Woman's Hour - Mica Paris, Is Facebook dangerous for kids? Regretting your tattoos

Episode Date: December 14, 2023

The National Crime Agency has warned parents that Facebook and Instagram are now a danger to children. That’s after Meta, the parent company of the social media sites, made the decision to introduce encrypted messaging. The BBC’s Technology Editor Zoe Kleinman and online safety expert John Carr join Emma Barnett to discuss. Bafta award-winning actor Sheridan Smith has said that she regrets the tattoos she’s got and would never get another one done. It’s a situation that a lot of people find themselves in. Letitia Mortimer, a London-based tattoo artist, talks to Emma about seeing plenty of people wanting to get their tattoos covered or removed over the years. Soul singer Mica Paris will headline an evening of gospel music on television, where she’ll be joined by 10 gospel singers and a dynamic four-piece band to perform moving versions of various Christmas songs. She joins Emma live in the studio to give us a taste of what to expect on A Gospel Christmas and her new album.Two referenda to change Ireland’s constitution regarding gender and family are to be held on International Women’s Day next year. The amendments would broaden the definition of family beyond marriage in the constitution, and there would be reference to carers to recognise all those who provide care. Commentator Laura Perrins and academic and activist Ailbhe Smyth join Emma to discuss why the suggestions are potentially contentious. Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Lottie Garton

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. As Ireland prepares for a referendum early next year on whether to change its constitution to remove the reference to women's duties in the home and women not being obliged by economic necessity to neglect such duties, we're going to hear from one woman who wants such wording to remain. But how should states best recognise the work that largely still falls to women within the home? Do you have a view? Is it in such sorts of documents? Is it in other ways? Is it about financial recompense? How do you feel we should be represented or have this represented in some way?

Get in touch on 84844. You'll hear that debate later on in the programme, but it'd be good to hear your voice first. Text will be charged to your standard message rate. Is it in policy? Do you see those policies? Are the politicians coming out with anything along those lines? On social media, at BBC Women's Hour or email us through the Women's Hour website or go for a WhatsApp message 03700 100 444. Do get in touch, watch those data charges. You just might want to use Wi-Fi if you can. Also on today's programme, the soul singer Misha

Paris will be in the studio and tattoos. According to a recent poll, a quarter of the British public have them. This includes the one in nine Britons who have at least one visible tattoo on the head, face, neck, forearms, wrists or hands. And this week, the actor Sheridan Smith, I don't know if you saw this, says she regrets hers and is never having another. What about you?

As someone who doesn't have one, never plans to, I don't even have my ears pierced actually or anything like that, I am quite in awe of people making such permanent decisions. But I also know they can be very emotional things, they can mean a great deal. But if you've come to a place where perhaps you do regret the inking you have, maybe you weren't sober when you got it, and I certainly know a few people with that. Maybe you still can't actually see it. It might be on your back or behind you in the subway, but it bothers you. Or perhaps it's something that you've just done and it was a very carefully thought out procedure.

There was lots of design that went into it and you can't ever imagine regretting it. Do get in touch. 84844. I'll be talking to a tattoo artist who herself has had some regrets. But first, the National Crime Agency has today warned parents that Facebook and Instagram are now a danger to children. This comes after Meta, the parent company of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, made this decision a few days ago to introduce encrypted messaging for personal chats and calls so that the private messaging part of these services.

The company says this will give users a more secure and private service, but the National Crime Agency says it risks children's safety. In fact, they estimate that thousands fewer reports of child abuse will reach police and authorities each year because of this decision. Well, what's driving this choice? The BBC technology editor Zoe Clyman can hopefully give us a bit more on that. And John Carr, I'll talk to shortly, the secretary of the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety with some reaction.

Zoe, good morning. Good morning, Emma. Before we get to the why, just remind us, end-to-end encryption, what does that mean? What it means is that only the device that sends a message and the device that receives it can read that message. So if I send a message to you, Emma, only our phones can read it. And if somebody else asks to see it, be it law enforcement, be it anybody, then whichever platform we're using, the company would be unable to share that message. And as we've seen recently with the COVID inquiry, if that phone gets wiped, if those messages don't come with you, they've gone. And there is no other way of getting hold of them. So it's a very secure way of sending messages.

It's very privacy focused. Lots of the platforms do it. WhatsApp does it. iMessage does it. Signal does it. In some ways, Meta's Messenger is quite late to the party, really. It's been offering it as an opt-in option, but it's only now that it's saying this specific form of encryption will be the default option for everybody using it. Why have they made that choice, despite, as you say, being late to the party? Well, I think that there is a strong movement, certainly within the tech sector, to protect privacy in this way. Those who are in favour of encryption will tell you that it offers lots of protections to people. First of all, if you're sending things like your bank account details and private information, it can't be hacked by anyone.

