Woman's Hour - Nottingham Ockendon review, Sarah Vine, Frida Kahlo at Tate Modern

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

More than 500 mothers and babies came to harm or died as a result of inadequate care at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. That’s according to Donna Ockenden’s review into the maternity services there. Anita Rani speaks to the Times’ Health Editor Eleanor Hayward, and mothers Sarah Hawkins and Sarah Andrews whose babies, Harriet and Wynter, both died from preventable errors.Sarah Vine’s memoir, How Not to Be a Political Wife, is out in paperback this week, coinciding with the 10 year anniversary of the Brexit vote. The Daily Mail columnist was married to the former Conservative minister Michael Gove, a leading figure in the campaign for the UK to leave the European Union. She gives Anita her take on some of the most turbulent years in modern British politics, and how the pressures affected her friendships, her family, and ultimately her marriage.Over half of women diagnosed with breast cancer are outside the current 50-70 age range for screening, according to new research by a youth focused breast cancer awareness charity. It's calling for the age of women given screening to be lowered. Anita is joined by Sophie Dopierala-Bull, Director of Services and Engagement at CoppaFeel! A new exhibition at the Tate Modern in London looks at how and why the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo became a global icon and a key influence on a generation of artists. Anita speaks to Bea Garcia, co-curator of the exhibition Frida - the making of an icon, and author Hettie Judah.

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. Your sales order says one thing. Your inventory says another. Your spreadsheet says, good luck. Odo brings your business together on a single platform, from sales and accounting to inventory and marketing. Visit Odo.com to book a demo. It's ODbolo.com.

The Signal Awards recognize the podcast that define culture and being honored by the Signal Awards sets your production. team apart with recognition from the industry's top experts and access proof that your work is a standard bearer for podcasting worldwide. By entering, your work is heard by the Signal Awards Judging Academy, an invitation-only body of podcast professionals from acclaimed organizations, which include the BBC. Grow your audience, celebrate your team, and stand out. The final entry deadline to submit is the 26th of June. Enter your podcast at signalaward.com for consideration. Hello, I'm Anita Rani and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4.

Good morning and welcome to the program. Senior midwife Donna Ockenden has spent three years looking into maternity services at Nottingham University Hospital's NHS Trust. The damning report which came out yesterday involved two and a half thousand families, the biggest child birth scandal in NHS history. We'll be finding out the details and speaking to two of the bereaved mothers. Daily Mail columnist and ex-wife of Michael Gove, Sarah Vine,

will be here to talk about the paperback release of her memoir. She was in the inner sanctum of the Conservative Party with her ex, best friends with the Camerons, until the Brexit vote ended their friendship. And a major new exhibition about Frida Carlo called Frida, the Making of an icon,

opens today at the tape modern in London, Who was she and why and how did she become such a cultural icon? We'll be finding out. And of course, if you want to comment on any of the items today, we always want to hear your views and your personal experiences. You can get in touch in the usual way. The text number is 84844. You can email the program by going to our website

or you can WhatsApp us on 0700-100-444. The text number once again, though, 84844. And remember, you can remain anonymous. Now, more than 500 mothers and babies came to harm or died as a result of failings in the care at Nottingham University Hospital's NHS Trust. That's the key finding of the largest review in NHS history conducted by former midwife Donna Ockenden, taking three and a half years and hearing from over 2,500 families. In response, the government has announced that mothers and babies in hospital will now be protected under Martha's rule, which is the right. to request an urgent independent review. This will be rolled out across all maternity and neonatal wards in England.

Let's now just hear a clip of Donna Ockenden, who began her announcement yesterday. This review owes its very existence to a group of families who refused to be silenced. They came together in harm and in grief. united in their determination that what had happened to them should not happen to anyone else. I want to name them Harriet Hawkins and her parents Sarah and Jack. Winter Andrews and her parents Sarah and Gary. Quinn Parker and his parents Emmys Dudenki and Ryan Parker Cooper Needham and his parents Natalie and David

Teddy and his mum Kimberly Errington Caitlin Stringer and her parents Emily and Darrell and Felicity Bennion These were the families who stood up with considerable courage. Without them, this review would not exist. Without them, Nottingham might still be enduring similar tragedies. The very moving way in which Donna Ockenden began her announcement yesterday and I'm now joined by two of those mothers, Don Ockenden, named Sarah Hawkins and Sarah Andrews.

whose babies Harriet and Winter died due to preventable errors. Welcome. And thank you for joining us this morning. How are you? That clip nearly sent me crying already. I'm exhausted. You know, I feel like I've been so strong for 10 years and then yesterday really was like a pivotal moment for us both

just to be heard and to be believed. And it sounds like two really easy things. simple things, but our experiences, that's just not what we had for so long. No, for years, we were just ignored and it felt like families should never have had to fight. We should have never had to fight to be listened to or to be heard. And yesterday it was emotional because it was like the recognition that, you know, we hadn't been making it up for years and actually we had suffered horrific calm. And the toll of the 10 years of fighting?

What was that? You know, I say it very clearly. You know, they killed my baby. They ruined my career because I worked at the hospital. And they've ruined our lives. And I can't think of any other words to say than that. Yeah. What are your reactions to the findings?

I don't think it's a complete, shock because we've been saying for years, we've been saying that there'll be like hundreds and thousands of families that have suffered harm or lost children or mothers that have died. And we've been saying it for years, but it doesn't make it any easier. It's still heartbreaking. And I think there's things yesterday that we found out,

you know, like the culture that the midwives were subjected to, like junior midwives, if they were raising concerns, were getting idiot written next to their name on whiteboards. There's stuff like that that we just didn't know. And yeah, heartbreaking. Yeah, and I think it's really important to empathise with those clinicians that are in the hospital and do want to do a good job because many of them are my friends.

