Woman's Hour - Rivals, J Smith Cameron, Lucy Letby case

Episode Date: October 22, 2024

Former nurse Lucy Letby became one of the UK’s most notorious child killers after she was convicted in 2023 of harming and murdering babies in her care. The nurse was found guilty by two juries after lengthy trials, but now there's been speculation over whether some evidence in the Letby trial was reliable. BBC Special Correspondent Judith Moritz is the co-author of the book Unmasking Lucy Letby: The untold story of the killer nurse. She joins Nuala McGovern to discuss what she has discovered since the trial ended.The actor J. Smith Cameron is currently on stage in London’s West End alongside Mark Rylance in Juno and the Paycock. It’s a play about a working class family in Dublin during the1922 Irish Civil War. J joins Nuala to discuss this, as well as her starring role in Succession where she played Gerri Kellman.Last weekend, the adaptation of Jilly Cooper’s classic 1980s bonkbuster Rivals landed on Disney+. The eight-part series is set in a fictional upper-class Cotswolds community and features media, politics and lots and lots of sex. So what does this moment of steamy nostalgia tell us about sex in 2024? Nuala talks to Dayna McAlpine, a sex and relationships writer and lifestyle editor at HuffPost UK, and Rowan Pelling, co-editor at Perspective and former editor of the Erotic Review.New Zealand have won, against the odds, the Women’s T20 World Cup – an achievement that may mark a turning point for women’s cricket, so often dominated by Australia. Nuala is joined by batting all-rounder and a stalwart of the White Ferns, Suzie Bates.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Maryam Maruf Editor: Karen Dalziel Studio Manager: Gayl Gordon

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, this is Nuala McGovern and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast. Hello and welcome to the programme. Succession fans, Irish theatre fans, we have a treat for you. J. Smith Cameron, who was Gerry in Succession, seen by some as one of the greatest ever TV dramas. She is now Juno in Juno and the Paycock, the play called An Irish Theatrical

Masterpiece. So we have the star of both of those coming up. Also, sex in the 80s compared to sex today. We are exploring it through the lens of a TV show adaptation of Jilly Cooper's Rivals. I'm sure you've heard about it. And there were many

things wrong with the 80s. There was misogyny, homophobia, inequality, sexism. Some of those continue. But there does seem to be nostalgia for some of the debauchery and excess that is on show with this show. But is the fascination with the 80s and rivals in particular, just that we are ready for and want more sex on TV. Some talk about younger generations being a bit more buttoned up or a few more hang-ups when it comes to sex. I'd like to know your

thoughts. Text the programme 84844 on social media. We're at BBC Women's Hour or you can email us through our website. You can send a WhatsApp message or a voice note. That number is 03700 100 444, particularly if you've tuned into a couple of those episodes. Tell me your thoughts. Also cricket.

New Zealand have won the Women's T20 World Cup. No small feat. Susie Bates, a central figure in the team, they're called the White Ferns, will be with us and she is still celebrating, I am sure. But let me turn to Lucy Letby. She is officially the most prolific child killer of modern times.

The former nurse was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others at the neonatal unit in the Countess of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. She's now serving 15 whole life orders. She was found guilty by two juries of Chester Hospital between June 2015 and June 2016. She's now serving 15 whole life orders.

She was found guilty by two juries after lengthy trials. There is an inquiry led by Lady Justice Thirlwall that is currently underway looking into how Letby was able to murder and harm babies at that hospital. It's currently hearing witness testimony. They will break tomorrow and resume again in November and those findings will be published by late autumn 2025. Now despite the verdicts you may have seen or heard that there has been speculation over whether some evidence in the Lethby trial was reliable. That is not what that inquiry is addressing. But Lady Justice Thirlwall has called

the speculation noise that caused an enormous amount of stress for the parents of the babies who were victims. BBC special correspondent Judith Moritz is the author of the book Unmasking Lucy Letby, the untold story of the killer nurse. Judith was one of the only reporters to be given access to the courtroom for the duration of Lucy Letby's trial and spent nearly a year observing her closely. I should say she wrote the book with her colleague Jonathan Coffey who is a senior BBC Panorama journalist. Judith you're very welcome to Woman's Hour. Hi it's good to be here. What was it that you wanted to share with those who are interested in this case and I have to say there is huge interest in this case, that they hadn't already learned from the news coverage of what had taken place in the neonatal unit?