There is currently no backdoor into end-to-end encryption. So it's impossible for anyone else to steal that information unless they get hold of your device. It protects people like activists working perhaps under strict regimes. They are slightly more able to communicate with each other in a way they wouldn't be able to publicly. And there are also claims that it helps to protect people of, for example, domestic violence because their partners or whoever it is that's abusing them are unable to hack into a service unless they can get hold of their victim's device. And in terms of then the concerns that have been raised, I mean, we did invite Meta on this morning. A spokesperson said, as we roll out end-to-end encryption, we expect to continue providing more reports to law enforcement than our peers due to our industry leading work on keeping people safe. The company in terms of how this will work then, what have you heard about the response to

the concerns? This is such an ongoing battle, Emma. We've seen it raging with the online safety bill, now the Online Safety Act all over the summer, with the government in the UK saying, actually, we do want these companies to be able to hand over messages if there is a security or child protection concern. And these companies saying, well, you know, we can't do it, the tools don't exist, they're even threatening to leave the UK if they were forced to do that, because they say, if they put in a backdoor, that it's only a matter of time before somebody else finds that backdoor as well, because it's potentially access to millions of messages and so much valuable information to somebody potentially nefarious okay because and i suppose the issue is just looking a bit more on

background to what we've got from meta here is that the company believes encryption will as you you were talking about in some ways um prevent hackers fraudsters fraudsters and criminals from reading private messages and says it's developed other measures to protect children, including a restriction on users over 19 sending messages to young people who don't follow them. But how much of a concern, knowing the individuals you've spoken to within the business, will it be that the National Crime Agency has been so plain speaking today? I think these companies will be certainly paying attention to that. And I think, you know, we have so many examples, horrible, tragic examples of children who are groomed online. And often, this is the pattern that you hear that they are lured over from wherever it is they meet their abuser onto an encrypted

messaging platform where the abuser feels more safe because, you know, the messages can't be seen. I mean, you know, there are other tools available. There are things that Meta specifically does to look at some of the content and messages. And it can also look at behavior patterns. And I think it's sort of relying on those. It also relies a lot on people reporting messages, which you can do. You can report do. You can report someone, you can block someone. There is a website called CEOP, if you want to go to that. If you're under 18, you can report anything quietly to CEOP. It is part of the National Crime

Agency, but it does take all of these things very seriously. I think part of the issue that I hear is that actually children are reluctant to do that. You know, they're frightened to report an adult or to report some sort of behaviour that they might feel themselves ashamed of, and they're worried about the consequences for them. And so I think, you know, perhaps a lot of this comes down to endless education and telling our children that it's okay if they're not comfortable about something. If something's going on that they don't like, it's okay to tell people about it. Is this a money-making scheme, in the sense of of will any more money be made or will money be saved from moderators? That is a really good question. It is kind of

difficult to see how these platforms do make money isn't it? If you think about the sort of very private nature of these things they can't be targeting advertising at you if they can't see the nature of what you're interested in. You know if you and I are chatting about something we want to buy in the shops it's not like it's not like that these platforms know that so they can't suddenly start bombarding us with ads for it and i don't think it does make money for them but what it does do is keep you on that platform and keep you in that ecosystem and that gives you the opportunity gives them the opportunity i guess to have more eyeballs on other platforms that you might then go to. It's all about keeping you within their world, if you like. And if some of our listeners are trying to follow what's been going on with the online safety bill,

how will this tally or not tally with that? So the online safety bill has come into law now. It's the Online Safety Act. And the government has slightly softened its approach. What it is now saying is that in the future, if such technology exists, which means that these firms can access messaging without breaking encryption, then they will have to hand over message communications if they are asked to by law enforcement, in the event of a security or child protection concern.

The thing is, Emma, that almost everybody I've spoken to says these tools are just not going to exist. Nobody is going to be able to build them. And actually, it's impossible to both break and not break end-to-end encryption. We might find, as is often the way with these things, that tech beats us to us. We have a really powerful form of new computing called quantum computing

that's incredibly complicated for me to go into. But there are promises that one day that probably will be powerful enough to break encryption that we currently have. John, let me bring you in at this point to remind our listeners. John Carr, Secretary of the Children's Charities Coalition. Is it realistic, this warning from the National Crime Agency to parents that make sure that you know that these platforms are a danger to children because of this change? Well, I very much hope so, because parents do need to know it. And let's be clear, by the way,

the issue here is not about the words in messages. What the police and what I and other children's organisations are drawing attention to is the fact that images of children being raped, images of children being sexually abused will no longer be detectable by the platforms. Over the past four years, Meta has reported to the British police 550,000 instances of images of children being raped or sexually abused to the British police. It has deprived itself of the capacity to do that in the future.

And the only reason, and let's be completely clear, Zoe mentioned earlier about Meta being late to the party. What that means is Meta, the most privacy-abusing company on the internet, has realised that its competitive position vis-a-vis other messaging apps is being undermined by its historic reputation as a privacy abusing company. So they are pivoting to privacy to try to recover their position to protect their future revenues. Sorry, why do you say a privacy abusing company? Why do you choose to describe it in that way? Well, Cambridge Analytica. I mean, it's quite a long list of things that Meta and Facebook have done, which reminds everybody

how appalling their history has been in terms of privacy. And that is exactly why Zuckerberg decided that they need to reshape their image and become a privacy company like Apple and Telegram and the other apps are. And in terms of how that pertains, I mean, we've read the statement from Meta. We did invite them on, a spokesperson on, but no one was available. In terms of how that pertains to children, you've just talked about far fewer reports. Well, no reports if these messages are encrypted. Potentially.