And that must be an absolutely toxic, horrible culture to work in. But there does need to be a system where the clinicians who are not delivering CFCare or kindness, are held to account. Well, Sarah Hawkins, you mentioned that you worked there. Your husband also worked there as well. And your husband, Jack, and he called for a statutory public inquiry

at the press conference yesterday. Why do you feel that's needed? I think Donna's review is just a piece of a jigsaw in our road to justice for our girls. What really needs to happen is for the regulators to be investigated. It's very, very clear that they failed us right through Nottinghamshire.

And people need to be compelled to give evidence. As Donna pointed out, many senior leaders didn't give evidence. And that's just atrocious. I mean, are they even bothered about patient safety? If they're not coming forward with all the information they have about harm and death. Well, let's get some more insight into the review and what it revealed, because also with us in the studio is Eleanor Hayward,

who's health editor at the Times, Morning, Eleanor. I said that this is the largest review in NHS history, just how significant is it? I think it's hugely significant on many different levels. I mean, if you just think of the scale of harm that's laid out in black and white in this report, I think the final number is 162 deaths of babies and mothers dying due to catastrophic errors in care

at the hands of the NHS. And when you put that in the context as well of the other maternity scandals we've had in recent years, I just think no one can possibly deny that we don't have. a terrible problem with maternity care in this country anymore. And, you know, Sarah touched on it there as well. But the fact that this went right to the top,

the chief executives at the Nottingham Trust, they were aware for more than a decade that the maternity unit was failing, that people were dying avoidably and they kind of turned a blight die. They swept it under the carpet. And I think the cause for accountability and systemic change, you know,

hopefully can't be ignored anymore now. Yeah, she was emphatic. about the role of leadership in outcomes saying that this report demonstrates what ensues when leadership, governance and culture are not robust. Poor practice is not investigated. Learning is not integrated and mothers and babies are failed. How exactly did leadership fail at Nottingham?

I think on many levels, but one thing that came across was it was seen as too difficult to address these problems. So there were external reviews, there were six different external reviews between 2015 and 2020. And they all raised major concerns about the maternity services

at the Nottingham Trust. And these reports were basically just put on a shelf. No one really did anything about it. There was no effort to, you know, get to grips with what was going on in the unit. And at the same time, you had families like Sarah and Sarah coming forward and coming forward with their stories

and they were dismissed by the hospital. And instead of listening, and being believed, they were told, you know, almost told they were making it up and they were to blame. And so that cultural issue, there was no attempt to change that or overhaul what was going on. What are some of the reasons listed behind the deaths? There's a lot of clinical mistakes and errors, things, quite basic things like not monitoring babies during labour. misinterpreting test results. There was one really horrible story in the report

about a woman, a couple who'd been told to abort their baby. And so they did. And then it turned out, they were told the baby would have genetic, serious genetic problems. And it turned out the baby didn't have serious genetic problems. And then also, I know that Sarah experienced this as well. Women weren't basically told to go home. They were told to go home.

They weren't admitted to hospital. And so you've got women in labour Basically being refused To be admitted to the hospital wards And just a series of delays in care Delays in escalating and spotting problems Things like postpartum haemorrhage When women can bleed to death

Midwives and doctors were too late To recognise the symptoms and to raise the alarm I've spent the morning reading a lot of the accounts And it's very upsetting reading them It's very upsetting, I'm sure. hearing about it this morning. 844, actually. If anybody would like to get in touch and share your own experiences, then of course you can remain anonymous, but we would like to hear from you as well this morning. Why Sarah Hawkins did you decide to push for an external review

after baby Harriet died? Well, originally, we knew that Harriet's death was preventable as clinicians. I had been in labour for six days and I was asking for help. So even before, I delivered her after when the doctor told me she was dead, we said you've messed up. This isn't right. Full term, healthy pregnancy, babies don't just die. And we then were presented with this report and it had said infection. And because we were clinicians, we knew there was no infection. We were like, you're wrong. So we had to push for an external report. And then that was, we read the draft report and that was okay. And then one of the authors of the report was actually employed by NEH during that process and the report changed.

So we had to then push for another external review. And that's with you both knowing how a hospital works. Yeah. And I remember it comes back to your point and leadership. I remember months after Harriet died, we met the chief executive and the medical director with our MP. And we were saying you've got a massive problem. And that nothing happened.

Sarah Andrews, your baby Winter died 23 minutes after she was born in 2019. At what point did you start to question whether this could have been prevented? I think after winter died when we were in the bereavement suite, we had staff coming to us and one of the consultants said, oh, if we listened to every mother's concerns, would be overrunning here. And we just didn't understand because winter was perfectly, healthy how we got to that point and then we had a phone call from the coroner who said we're happy to sign winter's death certificate and i was like okay but i don't understand how we got to this point

because we came in on the saturday and she went hang on a minute you you came in on on saturday i was like yes she's like oh we didn't know that we haven't had all the information and we then discovered that the trust hadn't sent everything to the coroner we later discovered that they'd actually kicked the box to say that her death was expected. So I think it really started to all come together that they weren't telling us the truth. And then we started searching the internet and we found Sarah and Jack.