There's so much that hadn't been included. And I'm saying that after having spent months in that original trial and reporting on it regularly. And I always had this feeling that, you know, right from the get go, and it was, I think this is actually how it played out, that that trial was always going to give us a snapshot, but not the full picture. And I say that because from the beginning, you know, as soon as I saw what Lucy Letby was charged with, It was a neat period of time, this one year between June 2015 and June 2016. We knew that she'd started working at the hospital

before that, back in 2012. And I thought, well, why are we just hearing about this one year? And surely there's a bigger story here. And what about everybody else at the hospital and what they saw and what they knew? We knew that during the trial, the evidence that was presented to the jury was going to be very much restricted around that period of time. And as it went along, there were hints of other things. There were particularly when the consultants who worked with Letby came in to give their evidence.

And they started talking about the fact that we'd been put under pressure not to make a fuss and we thought, well, what's that about? But because the criminal trial was very strictly looking at the medical evidence around these charges, it didn't get in, in any great deal, into that bigger picture. And I just had this growing sense, and Jonathan Coffey, you talked about it at the start, the two of us were making a Panorama documentary at the time, which we broadcast on the day that the verdicts were finally made public. Even then, we had an hour's television to make,

and we still felt that there's a lot more to come. And that's what's been proven. I mean, look, you just talked about the public inquiry. That is rolling and rolling and will take months to complete. So this is a multifaceted situation. And coming to that inquiry that I mentioned, what are particularly I want to bring attention to the parents of those babies that were killed? What are they hoping to get from that inquiry? Well, it's set up to deal with a very different set of sort of points of reference, if you like, it's a very legal term, isn't it? But essentially, it's got a very different purpose to the trial. And as I said, just now, you know, the trial gave those parents answers to the criminal aspect of what's happened. And actually,

I should say, it didn't give them all answers because the jury at the end convicted Lucy Letby of some charges. They quitted her of two charges. They also were hung on some charges. They couldn't decide. And there were parents who left that part of the process without verdicts relating to their children, having gone through all of those months in court. Now, all of the families that were involved in the trial, whose babies were on that charge sheet, all of them have representation here at the inquiry. And what they're looking to is for answers around what the hospital was doing, what the management were doing, what was going on in the background, which enabled Lucy Letby to commit crimes.

That's what the inquiry is based on. And, you know, it feels at the moment like there are two parallel universes because this inquiry is completely predicated on Lucy Letby's guilt. It's looking at how she was able to commit crimes. Now, you just referred to that, you know, there's a whole conversation going on outside the inquiry, which is on a very different page. And I think when people are just coming to this

sporadically, perhaps they're not seeing those parallel narratives that are taking place. And I did mention briefly, there is speculation about whether evidence in the trial was reliable. Can you explain to our listeners what some of those concerns are and how seriously they've been taken before we delve further into what you found with your book? Yeah, the sort of scepticism, the post-trial commentary, which has blown up particularly in the last few months. And by the way, the reason for that, I think, is to give you the context, because there was this original trial last year as I just said the jury couldn't decide on all of the charges one of those charges was set up for a retrial

which happened sort of about a year or so later and for all of that period we were prevented as reporters from getting into the weeds of all of this detail because there were restrictions in place to protect the trial so So reporting was necessarily narrow. And then when that trial, that retrial, finished in the summer of this year, those restrictions lifted. And it was like the floodgates opened. You know, you could go online at any stage pretty much and read up on this case. It's gone viral.

It's like, I mean, I've never really seen anything like it in my long experience of covering court cases. But what we've seen in recent weeks as well is that I think scepticism, which perhaps started, I mean, the families have said it started in the shadows, it was starting in chat rooms and on blogs and forums online, has moved into the mainstream. The papers have, particularly the press, have been publishing articles featuring academics, featuring scientists who are questioning the medical evidence in the case. And particularly the science around insulin poisoning and air embolism, which is the injecting of air into the bloodstreams, the circulations of the babies. And a number of the babies in the case were found to have been murdered or let be attempted to murder them by that means.