Potentially. And yet Meta says it's developed technology that will be able to keep young users safe. What's your view of that? It's simply impossible. They have blinded themselves to things that they were previously able to see. They were a world leader. Let's be clear. Meta were a world leader. They deployed tools that allowed them to detect images of children being raped and sexually abused. That's why they were able to report them to the British police. And by the way, globally, they reported about 80 million to the American Center.

That's ended. And whatever else they might be doing to try to detect abuse, they will not be able to see what they used to be able to see. And the only reason is money. Now then, if you're listening to this as someone who is in charge of a younger person and wants to keep them safe and, you know, make sure they keep themselves safe, what would you do? What do you advise? What do I advise? Yes. Pay attention.

What I do with youngsters is get them to bring their phone or their tablet or whatever it is they use to connect their games console. Just sit down with them. Ask them to go through each of the apps that they're using. Get them to tell you who they connect with, what they do. And it's a way of opening up a conversation, an icebreaker, if you like. It gives you an opportunity to remind children about some of the risks. And you need to do it in an age-appropriate way, and every child is different. But it's a conversation that we cannot and should not avoid. And we can only regret that Meta is helping the bad guys by blinding

themselves to some of the horrible things they do. So from what you just said there, it's not about not being on these platforms, it's about how you're on these platforms. Well, the police are saying, and I agree with them, by the way, I'm not sure everybody does, that these platforms are now inherently more dangerous than they used to be. And for the reasons that Zoe gave earlier, by the way, children get lured from these platforms

to encrypted spaces. There were no encrypted spaces before, there are now. And so these platforms have become more dangerous and some people will start boycotting it because of that. But if your children are on them, you're saying to engage in a conversation. I suppose the argument could also go that this is not just about the technology, which is what we're starting to speak to. It's about the parenting. It's about what is normal and how you engage on this and how you try and patrol what's going on in your children's lives. There is the argument technology is not the problem,

it's the behaviours that surround it. I don't know where you come at on that because the window slightly changed around the online safety bill as it became law in terms of how people talked about that. No, you're absolutely right. Who'd be a parent in the 21st century? But we all are and we're all grandparents now, or I am anyway. Technology has made it more complicated and more difficult.

The goalposts have moved. We need to catch up and make sure we're engaged as well as we can be. But the thing is, we can't put all of the burden on parents, busy parents, parents who are not very techie minded, whatever, however, you might want to explain it. The companies are the people that constructed these platforms. They're making gigantic amounts of money from these platforms. They have a major responsibility to do what they can at a technical level to make these technical platforms safe for children. Is there any way of having detection technology, Zoe did start to talk a bit to this,

alongside encryption, which still allows this sort of safety net to be there? Yes, there is. It's called client-side scanning. And Apple, to their great credit, came up with a great example of how it could be done. I'm not interested in reading the messages that are being exchanged. What I am interested in is picking up on the images, the pictures and the videos. You can do that if you examine the content before it is encrypted. Nobody's talking about breaking the encryption. Zoe's probably right. Right now, that's impossible anyway. But what you can do, and what Apple initially proposed to do, and Facebook could copy it, Meta could copy it, is look at the images, look at the contents, the attachments to messages

before they go into the encrypted tunnel. If that were to happen, all of my anxieties and worries would disappear. What do you think of that, Zoe, coming back to you as our technology editor? I think John is right that client-side scanning is a possible solution. Unfortunately, it's an incredibly controversial one because the idea is that it scans content on your device before it leaves your phone. So it's been dubbed by privacy campaigners

the spy in your pocket. And the reason that Apple pulled it was because there was such an enormous backlash from its customers saying they just did not want this, that it never flew. So it is an option, but it's a very unpopular one with lots of people who care about their privacy and I think would be concerned about exactly what was being scanned, where it was being sent. You know, we also know that increasingly these tools rely on artificial intelligence, which makes mistakes. What if you've got a photo on your phone of your child in the bath and suddenly that's flagged as something else? You know, it is not perfect tech to be deployed.

And I think it would be for lots of people, it would feel very intrusive. Can I just make a quick comeback on that? Yes. Perfect tech. Has that ever existed, by the way? But here's the thing. If you can see the image before it goes into the encrypted tunnel, then everybody's anxieties would disappear.

When Apple first proposed it, and by the way, they didn't back off because of their Apple first proposed it. And by the way, they didn't back off because of their customers reacting against it. They backed off of it because of a very well financed campaign by a highly tech literate privacy lobby, principally in the United States of America. NSPCC did polling in Britain and in another organization I work with did polling in Europe. There is overwhelming support amongst the general public for using technical tools to detect child sex abuse. And no tech company can gainsay that.