What's it like in that moment when you're at your most vulnerable and you're dismissed? I actually give up and I thought I'm going to have to deliver at home on my own. And then after they told me she was dead, I was left for nine hours to try and deliver her. because of some communication error

and that was a point in life where I wanted to die and I didn't care yeah it's very difficult to talk about it and Sarah you said that you then realised that there were others so what was it like when you and your husband Gary realised that other families had been in the same situation

I think it's kind of heartbreaking to say but it's almost a relief because The trust is so good at set, like, make you feel like you're the only one and sometimes these things just happen and they isolate you and then to suddenly realise that there's other people that have had the same experience. Like you don't want other people to have experienced what you do, but it's also kind of a relief to know that you're not alone and actually other people understand.

And I think if we hadn't found each other, you would still have been shouting and nobody listening. and I think our daughters needed each other, didn't they, to get this review. And, yeah. Eleanor, it's a very comprehensive report, 401 pages. So where do we go from here? I think it's a tricky question. And almost the most depressing and infuriating aspect is that we have been here before.

There have been other big reports. I mean, four years ago, Donna Ockington did a big report into Shrewsbury maternity services. I think what people want is accountability. And that means that the doctors, the nurses, the bosses at Nottingham and around the country are held to account. And there's mechanisms for that. I think that the government have announced a couple of immediate things, including Martha's rule and a new rule that will mean in future maternity investigations, although not retrospectively, then managers will have to give evidence to inquiry. because half of the senior directors at Nottingham refused to cooperate with Donna Ockendon's review.

They didn't answer questions. They didn't provide documents. I think there's a lot of fury at that really, that abdication of responsibility. We've got another report on Monday, Tuesday, sorry, about from Baroness Amos looking at the national picture for maternity. And the government have said they'll act on that and on the findings of Donna Ockington's report.

And they're going to introduce some national sort of policies in the next few months. I mean, I think everyone's hoping this can be a turning point. But like I said, we have been here before. And I know the families are keen for a public inquiry to actually drive change. Sarah Hawkins, you've also spoken about how Harriet's body was treated during the months after her death.

One of the most shocking findings in the review was evidence of recurring examples of failure to protect the dignity of the deceased, including inadequate arrangements for undertaking pediatric post-mortems. Two men have been bailed after being arrested in connection with operating practices at the Mortuary Service. How important is it to see some sort of accountability taking place for what happened to Harriet? I think all I can say is Harriet's first and last walk was in her. her tiny white coffin and we took some comfort out of that. So to find out later that she was decomposed in the coffin, like I even begin to describe the emotional toll,

obviously there's now a police criminal investigation and I'm not able to comment any further on. Sarah Andrews, what would you like to see happen following this report? I think for me, that only action that's going to make change now, would be a public inquiry. I think the immediate and essential actions need to be implemented. But both the Ockenden Review and the up-and-coming Amos Review, the thing they lack is looking at the regulators.

So I think there needs to be a public inquiry that looks at the regulators and the decision-makers, because otherwise we're just going to fall into the same patterns again if we don't know how we got here. NHS was fined £800,000 in January 23 for winter's death. How did it feel when those failures in her care were officially acknowledged? Bittersweet. It's like, again, it's like that acknowledgement that you're not going crazy.

You're not making it up and these terrible, terrible things happen to you, but also they didn't need to happen. They shouldn't have happened. And then we later find out that they've happened. happened again and there's another prosecution and none of it should have happened. They should have learnt from Sarah and Jack. Eleanor, tell us more about the government's response. What have they pledged following on from this?

They pledged immediately to implement some of Donna Ockenden's key recommendations and actions. So that includes Martha's rule, which will now apply across all maternity units in England. So giving families the right to a second opinion if they feel that something's going wrong in their care. They've also pledged to use the new Hillsborough law to require NHS managers, NHS doctors, to give evidence to any future inquiries. The response is a bit on hold until we get the Amos review next week. And I think James Murray, the Health Secretary in the House of Commons yesterday, said that there'll be an action plan within a few months.

we've not quite got a time scale. I mean, I'm sure everyone would agree that there's no time to waste. I mean, some of the deaths in the Ockenden's report were last year. It's an ongoing problem. And there's other maternity tragedies going on at other maternity unit. So, I mean, everyone can agree that actions needed sooner rather than later. I'd like to ask you both what you would like to say to the government. Well, just on the back of what Eleanor said there,

I find that frankly insulting, like an action plan of actions. I mean, what we're talking about is babies die and mothers die and babies being harmed. You know, is it okay to take six months to do something? Because if we put it in any other walk of life, say it was like a primary school, kids were down in a primary school, parents were being harmed at pick up, then the school would be shut down, they'd be accountability, people will be in jail.

So why is it across all of our maternity units in England? It's okay. It's okay to let babies die and be harmed. It's not. Donne Arndon has said that they should be implemented immediately, not studied for months. What would you like to say to Donna Arkinden? Thank you.

I think we've been listened to and the review has dug into what has happened and actually looked deeply at it. And I think that means a lot towards us families because for many of us, not being listened to to years, was just, you know, damaging, just trauma on trauma.

And yeah, thank you. She's just been the best. And I know, like, Harriet's dead, but I still want to make her pride as a mummy. And I know when we called for Donna to be commissioned, oh, it's just no regrets. And that's just the best thing you can have. No regrets.

She's just been amazing and perfect. I'm going to read out a couple of messages. One from Ruth saying, I was in tears listening to Donna Ockenden, read out the family's names, thinking of them all. And another message here saying, the stories in the Ockenden Review are heartbreaking.