And as well as that, by the way, as well as the science, there's been criticism of the way statistics were or weren't presented to the jury. So this criticism is coming from all over the place, from different quarters. And, yeah, you know, the chair of the inquiry, of the public inquiry, called it noise, that the families have said it's deeply distressing. And the impact on the families who lost their babies coming back to that again, it must be very distressing to have some of these questions raised. Yeah, they said it was grossly offensive.

That was what their lawyers said. They've been on that journey. You know, if you think about the families for a moment and their experience, these were families whose babies were in that neonatal unit, the fragility of life, longed for babies who were in that unit, clinging on to life. But several of them, particularly, they weren't all premature. They were, in some cases, about to go home. They were babies that the parents were looking forward to bringing up and taking home and that wonderful future. Now, when their babies died or became suddenly very ill, they believed that that had happened naturally. They left the hospital believing that that had happened naturally and that very sadly, in some cases, they'd lost their child through natural causes.

And then sometime later, the police came knocking and said, actually, we're sorry to get in touch, but we believe that a crime has been committed. We believe your child has been murdered. And the families have spent years going through the experience of that investigative process. They've then gone through the court process. They've sat there and listened to the evidence. Some of them have given evidence. Some of the mothers particularly came into the courtroom and gave their accounts of what they'd seen and heard. And then they went through that process of waiting for the verdicts. And, you know, I was in court when Letby was sentenced. She wasn't there, by the way, she didn't turn up, but the parents read their statements about their personal experience. And I will never forget what that was like. I mean, you could have heard a pin drop,

and there were people, professionals, lawyers, crying while that happened. And, you know, that whole process finishes and now we have this world of scepticism. And that's why the families are saying it's grossly offensive and distressing. It's exacerbating their pain. There is a documentary also that you've created about some of the unanswered questions, which is on BBC iPlayer at the moment. I was watching that yesterday, Judith,

and I was just thinking, watching, you know, those children would be eight or nine years of age now, just to put it in context for our listeners of what these parents are dealing with. Just briefly, I know in May, the Court of Appeal rejected an application that Lucy Letby's lawyers had made to appeal.

Is that case closed? Does she have a path? Well, as ever, it's complicated. Of course. So what happened in May was, yes, she wasn't given permission to appeal against the convictions from her first trial. I mentioned before there was a retrial on one charge, and actually later this week her lawyers are going to be back in court

seeking permission to appeal against the one conviction from the retrial. But that then isn't necessarily the end of the process. She has also instructed a new legal team and they're talking about taking her case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is where you go essentially if you run out of road at the Court of Appeal. And they are saying, you know, fighting talk. They're saying that they're confident that they have a good case, that there are experts who will come out and help them to prove that the science used in the first trial wasn't sufficient to secure those convictions. That's their intent. That's where they're at. Realistically, that's a process that could take them months, if not years, if they get anywhere at all.

Right. So we will follow that one. Let me turn instead to some of the people that you spoke to when it came to your book. And I don't believe you got to speak to Lucy Lethby at all yet, but you did speak to Dawn. And she was a young woman that some people might remember throughout this case. She was the best friend of Lucy Letby in school because the book is called Unmasking Lucy Letby. What did you find? We spoke to Dawn when we first went to make the Panorama, the first Panorama documentary that we made back at the start of all of this. And I remember driving around Hereford with her, with Jonathan, my co-author and the producer of the documentary. We went as a team to go and meet Dawn. And we found a very warm, very bright, very interested, friendly woman who is utterly, utterly solid in her convictions that her friend

cannot be capable of these crimes. I mean, she said to me, look, unless Lucy tells me herself that she did this, I will never believe it. She was absolutely unmoved by that. And she was by that belief. And she was watching the trial unfold at the time but you know we also met people um and this is all reflected in in the book who were just as credible and just as friendly and just as as um you know convinced of their beliefs and and particularly i'm thinking about the way we sat down with with uh the lead consultant uh steve breary the lead neonatal consultant we spent a lot of time with him when we were making that documentary. We also spent time with the families. We were certainly with, in particular, the family of twin boys

who were involved in the trial. And that mother said to me, I put the same question to her that I put to Dawn. Do you ever believe that she didn't do this? Do you ever believe she did? We talked about guilt and innocence, and she was utterly certain, absolutely certain, that Letby's guilty.