And if they want to say that privacy is more important than children's lives, let them say that explicitly instead of hiding behind these weaselly words about imperfections in client-side scanning. John Carr, thank you very much for that. I'm sure you'll have some views on it. And John Carr, Secretary of the Children's Charities Coalition

on Internet Safety. Zoe Clyman, just a final thought from you as the BBC technology editor. Do you think we should be, or in terms of how this will come out, do you think there will be a change in parents now allowing children to use these platforms? Do you think there that that moment coming with some of the changes

that have been happening it's so difficult isn't it i mean i'm a parent myself and you're battling unfortunately for my children i think i know too much sometimes they don't get an easy time from me but i think you know you're always battling that kind of peer pressure aren't you if this is how their friends and their their communities are are speaking to each other then do you want your child to be left out of that it's a really difficult decision personally I think you know as you were saying it's a societal problem it's not a new problem it's it's all about making sure that you're talking to your children making sure that you're educating them if they're younger using tools like google has family link apple has a similar thing where you have to approve apps that they're using, you know, making clear to them they can always talk to you about anything.

I think, you know, we have to remember the benefits of this tech as well. It's brought communities together. It's brought children together. It's helped with education in ways that we've never experienced before. And I think there has to be a balance to be struck. However, having said all of that, you know, the issue of children being abused is an absolutely terrible situation and I think has not probably been dealt with along the way. You know, it's kind of a bit late down the road now to be starting to look at this. It's unfortunately possibly one of those consequences that nobody quite foresaw at the time.

Zoe Clyman, the BBC's technology editor. Thank you. one of those consequences that nobody quite foresaw at the time. Zoe Clyman, the BBC's technology editor, thank you. Well, during that conversation, some of you have also been getting in touch about our next discussion because I mentioned tattoos and the word regret. The BAFTA award-winning actor Sheridan Smith, known for her roles in stage shows like Legally Blonde or the beloved sitcom Gavin and Stacey, has said while filming a new TV series based on a tropical island that she regrets the tattoos she has and would never

get another one. It's taking apparently three hours of waterproof makeup to cover them over for this filming. She especially seems to be saying it to actors. But a quarter of the British public have tattoos. Are you regretting them? Let's just get a flavour of some of what you've been saying. Alison says, my friend paid for's just get a flavour of some of what you've been saying. Alison says, my friend paid for me to have a tattoo on my birthday in 1976 when women just weren't doing it. Back then, my motto was, why not? And I wanted a permanent reminder of that. My mum said I would regret it when I was an old woman of 80. I'm 73 now and I'm nowhere near regretting it yet. In fact, I'm very keen to get a new one around my ankle.

So there you go. No regrets there. But a couple of other regrets have come in. And somebody's saying it really has affected their life, having a tattoo and regretting it and how they dressed. Letitia Mortimer is on the line, a London-based tattoo artist. And Letitia, I bet you've seen a few regrets or two. Good morning, Emma.

Thank you for having me. I mean yeah I mean people do uh sort of obviously regret um some tattoos but I think um with uh it does sort of tend to be tattoos that were done sort of a little while ago I think with um uh social media um and the way that people approach booking a tattoo and the conversations they can have with a tattoo artist consultation um and it's sort of a collaborative process now in in a in a very sort of different way to maybe it was previously so I think it's you know it's less and less um and to be honest with you I've I do I have done a few cover-ups um but generally you know when people get tattooed is obviously such a

big decision um and you know people do really take the time to think about things um do you think do you think those in your profession in your trade do you think that they shouldn't tattoo people when they're drunk oh 100 um and yeah i mean that's that's part of it in the uk um you fill out a form when before you get tattooed um to say that's part of it in the UK. You fill out a form before you get tattooed to say that you're not under the influence of anything. Yeah, it's just, that's just an obvious one in the UK. It is an obvious one. But then you said in the UK,

and lots of people with their stories often haven't been in the UK, I think when some of these things have happened. So that's why that's in some people's messages and mine's this morning. When you talk about a consultation, have you talked people out of certain tattoos and what sorts it just be good to get some examples yeah so i mean as a as a tattoo artist it's sort of my responsibility to advise people on um what would work on their skin in terms of how how they

last and how they age um so i can advise people on um on that side of things in terms of um the actual content of what they're getting it's you know it's sort of down to personal taste if that's if it's something they really want to get um then that's you know that's not on on me to kind of make that decision for them um i i have refused to i have refused to tattoo people if they've if um if they've been particularly hesitant or they've changed their mind a lot about the design. On the lead up to the tattoo, I've just advised them that maybe they need to take a little bit more time to think about what they want to get.

So it's quite obvious when someone's not 100% sure what they're wanting to get. And in that case, it doesn't happen very often. It's only happened a couple of times in my career but in that case then I would um just advise them just to take you know politely advise them just to take a little bit more time um to sort of make a decision and we can we can work something out in the future when they've had a bit more time to think about it have you tattooed people's faces um I have tattooed one person's face and that that was I only tattoo obvious areas if if somebody is sort of heavily covered already. So if they have got if they're basically fully covered on their body and, you know, it's not going to go it's not going to affect them, their career.

You know, they're they're settled in their career and they know, you know, they're older. I wouldn't tattoo someone on their face as sort of a first tattoo. No. okay. Do you remember what you put on this person's face? He just wanted a small, it was a little bit of like thorns just sort of around the side of his face. But he already had face tattoos. I think he was a musician.