I work in a trust that has questionable cultural issues, and I worry about mistakes being made in maternity in other areas. I'd like to hear more about the staffing levels on the wards. I imagine the staff would defend themselves by explaining how overrun they are in the wards, maybe one midwife for 20 women on the postnatal ward. I believe that some of what we're hearing is the symptoms of a much deeper cause

to do with staffing levels and competence in those staff because of high demand. Inexperienced staff are managing complex cases with very little time. How important is the solidarity you found amongst the families? It's got us where we are today, I think. It's been incredible. And this is really funny because Sarah and I are the most emotionally awkward people. Even before it, we went yesterday.

We're like, oh, do you think people are going to think we're going to hug? Or we're like, should we do something? But it's just been amazing. I couldn't have done it without you. I always say that this is like the club that you don't want to be in, but I have to be in it. And I couldn't have wished for better people to be in it with. I couldn't have got through everything we have

without the people sat here. I'd like to thank you both for coming to speak. to us this morning. I can see and I can feel the emotion from both of you as can all our listeners and Eleanor Hayward from the Times. Thank you. So Sarah Hawkins, Sarah Andrews,

mums to Harriet and winter, thank you. And if you have been affected by what you've heard, you can find links to advice and support on the BBC Action Line website. Thank you once again. 84844 is the text number. Now, have you got something you'd like to debate on the program or a burning issue

or a gripe you want to get off your chest. Listener week is the week when all the subjects we talk about on the program are chosen by you. Last year you brought us everything from why we dream more vividly at certain times to the everyday frustration of constantly readjusting seatbelt when you are large busted. No subject is too big, too small or too personal. If it's on your mind, we'd love to hear about it. Get in touch in the usual way. The text number is 844-4.844 or you can contact us on social media.

It's at BBC Woman's Hour. or email us via our website. The Signal Awards recognize the podcast that define culture and being honored by the Signal Awards sets your production team apart with recognition from the industry's top experts and access proof that your work is a standard bearer for podcasting worldwide.

By entering, your work is heard by the Signal Awards Judging Academy, an invitation-only body of podcast professionals from acclaimed organizations which include the BBC. Grow your audience, celebrate your team and stand out. The final entry deadline to submit is the 26th of June. Enter your podcast at signalaward.com for consideration. Now, I'm joined by the award-winning daily mail columnist Sarah Vine.

Her memoir, How Not to Be a Political Wife, is out in paperback, coinciding with the 10-year anniversary of the Brexit vote. was married to the former Conservative Minister Michael Gove, a leading figure in the campaign for the UK to leave the European Union. In the book, she gives a frank account of life during some of the most turbulent years in modern British politics and describes how the pressures affected her friendships, her family and ultimately her marriage. Sarah, welcome to the programme.

Thank you for having me. I actually want to start by extending my condolences to you because your father, who you do talk about in the book, who you had a very complicated relationship with, He only died last Wednesday. So how are you? I'm okay. I mean, someone said to me actually that grief gets you in a different way every day.

And that's one of the most true things I've heard in a long time. My relationship with my father was very difficult and very complicated, as was his relationship with everyone in his family. It wasn't just me. But partly I'm relieved because he was very ill and was not having a nice time and wasn't enjoying the vicissitudes of old age at all. He was a larger than life character.

In the book, you write very frankly about your childhood and being criticised by him. What was your relationship like towards the end? Well, actually, we had lots... I mean, when I wrote the book, quite a lot of people said, gosh, you know, how's your father taken it? And we'd had so many conversations about all of this stuff.

I didn't put anything in the book that he and I hadn't already taught. about. There were other things that I didn't put in the book that I didn't feel were appropriate. And in fact, I could write a whole book about him. But no, we had had lots of conversations about it. And about five years ago, he rang me out of the blue and just said, in the way that he just wanted to tell you that I'm really sorry, yes, for everything. He said sorry? Yes. Well, how did that feel? Well, it was very funny because I sort of did that very English thing of saying, oh, no, that's fine.

Okay. But I think he did reflect on things in the end. And I'm really glad now that he's passed that we did clear that. I think if I hadn't had those conversations, and I think a lot of people will feel this when they say goodbye to their parents. It's really important to say the things you need to say so that they can move on and you can move on. 844. You never know. There might be somebody who wants to share their own experience. begin the book 10 years ago on the morning of the 24th of June 2016. It's the result of the Brexit referendum. One of those dates, we all remember where we were. Can you describe the reaction in your own home? I don't know. Sort of a mixture of surprise, horror, panic. I mean, I remember waking up very early. I was woken up by cigarette smoke outside my bedroom window and then I and I crept upstairs to my daughter's room because she had a sort of attic room and so therefore she had a bird's eye view of the street.

And I could see there were about 25 reporters having a fag and drinking coffee. I thought, okay, something's happened. But why horror? I don't know. I think I was always very ambivalent about the referendum. I grew up in Italy. My brother is a naturalized Spaniard. You know, my parents lived in Italy.

And, you know, it was a very difficult. thing for me because Michael was, as we know, for many good reasons and some of them personal and some of them political, a staunch Brexiteer. And so I was, you know, part of this book is about that sort of the tension that I felt between my loyalty to Michael and my loyalty to my family and all that kind of stuff. And I think, you know, the whole referendum divided a lot of families in that way, oddly. You know, it was sort of repeated across the country. So, I mean, horror because I know how politics works and I knew what was to come that day.

I knew that it would be cataclysmic because I'd had so many conversations with, you know, people. And I knew that David Cameron would almost certainly resign. And I knew that would have huge repercussions. And I just knew that I'd have to get to do the day without making any terrible mistakes. Well, yeah, I mean, as you say, that kind of the leave and remain did kind of divide families

and kind of cord ruptures, but also within your own, as I described in the opener, the inner sanctum, because when Prime Minister at the time David Cameron had called for the referendum, you assured him that Michael was on side and would back remain.