And that's what's really interesting. When we wrote the book, we were determined to lay all of this out there for the reader to be able to explore it with us. I said at the start, it's such a multifaceted, such a multilayered story, this. I don't even want to call it a story. This is real lives. You know, I was reminded of that when I spoke to that mother, the parent of those babies. And she was saying to me, you know, I'm watching all of this commentary

and people are treating it as some kind of soap opera. It's like a box set. It's like, you know, people get hooked on this stuff. You know, there's keyboard warriors out there who've got opinions. It's my life. They're my children. That won't leave me. I feel throughout it all that we don't have a full picture

of who Lucy Letby is. I found it fascinating in your book, you know, these small nuggets of information that you are getting about her because, of course, you're the woman who has been following this case. Do you feel you've got a real sense of who she is yet? Yeah, I mean, we were brave calling it unmasking Lucy Letby because I think that's the point. It's a work in progress, the unmasking. And I say that having sat there, as you just said,

I was in the courtroom sitting, I don't know, a few metres away, really very near to the dock for 10 months. I sat and watched her and I watched all of the time she was in the witness box giving evidence. And yet I said at the time, I came away from the end of the trial still feeling that I didn't know the complete picture. I didn't know who she was. And that's one of the things we do in the book. We explore that. We look at her background. We look at her childhood. But also the way that court case played out, the way she, her role in it,

in that trial. And I think, you know, a lot of that's been lost from the recent commentary, which is talking about science and statistics. I understand why that debate's happening. But what we're not hearing very much of is what was the jury's experience? What was it like sitting watching Lucy Letby through all of that time? And we unpack that in the book as well. During the court trial, there was no real examination of why she had done what she'd done, a motive, basically. Do you think that was a deliberate decision by the prosecution? Yes, I know it was. I asked them, you know, before the case started, are you going to get into matters of motive? And they said, no,

we don't need to. We need to prove the case, they said to me, on the science, on the medical evidence. And actually, you know, despite the current debate, that is what they did because the jury accepted beyond reasonable doubt that that evidence was sufficient without being given detail around motive and psychology and so on. But, you know, that doesn't mean we weren't wondering it. It was an elephant in the room. Again, we get into it in the book.

You know, what kind of motivated somebody to have done this and of course we also make the point that if you're of the school of thought that thinks well she hasn't done it then why are we exploring it so it's a it's a thorny issue but you can't help but compare let be to other cases to other female um not just other female serial killers but other nurses other you know look at beverly allitt and the beverly allitt name the way, keeps coming up at the public inquiry. And she was? And Beverly Allitt was a nurse in Lincolnshire who was convicted of murdering children using insulin. Very similar in many ways, but a very different character.

I mean, she's in a secure hospital. You know, there was a lot of discussion. There is a lot of discussion in the book it was not presented at all in the trial around Allitt's psychiatry and that wasn't delved into at all in court when it came to Letby so we look at it in the book

Very readable, Unmasking Lucy Letby The Untold Story of the Killer Nurse is published on Thursday and you can catch up, as I was mentioning, about last night's Panorama, Lucy Letby unanswered questions on BBC iPlayer. And, of course, the convictions have taken place, as I mentioned at the beginning, with Lucy Letby.

And they stand, as we talked about, the potentials, or probably very slim potentials for any appeal. She was found guilty by two juries and she's now serving 15 whole life orders. Thank you very much, Judith Moritz. And I should also mention that your co-author was Jonathan Coffey. You're listening to Woman's Hour. And next is the actor J. Smith Cameron, who has just walked in and joined me in the Woman's Hour studio. Welcome. Thank you.