Yeah. That might go, yeah. I mean, there are certain jobs that perhaps go alongside certain things better than others. I understand. Have you had any regrets with tattoos? Have you corrected any or tried to have any removed? No, personally, I haven't. I mean, I got my first tattoo when I was 18.

I'm 34 now. And, you know, if I started again again I maybe would do things slightly differently but I don't regret any of them each of them kind of reminds uh reminds me of a certain time in my life and you know I didn't get initially I didn't get anything I started with getting small tattoos kind of quite discreet and then the more I got to know about tattooing the more um yeah with with the knowledge of different artists that's when I started to get more heavily tattooed but you have had laser and some cover-ups is that right I um no I personally haven't I know a lot of people who have um colleagues who've had laser

um and yeah like I said I've done um cover-ups before um but yeah personally I don't have any regrets with my tattoos oh okay sorry I thought that was part of your story but I think this we're getting a lot of stories in about people having different feelings on this and what they go and do and how they they get it sorted there's one here which says I don't have any regrets I just lost my dog had his final footprint tattooed makes him think of him every day so that's quite a sentimental one another one saying, I got ink on my 65th birthday, very personal design and visible on my arm five years on. And I still love it.

But one here that says, I got a tattoo in my early twenties. It ruined my thirties and forties, was so self-conscious about it, affected what I wore. It cost £30 to get it done and more than £1,000 to have it removed in my early fifties. It was so much more painful than,

it was also much more painful having it removed over a period of a year. I will never have another. What do you say to that? No, I mean, obviously there are, yeah, people do sort of regret tattoos. Generally it's sort of, it does tend to be people who were tattooed quite a while ago

and they've maybe made a different you know they've changed their mind about um how they feel about tattoos now or the tattoo they had or maybe it is a you know a memory they don't want to have anymore um but I think with with um that sounds like a lot um yeah I know that laser is more painful than getting tattooed, but it's becoming much more widely available. And I think maybe it is because it is so widely available with the increase in popularity in tattoos. Obviously, laser has become more popular. But I think it's unfortunate that person had that experience. But yeah, in my experience, that's pretty rare.

It's pretty rare. Well, it's interesting because we're talking about it with what we've heard from Sheridan Smith. What's your favourite one and what does it mean to you? It'd just be nice to hear it described. So I have a dragon on my shoulder. It's my favourite. It's done by an artist in soho called oliver mcintosh he

um he's just an amazing artist and he's someone that i sort of look up to um as as a tattoo artist um and i just think it's really beautifully done and he's sort of uh one of the best in in the craft so it's um yeah that's that's you're gonna have to look at that in the mirror is that right yeah yeah yeah as someone who appreciates art i always find it interesting that you can't actually see the thing quite easily yourself just knowing it's there is enough yeah definitely and i think that's sort of part of the fun of it you sort of collect things as you go i mean i've got i still have space on my legs i know a bunch of artists i still like to get tattooed by so it's sort of like a uh you kind of curate your body and um it's quite a fun experience you know that you sort build it up over time leticia mortimer thank you very much for talking to us taking us into some of this world and and i as i say i'm in awe of people who want to make such a permanent

decision because i uh i think it's uh it's something I can't quite imagine doing. But you know, never say never. 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. My next guest has just walked into the studio. The soul singer,isha Parris. Lovely to have her here. And whose debut album, So Good, went platinum when it was released in 1988. Misha Parris, first top ten hit at the age of 19.

My one temptation there. Performing since she was in her mid-teens, not only a soul singer, an actor too, Ellie Nixon in EastEnders, performing in West End musicals, radio and TV, presenter, and this Christmas, she's headlining an evening of gospel music on Sky TV, Ellie Nixon in EastEnders, performing in West End musicals, radio and TV presenter. And this Christmas, she's headlining an evening of gospel music on Sky TV, where she'll be joined by 10 gospel singers and a four-piece band to perform various Christmas songs.

Risha, lovely to have you here. It's great to be here. You know, I love this show. I've done this a few times and I always enjoy it. Well, it's good to have you back. And we've got a bit of music as well. Yeah, that's why I love it, because I get to do what I love. And we're in a beautiful space with this wonderful grand piano. I always want to share that with our listeners. It's all about that Steinway, darling. Any tattoos?

I might just ask you that. Yes, I have two massive tattoos. Actually, that's not true. I've got three now. Go on. I've got a big one on my leg, and I've got another one on my arm, and then I've got another one on my wrist that I did with my daughter last year. Oh, matching.

In Mykonos. Yeah, we went mad in Mykonos. And she's like, come on, Mum. And I've got another one on my wrist that I did with my daughter last year oh matching okay we went mad in Mykonos and she's like come on mum and I was like all right any regrets on any of them no none of them at all I mean I do remember uh it was a very long time ago that I got the big ones on the leg and what's the big one on the leg it's all along the it's just a tribal kind of um American Indian tribal thing that I thought was gorgeous. It doesn't even mean anything. It just looks great. And it was, oh my gosh, it was so painful. But I remember coming back to London and my grandparents were, you know, I was 28 then. Yes.