So when Michael went public with his support for leave, how surprised were you? I wasn't surprised. I think that, I mean, this book is actually in many ways are sort of mayor culprits. I'm very honest about things, but I'm also very honest about my own failings.

And I think, that I got myself tied in a lot of knots, trying to keep everybody happy, trying to maintain a sort of, I don't know, just trying to keep relationships moving at that stage. And I think I should have perhaps been more brutal and more direct about things.

But the thing about, I always knew in the back of my mind that Michael was a solid Eurosceptic and I think it was magical thinking, on my part, wishful thinking perhaps, that it would, that his participation in the cabinet and his job in government would sort of override that basic instinct. But in the end, he was true to his principles,

and I think that's fine. That's what he should have done. But his decision fractured your friendship. It totally did, yeah. Because while David was leader of the opposition, you were very close to his wife, Samantha. Yes, I mean, they were very good friends of ours. They're very nice people, actually.

And Samantha's a lovely woman, and she and I were good friends. And I don't have a bad word to say about her to be. be honest. But again, she had to make a choice. She had to make a choice between a friendship and her husband and she chose her husband and that's perfectly understandable and

probably the right thing to do. It left me I suppose I've built my life around these people and they were very integral to my happiness my sanity and once they removed themselves so completely

which they did sort of almost overnight, you know, it was sort of a real unplugging. I felt very lost and adrift and, you know, it was very difficult to then stabilise myself. You talk about it in the book because you say following the conservative victory in 2020, 2010,

the Notting Hill set became the the Cameron Court of Camelots and you described the pinch me moment early in the first Cameron government when you realised you'd made it. Yes. Why? What did that mean to you? Well, it's just, you know, I I mean,

I don't know. I just felt like an outsider in that world. And I was sort of always, because, you know, part of me is, obviously I'm a journalist. And so journalism is an outsider's profession. You can't, you know, you come to it partly because you're an outsider. I always think with journalists. The best journalists are the ones who don't quite fit in and don't quite play the rules. And I suddenly found myself part of what I would consider and still do consider a very

sort of elite group of people who, you know, had had a certain lifestyle, had a certain lifestyle, had a certain upbringing, had certain background. And, you know, I'd never had any contact with people like that. I mean, I just, you know, I just went to school in Italy and then I came to England and went to university. But I didn't, I mean, I wasn't connected in that way. I wasn't part of that Oxford set or anything like that. And it was fascinating, thrilling and fascinating as well. I mean, you know, the lifestyle of the British upper classes is fabulous.

And Michael was Education Secretary. He spent weekends at Chequers. Can you describe what they were like? Oh, Chequess is extraordinary. It's like sort of, I don't know, it's like a giant posh hotel. It's very beautiful, actually. And again, surreal. I mean, you're sitting there thinking, here I am, you know, in the long gallery

where all these illustrious people have sat and I'm, you know, having a glass of wine and eating chocolates, you know, this is not my beautiful life. This is not, this is not where I'm. So there is always that sort of sight, a sense of it's so surreal. but it's funny because when I talk to my children about it, that's just part of their childhood. You know, they grew up playing, you know, capped with the flag around checkers.

But you also say, because you're very open about it, the fact that you were living beyond your means. Totally, yeah. I'm spending huge sums on entertaining at home in North Kensington while trying to keep up with the Camerons and the Notting Hill set. Yes. Why, Sarah? Because I'm in insecure.

I mean, part of the reason my father is in the book is not because I particularly wanted to sort of talk about him in public, but just because I needed people to understand how, where my insecurities came from and what caused them. And I've always been a people-pleaser. And, you know, it's one of my great failings because it gets me into all sorts of messes. Because I always do things to make people happy,

which when actually what I should do is say, no, I'm not going to do that or I can't do that or whatever, but I just do them anyway. It's one thing trying to keep up with the Joneses, but then it's another thing trying to keep up with, like as you've described them, One of the most kind of upper echelons of society elite, Prime Minister and his wife. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So I think it was just my own failing. I was just very keen to please, keen to be part of that gang, you know. And once Michael was part of the Leave campaign and you described the fallout with Samantha Cameron, you were at a dinner party and she publicly shouted at you and you left the room on the verge of tears. How surprised were you by her reaction? Not at all surprised. I think it was with hindsight, I think it was perfect. justified actually. She didn't actually shout at me. She's not really a shoutter. She had a few words.

That was much widely reported. But no, I think she was very upset with me. And, you know, I think in a way I sort of deserved it, really. I think it was fair, fair, fair of her to feel that way. You know, what Michael was doing was going to bring her husband's government down. So, you know, you can see why the emotions were running high. And, you know, that's what I've tried to be so honest about in the book. As I, you know, there's no, there's no judgment here. It's just what it was. That's how it was. And that's what happened. Even though it's about your husband's views, not your views. Yes. Yeah. Well, yes, that's, that's, that's a good point. But I think that, I think they sort of held me responsible for not, not being able to sort of get Michael into line. There was that moment in the lift with David where he said, you've got to get your husband.

under control. I was like, no one can get Michael Cove under control, least of all me. But yeah, I think there was a feeling that I should have done more. And I did what I could within my limited abilities. And then in the run-up to the 2016 Conservative leadership contest in, you know, off the back of trying to keep your husband in line, you were likened to Lady Macbeth. Oh, yes. That always happens to women, though, when they dare to have an opinion. I mean, this is Women's Hour. And I think that, you know, I think so many women who've, you know, been in the public life or just, you know, interfered with the, with the affairs of men get branded as Lady Macbeth. It's very, very lazy.