So you are the renowned theatre star. You're in the London's West End, the leading role in Juno and the Peacock. I say that in my Dublin accent. You're alongside Mark Rylance. You are a titan of the theatre world. Manny, of course, will know you as Gerry Calman in Succession, your general counsel of Logan Roy's media empire. You know, just when I was reading into both of these, I mean, one, as I was calling, people called it the greatest TV drama of all time. And other people called Sean O'Casey, Juno and the Peacock, and indeed, it's part of a trilogy,

some of the great Irish masterpieces. This is a good moment. Yes, I would say so. That's what I say. That's what I think. Well, let's begin with Sean O'Casey. It's a tragic comedy. I should say it's 100 years since the play was written. It's set in working class Dublin. There's sectarian

politics. You are the matriarch, this woman, Juno, who's holding a family together. But I read it's not the first time you've played this role. That's correct. I did it about 10 years ago in New York City at a lovely, small, much smaller theatre called the Irish Rep. Oh, I know the Irish Rep. You do? It's a lovely place. And I had a wonderful time. It's a very different theatre. So it was a very different,

it was very intimate, and I could probably speak at this volume and be her, you know, it was just very, had a whole different feeling than this production. So it's kind of fun to do it a whole different way. What's it like going back into it? What's the appeal of June? Well, I mean, it's a role of a lifetime. She's such an amazing character, because to me, she's facing all these difficulties,

but she's sort of irrepressible. She has a strong drive to protect her children and to try to keep her home together, and she's got this hope and sort of it's just a very human thing and very, I think, moving to have a character that has that sort of like picks herself up and keeps going. Or that's how I see it. I mean, she has a jaded, she has some jaded, bitter moments, but she's both basically keeps looking up and she's, you know, she's a person of faith.

She's been thwarted would be the word I would use. You're starring alongside Mark Rylance. So that character is Captain Jack Boyle, the peacock or the peacock. Yes. A lot of people are like, what's a peacock? Yeah, exactly. Which is a peacock. So we kind of get that kind of vain character, hopeless drunk, seems to have sudden pains

in his legs every time there's a chance that he might have to work. How has it been created? Because they're two very strong roles on stage, kind of butting up against each other in a different way of looking at the world. My character in Marx? Yes, definitely. I mean, it's a classic situation. It's a husband and wife, and the wife is always trying to get him to settle down and get a job. I mean, they have a son who's been really maimed, first in the independence fight and then in the O'Connell Street fight a few years later. So he's just sort of ruined.

And then the daughter is on strike. And Shauna Casey was a big person for labor and strike, you know, a labor, a big union person. So Juno's really the only breadwinner. And I think she probably cleans up and houses and has little odd jobs here and there, and she's hustling the whole place. She comes in, changes her apron, heads back out. Like, she's just bustling around.

And then there's Jack, who's drinking and telling, you know, tall tales. And so I nag him a lot, but he's also, you know, anyway. A frustrating character. He's a frustrating character, but he's so charming, Mark Rylance is. And then you can kind of see in the play, at one point their fortunes seem to change. And you can kind of see their affection for each other kindle and flame up again. And I think that's one of the really interesting things. Yes, I suppose seeing some of the pressures

that poverty can put on a couple. They're in real poverty, yeah. And during parts of it. But, you know, 100 years. I hadn't actually seen the play for about, probably the best part of 40 years, because we did it in school. You know, we do Shadow of a Gunman

and you've got June and the Peacock and the Plow and the Stars in his trilogy. But why do you think it stands the test of time? Gosh, I just think it's such an artfully constructed play. I mean, I just think of it as a masterpiece. Jesse Armstrong, who created Succession, came to see it last week. Oh, that's fun. Yeah, and he was like, gosh, it's an incredible play.

Like, it has everything. It's structured so so dramatically and yet there's so much humor and the characters are distinct and the dialogue is very rich it's it's just wonderful and even just the second act alone the way that's a just if even if you just looked at that long scene it's so artfully written where their fortunes are up and then the son gets scared and then the mood is restored. And then somebody comes in who's lost a family member and it just goes up and down and really reflects the time. And it's just beautiful. And they have like a little Irish sing song kind of in the middle of that scene and it just has everything, kind of has everything.