And they literally had a meltdown. They didn't love it. They sat there like, I think we need a word of prayer. This was, you know, let's hold hands and let's pray. And I was pray. It's just a tattoo. It's going to be fine. You know, it's been blessed in some ways. It's all good. Yeah, it's fine. Gospel. Talk to us about gospel because it's been a big part of your life. Yeah. I mean, when I grew up in the church and my grandparents, my grandfather, we were the first family of the church because he was the pastor,

well, you say the minister. So we were the example in the church. We always had to be best dressed and because we were the first family. And so, you know, I went to church pretty much seven days a week. And if I wasn't at church, we was having prayer meeting. And if it wasn't prayer meeting, it was some other church do. And it was great. I know it sounds like it was like, oh, my gosh. But actually, it was brilliant. It was always something going on. And we were always like singing all the time. And it was great.

But in terms of you going professional as a singer, that was quite a lot for your grandparents who I know raised you. Oh, they couldn't take it. It was just like, you know, I'm gonna end up in in the fiery pit of hell because that's where everyone else goes when they go into secular music and it was a fear they were terrified and i was there going look it's gonna be all right i'm gonna do this you know i'm like 17 at this point you know and i'm like i can do this it's gonna be fine yeah but everyone ends up in drugs and i was like no no i promise you I promise you. And I made a promise to them. I actually said, I promise you, I will never be a drug addict. Please sign the contract because I couldn't

do it without them because I was underage. And you know what? They did it. Bless them. They signed it. And I was with Island Records and then I was on top of the pops pretty much instantly. The record just took off. And everyone, I just remember when it all kicked off and I went back home to visit Grandma and Grandpa. I walked up to the door. She opened the door and she had on a Misha Paris T-shirt and he had it on as well. And I was just, you know,

to just see your merchandise being worn by your grandparents is a sight. It was such a moment. If they can't be your biggest fans, I suppose. But I love that they were wearing the merch. They weren't too cool for that. It was just seal of approval. It's all right. So, you know, it's a massive part of my life.

I don't go for the religious aspects of it. But the music was always the pulling thing for me because it just makes you feel good, regardless of, you know, if you're, you know, into church or not. But a gospel Christmas, I mean, putting this with Christmas, I suppose, has a bit more of a religious element for some. Yeah, and that's OK. But it's not like I'm, you know, I'm not trying to tell you that I'm like, I'm so well behaved. And I do. I love the music and I'm a human being. And I'm here to inspire and touch people's lives with all the music that I do. But this is very special. Because not only is it a Christmas show, but I was allowed to choose the songs that mean so much to me, and do them in a different way. Because you know, so when we were growing up, sometimes we would visit Church of England churches compared to my church,

which was very much like the Blues Brothers, you know, dancing in the aisles at that kind of, you know, they'll go to the Church of England. It was all very calm and quiet, which was nice as well. But it was a different contrast. So some of these songs, you know them to be sort of in the church of england style but obviously i've taken it and done it in our way and turned it around and it's a whole different thing so you will be dancing when you hear this we will come to the music very very shortly but i just wanted to ask i know that um shaka khan has played uh played a big part in your life in your big time yeah she was just here last week and yeah and and and has given you advice as well.

Yeah, you know, I was very fortunate with Shaka. I met Shaka right at the beginning. She was living in London at the time and then we became very good friends. I was such a fan. I couldn't even believe that she liked me. I remember when we first shared, we were doing a gig together at the Royal Albert Hall

and we were next door to each other, dressing rooms, and, you know, she's quite little and I'm very tall. I'm five foot ten. And so I walked out the room and all I heard someone say, give me those boots. And I was like, who's that? And then I looked and it was Shaka.

She liked my boots. I had, you know, proper riding boots like the riders. She loves boots. And we both have a boot thing. We love boots. Yeah. And that's how we met. And then she became godmother to my oldest daughter.

And we've been best friends ever since. She's the sweetheart. And I was reading, you know, Words to Live By. And you've been asked with some of the wisdom because you've been through real ups and downs in your career. We all have. And in life. Yeah. And we all have.

You'll find the female singers, particularly female singers, we have a journey that is never easy. Whether it's Billie, whether it's Whitney, Amy, we've all had really tough lives. It's very hard to be a female and be a performer. And anyone will tell you that because you have to raise your kids. You have to be beautiful. You have to, you know, it's quite a male dominated industry. It's have to be beautiful you have to you know it's quite a male-dominated industry it's starting to change you know but when I started you know you couldn't say you produced the record or help produce it you couldn't say things like that you had to just

say yes I just came and sang the song and I did my bit so things have changed a, but it's very hard for females in being performers. And I think it's hard for women, period, to be in positions of power. It's been a very tough ride. But, you know, we're all still doing it, which is amazing. I mean, I was just saying to Shaka last week, she was just here for a few days. And I was like, you know, she looks amazing, you know, and she she's just I mean, few days and I was like you know she looks amazing you know and she she she's just I mean I say I've been through stuff but you know come on she's like how she's still alive is insane and she looks great so some of us have made it through and it's wonderful but

Natalie Cole was another person who gave me some great great advice why don't you share something that perhaps you Natalie was really powerful she was she said to me you know she said Misha you know a lot of people are gonna just want you because you're in the public eye and then there's gonna be the ones that love you for you and she told me that when I was 18 and that really stuck and she said know the difference and you know just keep the love of what you do because if you if you make it about anything else you'll probably end up hating it and I never forget that because I always think that a lot of people in this industry for a long time and they're here for a long time doing it you can get jaded and get tired of singing

your songs you can go into that zone you know me, because I got this information at such a young age, I found a way to just always be in love with it. I mean, I love this thing. Even if it's just one keyboard, one person sat in front of me, I'm singing. Well, let's do it. It's not just one person listening. I can guarantee you that this morning.

