her hands behind her back and she died, a mother of two children aged 38. Is it murder? No. He admits he puts the sock in the mouth. He admits he ties her hand behind her back. But no, it's what she wanted. And the judge then chirps away. She liked rough sex. Well, she is not there to say whether she did or she didn't. And even if she did, it's not a defence to him killing her. And then there was the case of Sam Pibus, who killed Sophie Moss, aged 33, by strangling her. And he admits, I strangled her. This was in Sedgefield. But I'm not guilty of murder. It's only manslaughter. And the thing is, this is not what Parliament wants, it's not what the government wants, but this is what's happening.

So I'm afraid we've got to go back and change the law again because we can't have... You know, the woman's not able to speak for herself because he's killed her, and then he regales the court with what she liked, and then he's let off the hook. And yet the CPS in a statement has said to us new powers in the domestic abuse bill came into force in April and cannot be applied retrospectively however existing laws make clear that a person cannot consent to the infliction of serious harm our prosecutors will always challenge claims that a victim has consented in inverted

commas and will bring the most serious charges available in both of these tragic cases the defendants have now been convicted of manslaughter our thoughts remain with both victims and their families what do you say to that i think i think the law on murder needs to change because it's a question of intent what did he intend to do and the traditional view of murder has been he's got to have intended to kill her or cause her serious harm. And he says, of course, I didn't intend to kill her. I just intended to have sex with her, with her consent. And I think what we should do is change the boundary line on murder so that the question is, did he intend to do what killed her? Did he intend to put his hands around her neck and stop her breathing? And if he did, he can't then say, well, I didn't intend to murder her, but I did intend to put my

hands around her neck and stop her breathing. We need to move the boundary of murder so it takes into account his intention to do what he did and what killed her, not an intention to kill her. Because otherwise, we've got a situation where men can simply get away with murder if the woman they kill, they can say was their sexual partner. And the irony... So you think you could still get away with that, even with the law change that has happened? It's got to be another law change in the way that you've just described for that not to be the case. Yes, I do. And I think the irony is that in the past, this would not have been possible in the same way, because in the criminal justice system, women were regarded, you know, culturally as not sexual beings, but men were the sexual beings and women were just acquiescent. And now with the culture of argument of women's empowerment,

sexual empowerment, the irony is that men are using that against them. I mean, in the past, it would have been impossible to persuade a jury that a woman wanted rough sex. But now, you know, we've all read Fifty Shades of Grey, and the assumption is that women are sexually empowered. And therefore, all he needs to say is, yes, that was her sexual choice. So you would say an irony there that feminism has been used and the empowerment that has come with that, or the perception of that empowerment, has come full circle in a way that was not intended?

Absolutely. And what an irony that women claiming the right to their own sexuality is then used against them in the worst of all crimes, which is homicide. Harriet Harman will speak again with an update potentially on this. I read that statement from the CPS and that's the latest from their side of things. Thank you for your time this morning

in a sort of way to come full circle because we were talking at the beginning of the changing times and how that may have been different with regards to the sentencings of Colin Pitchfork, which I should say many of you have been in touch about this morning to say what you think of that and also whether there could have been a case in any way to discuss rehabilitation a bit more. But also we should even be having this discussion in the first place. Just to finish on what some of you are saying about Deborah, Deborah James, Balbabe, I've got stage four the same as her and her attitude is all. Thank her. Please, Woman's Hour, says Lorraine. Big kisses there. Cup of coffee in my hand.

My treat. Thank you. You too. All the best, Lorraine. Thank you for your company this morning. We'll be back with you tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you for your company this morning. We'll be back with you tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Thank you so much for your time. Join us again for the next one. Hello, I'm Pandora Sykes. And just before you go, I wanted to tell you about a new podcast, Pieces of Britney.

My attempt to piece together the life of Britney Spears and the forces that have forged it. A huge fan. yeah, absolutely. A fan of not just the performer, but the person. I think that a lot of people were rooting for Britney to fail. And there's this sort of assumption of, you know, this is what you wanted, this is what you're going to get. In this eight-part series for BBC Radio 4, I've spoken to cultural thinkers, lawyers, psychologists

and key players in the entertainment industry to get their perspective on Britney's remarkable story and enduring legacy. I used her as an example of somebody who really got what was required to do that kind of work. We're also using drama to help us look behind the headlines and the conflicting accounts to imagine the woman underneath. Join me for Pieces of Britney. Subscribe now 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's 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.