What about that when worlds collide when Jessie Armstrong comes to see you? I know, how about that? Yeah, which is wonderful. You are in your 60s, you talk about theatre being your first love and we've had conversations recently on Women's Hour about there being more roles for

older women in theatre and in television. And I love this quote that I saw that you had. There's a sort of bewildered vulnerability to middle and older age that's very rich and ripe to be explored. And people are beginning to do that. I said that, huh? You did. Very nice. Well, that's what I think. I feel like it's a kind of a rich thing. There's so many women in the world that are coming of age right now.

It's like coming of, you know, a certain age. And we have been through so many things. I mean, women really, like in the play, I mean, women often carry the emotional responsibilities that and so it's a bit that's why what I meant by rich, I just think that there's a lot of material to be found, like Jerry Kelman, but also like Jean Smart's character in Hacks or gosh, there's many, there's many examples. But I just think it's, it's wonderful. And there's this whole body of really, really talented middle aged to older, older ladies who are just incredible performers

and need to be seen and need to be written for. And I think it's beginning to happen. OK, let's talk about the role of Gerry. Let's talk about this session. So for those who haven't seen it, why haven't you seen it? If you haven't seen it, it's a fictional drama. It follows the lives of the Roy family. There's Logan, played by the actor Brian Cox. He's this media tycoon.

And we follow his children as they fight between themselves for control of the company and for their father's acceptance. Gerry is Jay's character, advises Logan and at times is one of the most trusted people. I believe the role was originally written for a man and the character was only supposed to be in four episodes.

That's correct. But you, Jay, made it into someone who the writers couldn't ignore and is our favourite among many. She was this intriguing, commanding, sexy character. Thank you. What about that role? I know. That was great because the way Succession works is it's just very collaborative.

We have these brilliant, brilliant writers, but they often would leave the cameras rolling after we'd finished a scene just to see what we would say next. And I felt sometimes that it was like a nature show and they were watching the animals in captivity and how we behaved, like studying us and using that material. And like the whole story between Roman and Jerry. Okay, so Roman Roy, played by Kieran Culkin,

so the youngest son. And this is the way Variety talked about the relationship between Jerry and Roman. The hottest, strangest, unconsummated relationship on television. That's about it, isn't it? But that was born out of real chemistry, I heard. Talk about the cameras rolling and watching to see what happens. Well, so we've been friends for a while and we just really were loving working together. And you could almost almost if you want to

you could look at the very first scene they had and there's it's a sort of a it's this badinage that's a little bit flirtatious in a way.

I mean if you look back on it so it's almost like someone originally had some drop of it somewhere in their back of their mind but so they left it was in the back of their mind.

So they left. It was the last episode of season one. We were at Tom and Shiv's wedding. It was in England. We were shooting in England. And so we were at the bar, and we ran out of dialogue, and they just kept rolling. They didn't say cut.

So we had this little sassy conversation about martinis and how hard it was to get a dry martini here. If you were outside of New York, we were both being smartasses. Both our characters were smartasses. And it was a little flirtatious. And then I turned to walk away, and apparently he looked back at me. And then I looked back at him just as he turned around. So they were giggling watching this on the you know in the video village as they call it like where they all sit off off stage um and

then the next thing I knew we came in to do our table read for season two and Alan Ruck said oh I hear you're Roman's love interest for season two and I was like what I didn't believe it until I was like in the middle of the first episode and Mark Mark Milad, our director, was like, oh, no one's told you. Oh, I'm sorry. Wow. So it just unfolded in a really great way. But shot, Geri, I think, into another sphere in the sense. I mean, why should it seem transgressive that an older.