Oh, no, no. I love you guys. You guys are great. But this is why I love this show. It's fab. We love having you. Thank you. Thank you for coming.

Now, let me tell you about something that's getting some people fired up, and women in particular. Next year, there could be two changes to Ireland's constitution, both of which do concern women. Two referenda will take place on International Women's Day in March, and they'll look at the definition of family, beyond which just concerns marriage and a potential change to the reference of a woman's duty in the home.

The constitution in Ireland, unlike ours in the UK, is a written one. It was drawn up in 1937. There's since been 32 amendments, one of which was to make Ireland the first nation in the world to legalise same-sex marriage. But what about these new changes? What could they be? And is it a progressive step forward for women or the removal, as some may argue, of the recognition of the work that women do at home? Joining me, two women with different views

on this, Laura Perrins, a political commentator who founded the blog The Conservative Woman, and Alva Smith, an Irish academic and feminist and a member of the National Women's Council. A warm welcome to you both. Laura Perrins, good morning. Morning. Thought I'd come to you first because we're going to look at the 40th Amendment, one of these. At the moment, the Constitution says the state recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. Under proposed changes, bear with me on this, it would instead read, the state recognises that the provision of care by members of a family to one another by reason of the bonds that exist among them gives to society a support without

which the common good cannot be achieved and shall strive to support such a provision. Do you support that change? No, I don't support the change. I think it's Article 41 to subsection 1. And there's a number of points about it. The first important point is it's the only reference to woman in the Irish constitution. And we shouldn't, as women, be looking to erase women from any legal documents without very good reason. And those reasons don't exist. Now, the alternative wording is essentially to insert recognition of unpaid care within the Constitution. Now, if they wanted to add that as a subclause, that would be fine. I would vote to support that. But that's not what they're doing here.

It's a repeal and replace. So they're erasing women from the constitution they're erasing the importance of women and all of their unpaid care that we know they do and we know that the the unpaid care and the duties within the home still fall disproportionately on women i i think you probably cover that probably once a week at least least at Women's Hour. And I think it's really, really important that women, their role, the importance of what they do within the home and that the home remains a very important place for them. It's not something that should be denigrated. It's not something that should be sneered and should remain in the constitution. Can I ask, because it goes on to say that the state shall therefore

endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home. Do you still want that to remain in there? I mean, the articles have to be read together. It was just quite long to put them together, but I wanted to be able to distill it. It can remain. I mean, the criticism always is it hasn't done anything to benefit women, and that's true,

but that's a burden that's put on the state. It's not a burden that's put on women, whether they're wives or mothers or not. So if there's a criticism in relation to that subsection, certainly that can be put upon the state, but it's not... it shouldn't be women that pay the price for that. They shouldn't be erased and they shouldn't be ignored in ever more legal documents. Their role within the home remains incredibly important. Their role may have changed,

of course, over the years, and it certainly has since this constitution was written. But the importance of their role and the importance that women have in promoting the common good within society remains. Is the issue about neglecting their duties in the home that only it is a woman's duty? That's how you can read that. That's what some feminists have an issue with. I will bring Alva into this. That's not how it's been read. I mean, the Supreme Court in Ireland, a female Supreme Court justice, rightly pointed out in 2001 that the article does not assign women to a domestic role, but it recognises the significant role played by wives and mothers in the home. This recognition and acknowledgement

does not exclude women and mothers from other roles and activities. So as I said, that article is a burden that's put on the state. It's not something that's put on women. Alva Smith, what do you say to that, that there's a potential here to erase women, as Laura just described? Oh, hello, Emma. I don't think this is about erasing women at all. I think it's very much about bringing our constitution up to date into the 21st century and about recognising that women's role, if you like, was presented in this incredibly restricted way in our 1937 constitution and that that no longer in any sense corresponds at all either to what actually happens on a daily basis in our society or indeed to how we as women actually think of ourselves and what our actual occupations and aspirations are.