Well, this was just when Boris Johnson was seen as a favourite to replace David Cameron, an email for Michael that you accidentally sent to a member. Somebody else from. I still to this day, don't know who that person was. Well, it was essentially you were telling Michael to pin down Boris Johnson and what he's offering to get guarantees. How damaging was that? For me, for me, I sort of brushed it off. At that stage, the sort of craziness was coming so thick and fast.

So many mad things were happening, literally not just on a daily basis, on a sort of hourly basis. I actually at the time didn't really, well, didn't bother me that much. Even the fact that it had been leaked, I just thought, you know, I've just done a stupid thing, another stupid thing. But with hindsight, it's the thing that's really stuck. Before Boris Johnson officially declared it was standing Michael, who was his campaign manager, launched his own leadership bit,

saying he'd lost faith in Johnson, and he was accused of backstabbing and has since expressed regret. Did you support that political ambush? That was a very strange moment, because Michael's team had gone off to have lunch or something. something with Boris's team. And it's quite interesting that the sort of contrast between the Boris team and the Michael team.

So they were all sort of, you know, note pads and serious and lanyards. And Boris's lot were all having lots of gallons of rosé and a barbecue. And I think there was just a sense that Michael felt he came home and said, I just don't think Boris is the right person for this. But I think the thing is that he made the decision at a very difficult time. He was very tired, very overweight. overwhelmed. And, you know, I know he does regret it now. But in the heat of the moment, you know, you don't always get things right. And you divorced in 2022. Yes. What led to that? Oh, I mean, so many things. I think people grow apart, don't they? I think when you have a sort of

big trauma happened to a marriage, as happened with us, I think you, the trick here, the problem is if you don't react in the same way. And we both sort of went in different directions. My response was run away from politics. Michael's response was, I need to stay in politics because I need to fix all of this stuff. And I just found it too much in the end. I just couldn't take any more.

You know, resilience is a finite resource, isn't it? And I felt like someone was just taking a cheese grater to my face all the time. And I just couldn't really go. I sort of had enough. You were criticised in the press for your appearance whilst you were going to. in the referendum. You talk about it in the book. You've written about your weight.

You've been on woman's hour talking about hair loss. How difficult is it having to deal with the public attention? Unless you're, you know, stunning and the size eight, it's almost impossible. And I'm neither of those things. So, and I think it's very, because, you know, most women, I think, just go about their day without thinking too hard about what they look like. When you're, when you're looked at the whole time, it becomes really quite, quite, frightening, actually. Do you think, though, because you also have critiqued women for their looks in your writing as well.

For example, the Legit saga. You wrote a piece that compared the legs of then Prime Minister Theresa May and the Scottish First Minister, Nicholas Sturgeon, during the Brexit talks. With Rachel Reeves, her outfit looks like you described it as a pink marshmallow. Do you think anyone in the public eye is fair game? Up to a point. Actually, I was very complimentary about their legs. They both have fabulous legs, and I said so. and I do think it did look a bit like a pink marshmallow

I mean I you know I've got a picture that follows me around on the internet which is absolutely truly dreadful I have to say it's not you start with it in the book and I did Google it and I don't think you look dreadful at all but but people do things like they sort of take it and then they and then they make it bigger or smaller or fatter or thinner or whatever I mean I I've got I've sort of got used to it now

and yeah I mean I I'm a I'm a I'm a I'm a I'm a work for the Daily Mail so you know this is part of the job. Sarah Vine, thank you very much for joining me. And the paperback of Sarah's book, How Not to Be a Political Wife, is out. Thank you. Thank you for having me. 8444 is the text number.

Lots of you getting in touch this morning. Thanks to the Sarah's and all the other families who shared their stories today. And during the inquiry, an unimaginable thing to go through, let alone to fight for justice, their children and mothers. I hope they feel that their hurt is being held by all of, of us and that changes are coming and that's from Pearl. Keep your thoughts coming in. Now, when you think of breast cancer, you might first think of how it impacts older women, but over half of women diagnosed are outside the current 50 to 70 age range for screening.

That's according to new research by Copperfield, a youth-focused breast cancer awareness charity. It's calling for the age of women given screening to be lowered and the type of screening changed to catch more cases of the disease earlier. Well, joining me now is Sophie.comrialla Bull, director. of services and an engagement at Copperfield to tell us more. Morning, Sophie. Tell us about the research you carried out. How many women were involved?

So as we mentioned, today, we launched our report alive to do those things. That's very much calling for a healthcare system that works better for young people with breast cancer. And within that report, we kind of bring together all the latest research and data that's available. So some of the data that's included is available

and is publicly out there. but we just, it hasn't been looked at in relation to younger people with breast cancer before. So a lot of the statistics you'll see is, as I say, public available data through the NHS. We also, as part of the process, also did a survey of our breast cancer community and we had over 450 women that reported back what their experiences had been with regards to their diagnosis. And you'll see that throughout the report, you know, their experiences and the recommendations we're calling for are very much based on what they've told us. You found that breast cancer cases among women under the age of 50

have seen a 5% increase in just one year. Do we know why? Sadly, we don't know a single cause of why that is the case. There could be multiple factors involved with that. And that's very much why, as part of the report, we are calling for more research to take place into younger people with breast cancer because we just simply don't know enough to be able to draw some solid conclusions. But the data does present a picture that it is something.

thing that we do need to be addressing and we need a healthcare system that again can support younger people. Are some communities more impacted than others? Yes, as you'll see in the report, the average age of a diagnosis for black women with breast cancer is 21 years younger than white women. So that's age 46 as compared to 67. And it also shares that again for black and South Asian women, you're more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage than white women. So it really shows that there's kind of lots of disparities within breast cancer and younger people too and we really need to understand more about why that is the case. Your charity, as I mentioned, focuses on young people. So what do they tell you about going to the GP when they have concerns?