I mean, I think that the phrase that women shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour, to neglect of their duties and so on and so forth, is one which really annoys a lot of women very much. Not least because, in fact, it was always a dead letter. The state never actually did anything in any particular and material way to support the fact that women have and had and continue to give an enormous amount and to do an enormous amount, as Laura quite rightly said, something that you talk about on a regular basis on Women's Hour, of work in the home. But I think the real point of this particular change in the referendum is to say, look, women's role is everywhere. Women's role is wherever women want their role to be. Our minister actually

said something like a woman's role is wherever she wants it to be, whether that's in the workforce or in education or in the home. And when he said that, I was thinking to myself, or in fact, sometimes all three of those, actually, and that that's maybe something which needs a bit more recognition. I do want to say that I think this referendum as a bit of a missed opportunity on recognising the importance of the work of care, both paid and unpaid. So it's really quite a complex package which is being put in front of us. And I think probably for all kinds of reasons, a lot of people, and perhaps particularly women, would like to have seen a braver approach being taken, not least to the whole issue of care. And secondly, we did actually have a very strong demand for the insertion of a gender equality clause in the constitution from a fairly recent constitutional convention on gender. And the government has

avoided, if you like, has skirted around that possibility with the result that we're not even having a debate about. If I can, can I, I'll come back to that. But, and I recognise there is a complex package here on the table. We haven't even got to the change in the potential change in definition of family. But just to go back to Laura's point, and I'll come back to you, Laura, the idea then, this will be taking out how women are described.

Why not therefore use the word woman and try and better describe women's roles rather than move to this family position, Alva? Alva, if I could. Oh, I'm so sorry. I'll go back to Laura in a moment. But just on one of Laura's points, why take out mention of women and actually make some

of it more specific or add stuff to this rather than take out women and make it all about the family? Well, because first of all, I mean, this article has never done anything very practical. Secondly, surely the work which is done with families in the home and that care work, which is subsequently going to be recognised, is something which would be shared between the partners in a family. So this is not just about women. And in fact, in some ways, the holding of the referendum on International Women's Day irritates me slightly because it makes it look as if this is just about women. And it actually isn't. It's about how people in families, whether they're

grandparents, parents, partners, whatever, how that work of caring in families is actually conducted. And I think that that is the way in which really the vast majority of women now would actually see the situation. Well, it will be put to the test. Laura, what do you say to that? Look, I think constitutional changes are really important, even if they're symbolic ones. And arguably, the article is symbolic. As I said before, women should think very carefully about this. This is the only reference to women in the entire constitution. It says women give the state support without which the common good cannot be achieved. Now, ask yourselves, if it was men who were being asked to erase themselves from the constitution, do you think they'd vote yes? No, they wouldn't. Do you

think that they would say, I don't want legal status anymore? No, of course they wouldn't. If anything, we should be looking to increase our legal status. Why is this removing legal status? If you're removing a constitutional amendment that particularly recognises... But you've just admitted that it didn't do very much. Why does it remove legal status? Well, what I meant is constitutional status. So I apologise on that error. So no man would look to reduce their constitutional status. Nobody, they would never look to erase themselves.

This is very important. It's the only reference to women and whatever aspirations other people might have we know that caring duties still remain within women whether it's on hands on or whether or whether it's delegating and it's the role of women mothers and wives now is in fact i think incredibly important it's in fact more difficult now than it was 100 years ago because i remember even going back to your first item the supervision in relation to their internet use and their mobile phone use alone is huge the moral spiritual educational raising of children and caring for them is incredibly important that's essentially what this article does it knows that women still do the vast majority of it. We shouldn't be denigrating ourselves.

We shouldn't be reducing our status in the Constitution, which is not a clever thing to do. If I may use another word there, that women delegate care. And that may be true, but it may also not be true in other people's lives. And how is that reflected constitutionally what i'm if you want to add the the gender neutral caring amendment as i said that's fine what we shouldn't be doing is erasing women what i meant in relation to the delegation but what i'm trying to say emma is that

overall i believe women still run the household they may bring work. OK, you may have a nanny, you may have a cleaner or you may not. I don't happen to have either of those things, but other women do. And that's fine. The role of women has changed,

but the importance and the fact that they really do more or less run the show at home that that still remains. And we shouldn't be denigrating women. We shouldn't be denigrating the incredible responsibility they have when it comes to raving the next generation, which is included within that article. It's not limited to it, but it's certainly included within it.

It's an incredible responsibility. And the wording of the article should remain. If I can then, Alva, just a final thought to you. I mentioned the other amendment about a change in the definition of family. It would add in the statement, whether founded on marriage or on other durable relationships. That will also be a change potentially. What do you think may happen there? Well, I think that that's very, very important indeed, because at present, in very, very practical and very material ways, that very narrow definition of who and what constitutes a family, that is the family which is based on marriage only, means that very many people, very, very many people, very many families can't actually access services and benefits to which really they should be entitled. And that goes for, you know, family circles, family situations of many different kinds, whether it's grandparents raising grandkids and so on.

Well, we will have to leave it there. We will see what happens. I'm so sorry we're out of time. But thank you for your contributions. Thank you for your company today. Back 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. If anyone is an artist in their soul, it's Joni Mitchell. There are some artists that change music forever. The mastery of the guitar, the mastery of voice, the mastery of language. That shape the musical landscape for everyone who comes after. When the dust settles, Joni Mitchell may stand as the most important and influential female recording artist of the late 20th century. Legend is a music biography podcast from BBC Radio 4

that explores the extraordinary lives of musical pioneers. I think people would like me to just be introverted and bleed for them forever. Legend, the Joni Mitchell story, with me, Jessica Hoop. Listen now on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Treleaven, and for over a year, On BBC Sounds. 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.