So we do hear quite a lot and that actually young people can find it harder to be taken seriously within the study that we carried out. It was about a third of people sort of shared that they had been deemed to be too young when they first presented to the GP. So, We know that can be a challenge and often they can be dismissed because of their age. And that's not to say that, you know, that is the GP's fault. We understand GPs have very difficult job to do. And the likelihood of younger person presenting with breast cancer is less common. However, we really want to make sure that everybody receives the best chance of getting an early diagnosis

and the best chance of being, you know, treated successfully with good outcomes. So that's why we really want to make sure that, you know, the system and the healthcare professionals are really not just taking age into consideration when young people are presenting and that they're looking at the whole picture for that person. How important is that early diagnosis? Well, we know that survival rates are a lot higher if you're diagnosed at stage one and stage two. Our whole charity was founded upon that. Sadly, our founder Chris, she was diagnosed of the secondary breast cancer and she very much wanted to change the situation for other people to ensure that they had the best chance of being diagnosed early and getting to know their bodies from a young

age. So we know early diagnosis is so crucial and that's why we want to also call for within the report that there's more breast awareness conversations happening within NHS appointments and that, you know, this is being talked about and shared more more widely. And also with regards to, you know, not just about breast awareness, but also people understanding their risk and and moving to a bit more of a risk-strathified kind of screening program is a kind of call to action that we would like to see put into place through a pilot because we think that will be the future in terms of making sure we can improve outcomes. Yeah, so very quickly, what does the NHS currently offer in terms of screening?

And what are you calling for? So the screening program currently is for women between the ages of 50 and 75, where you'll be invited for a screening appointment every three years. as I said those under 50 are purely relying on themselves knowing their bodies, checking themselves and presenting to the GP and then being taken seriously. And we don't feel that going forward, that is going to be the best option to ensure that we can create and establish more early diagnosis for young people.

And in terms of our report, what we want to see happen, we really want to see a pilot around a risk-based screening approach. We want to see breast awareness happening more. in routine NHS appointments, so sort of contraceptive appointments, cervical screening. And as I mentioned, we would love there to be more research into younger people with breast cancer so we can get some more answers. Sophie, Dupreel, from Copperfield. Thank you so much for joining me this morning.

And if you've been impacted by any of the issues we've discussed, you can find resources through the BBC's Action Line, or if you have any health concerns, do talk to your GP. Now, Frida Carlo is a name that will be very familiar to many of you, and to many all over the world. Her name, but her name, but also her image. This iconic female artist has over the decades become one of the most influential figures in the history of art,

but for years was a forgotten figure. While a new exhibition, Freida, the making of an icon, opens today at the tape modern in London. It seeks to unpick what lay behind not only her resurgence into the art world, but also the creation of what some refer to as Freeder Mania. Well, I'm joined by Beatrice Garcia, co-curator of the exhibition, and Hetti Judah, an author of Lives of the Artists, Frida Callow, and a self-described devotee of Frida's.

Welcome to both of you. Hetty, I'm going to come to you first. How did she become a global icon and a key influence on a generation of artists? Well, what was really extraordinary is that for a long time she was a forgotten figure. So there was this whole period after her death where her work was not well-known outside of Mexico. And it was not until the early 80s that there was a significant exhibition. of her work and that was actually at the White Chapel in London and it was an exhibition

of her work and her contemporary Tina Medotti who was a wonderful photographer and that was then swiftly followed by this extraordinary biography that was written by Hayden Herrera and between them they kind of introduced Freeda as a character and also Freed as work into

mainstream consciousness and the impact was really extraordinary and it's mounted since then globally and B people might not know anything about her, but they know her. And this exhibition is the highest pre-selling show in the Tate's history with more than 40,000 tickets sold. In fact, this morning, it's had 35,000, and it's just gone up by another 5,000 in the time we've been on air. Why does so many of us remain

fascinated by her? Well, I think it's a mix of elements. She had a remarkable life story, which she also depicted in very kind of candid and very honest and very powerful, ways. Her works feel very intimate. It's almost like you're, you know, encountering your old friend and she's telling you all of her secrets and she was, you know, very open about portraying her lived experience. There's also this very unique element to the Frida phenomenon, as we're calling it. And is that people want to embody her. You know, her image is as important as her work. And, you know, there's look-like content. all over the world.

So that's something that we locate as, you know, the origins of that, you know, by Frida herself. You know, she was very self-consciously creating a persona that was hybrid and that could speak to many different people. Talk us through what people will experience at the exhibition. When you're curating something for somebody who's so influential with so many works, like, where do you begin? Like, what's the story we're going to see? Totally. Well, the first thing to say is that it's not a retrospective exhibition. We organized one, a monographic show of Frida's work in 2005. And what drew us to this particular show is that it very self-consciously explores the phenomenon of Frida mania and of even the blockbuster exhibition. So the show really looks at how it was, thanks to generations of artists that reclaimed her work, that celebrated her work, that we, um, we have Frida as, you know, this global icon. So we look at her construction of identity,

how she opened up different selves. We look at her in the context of her contemporaries to show that she wasn't, you know, an alien. She was very much part of a time and a place. And then we look at different generations of artists, starting with the Chicano movement of the 1970s, that were influential for creating the person. that we know today.

Then the last section of the exhibition examines the extreme commodification of her image and of her work, which was a really interesting element of the show quite unique at a museum like Tate Modern. And it more than, you know, kind of makes a judgment on this. We located as a symptom of our times. Yes, that you can see her on socks and dolls and egg cups

and phone cases. We'll come to some of that. But Hessey, I want you to tell us a bit about who were the women around, who were her mentors? Like you say, she wasn't an alien. She wasn't just born in a vacuum. What was happening around her?

Well, she grew up during the period of the Mexican Revolution and when she went to high school, it was the period where it was being actually painted, actively painted by the Mexican muralists with these highly political paintings, including an extraordinary painting called The Creation by Diego Rivera, who she went on to marry. Twice.

Twice, exactly. And she obviously had this horrendous accident, which interfered with her ambition to go into medicine. Well, tell us quickly, because not everybody will know. So in her final year of school, she was in an appalling crash between a tram and a bus. Essentially, the bus that she was on exploded, and she was, I mean, it was horrendous, she was impaled,

and she spent a long time in hospital, and it really, it damaged her spine, it damaged her pelvis. It, I mean, it was, it caused a lifetime of injury and illness. And she went through an appalling kind of surgery throughout her life and she was in tremendous pain. So she'd wanted to actually go into medicine before that. But it was when she was recuperating from her illness that she started to paint. And as she went back out into the world, she started to mingle with what would have been her contemporaries from high school, who by that point were at university.

And many of them were part of this avant-garde movement in Mexico called stridentism. And one of the first paintings that you actually see in Beyer's show is a portrait of her friend, Miguel Lira, who was one of the stridentists. So they were like these kind of like Dadaist, surrealist, avant-garde group. So she was really part of this milieu already. Bear, you include her clothes, some of her treasured possessions from her personal collection. Why? What do they reveal about us and tell us what we can see? Of course.

Well, as Hetty was saying, she was, Frida was, you know, a young student in this very specific sociopolitical context. She was very much aligned with this post-revolutionary spirit of Mexicanida and of celebrating Mexicans, Mexico's culture, but, you know, also looking back at its pre-colonial, pre-Spanic roots to really think about a new national identity. And what interested us about the questions was, that they, yes, they speak to, you know, an aesthetic or a very characteristic element of Frida's persona. But it was really a political gesture that Frida was taking. You know, she was presenting herself as, you know, the mestiza, aligning herself with this spirit of Mexicanidad, with the working class, with indigenous people.

So that's one of the facets or personas that we think Frida very successfully. and very powerfully presented of herself. There are so many paintings, photos in the exhibition, but there's one particular one of Tracy Emin dressed as Frida, which was taken by Mary McCartney in 2000. It feels like there's parallels between them, not simply because Tracy Eamon also has her own exhibition on the Tate at the moment. Why was that image important to include?

I mean, it's such a privilege to have, you know, this program with such powerful women artists. Also, to note, we are including three prints by Anna Mendietta, whose retrospective is coming up very soon at Tate Modern. It speaks to a broader strategy within the museum to spotlight the work of women artists from the 20th century. But of course, they both are very bold and very courageous in speaking about subjects around the female experience that are largely taboo, that are silenced, and they refuse to be silenced,

and they open up very difficult subjects, including miscarriage. Yes. That's a thematic that runs throughout these two exhibitions, which was very important for both artists. We include a lithograph by Frieda Callow called Friedan the Miscarage, which she produced in the US when she had a very traumatic abortion. Hetti, what do you think she would have thought of freedom mania?

Well, she was, of course, a celebrity during her life, even though she wasn't necessarily a celebrity for her art. She was a celebrity, yeah, she was part of a celebrity couple, so she was photographed a lot. And there are wonderful photographs of her doing her hairstyle and other people, and she was also a fashion icon during her life. So to a degree, it is of a part with the way that she behaved in life and the way that she was seen in life.

But she was also very cheeky and very. very naughty so I think she probably would have teased to people quite a lot and talked about how they just looked like cabbages and turnips and they didn't have the right to dress up as she was dressing. What's it meant to you personally curating this beer? It's been such an honour

I'm lucky enough to surround myself with incredibly strong women including my grandmother my mother who are you know have cared for their family but are also you know incredibly intelligent and ambitious And, you know, spotlighting the voice of such a strong artist, a female artist, has been a dream in working with female mentors.

Well, I want to thank you both for coming in to tell me all about it, Bea and Hetty. And the exhibition is on until the 3rd of January 2027. Join me tomorrow. We've got Beth Orton in singing live. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. So, Alice Lockstone, I'm here for the history.

Well, Ben Henderson, I like the formality. And that's perfect because we have a lot of history to share. Why did tea become such a British obsession? How did English turn into the language we speak today? And yes, why do women's clothes still not have pockets? Well, in our new podcast here for the history, we're investigating how stories from the past shape everyday life today. Basically, the things we've all noticed but never stopped to question.

Listen on BBC Sounds. Or watch on YouTube. Just search for here for the history. The Signal Awards recognize the podcast that define culture, and being honored by the Signal Awards sets your production team apart with recognition from the industry's top experts and access proof that your work is a standard bearer for podcasting worldwide. By entering, your work is heard by the Signal Awards Judging Academy,

an invitation-only body of podcast professionals from acclaimed organizations, which include the BBC. Grow your audience, celebrate your team, and stand out. The final entry deadline to submit is the 26th of June. Enter your podcast at signalaward.com for consideration.