I mean, you're not that much older than him in the show. It's just that we're used to it being the other way around gender wise. If a guy was 20 years older than a woman, I mean, nobody would bat an eyelid. Exactly right. I know. No, I thought that was delightful. That's what I mean about this trend now maybe changing about women's age. Because we've talked about aging as well many times on this program, but sometimes that pressure that women have, particularly in the public eye, whether we talk about cosmetic surgery or what people are,

had been perhaps in the times felt pressured, under pressure to do. Like maybe women can just be the age that they are. Yeah, why not? And I remember Jesse saying, and you know, I was complaining about my high heels on set all the time because my feet are just so beat up. They're like, I have arthritis in both feet.

And he was like, why don't you wear flat shoes? And I said, because I want to look stylish. I mean, these people in these huge firms, people that high up in the hierarchy, they look impeccable. And that includes heels. I mean, that's the look. But he was right. He was like, well, if you guys start wearing flats, then they'll be cool someday. And I was like, well, yeah, but not on my dime.

I got to look good on camera. But he's right. And I think people are. People are beginning to wear trainers with their suits and their dresses. And they're making all these really groovy looking trainers and boots that you can, I mean. You've got on kind of a platform trainer. Yes, with a big platform.

I've got on a boot. Okay, so there. And our feet are not hurting. No, our feet aren't. So we're very comfortable chatting. Yes. Let me, so Succession, it's never going to come back, is it? Oh, no, I guess not. I mean, it's never going to come back, is it? No, I guess not.

I mean, it could. Could there be a spin-off? The Jerry Show? I don't know about that, but I feel like they left it in such a way. And because it takes place in America and our, well, we'll see what happens next month. But our politics are almost like that show is almost prescient, like that, you know, Roman backs this like fascist leaning right wing candidate. We're going to be doing a couple of episodes next week, actually, on the U.S. election on how women vote and why they vote and some of those issues as we look towards the election. But it is interesting talking about succession, like talking about impressions. Some people talk about it like Shakespeare. Yeah, I know.

Coming full circle back to your theatre. Really, the cast, almost complete, it was kind of a large cast. Most of us come from the theatre. So it had, I don't know. Yeah, it had something special in that way. You mentioned the election. You're going to be away. You're on stage.

I just sent in my ballot. You sent in your ballot. But does it pain you to be out of the States when something so momentous is happening? Well, I was quite involved, or I was before I left the country, and then this was such an all-consuming job that I'm actually really grateful because I'd kind of just worked myself up into an anxiety.

I was just very flummoxed about what was going to happen. So this has given me something concrete to focus on, but I still have my, you know. Let me see. You might need to stay up a little late. Yes, I know that's coming. Oh, gosh, I really hope it turns out well. Well, that is one view

we're going to be hearing about many more on the program. But I want to thank my guest. Oh, thank you. Jay Smith Cameron. Jay, I believe because Jeannie was too girlish. Jeannie, yeah, at some point, it doesn't seem that way now, of course,

but when I was a girl, it felt like, you know, a little girl's name. I notice it's androgynous in a way, as is Juno, as is Jerry. Right. I see a pattern. Yes. Come back and visit us again soon. I'd love to. Enjoy the rest of June in the Peacock,

which I did. It's at the Gilgud Theatre in London's West End, and it is until the 23rd of November. Now, tomorrow, we are dedicating the entire show to a phone-in programme on special educational needs and disabilities.

We will be discussing SEND provision in educational settings with a focus on what is working. We want to hear from you with your examples of best practice. What's working for your child? We would like to hear your success story. So the good ideas, the concepts that can be passed on,

scaled up or rolled out elsewhere in other schools or local authorities. Get in touch and share. You can text Women's Hour. That's 84844, social media at BBC Women's Hour. Or you can email us through our website. Looking forward to hearing from you. I know it's something that is very close to the heart of many of you. OK, I was talking about this at the beginning.

Last weekend, the adaptation of Jilly Cooper's classic 1980s bonk buster, I think is the genre, Rivals landed on Disney+. So it's an eight-part series. It's set in a fictional upper-class Cotswolds community and features media, politics and lots and lots of sex. So what made an A-list cast, that's David Tennant, that's Aidan Turner, for example,

sign up for the Rivals reboot? And what does this moment of steamy nostalgia tell us about sex in 2024? We have Dana McAlpine, who's a sex and relationships writer and lifestyle editor at HuffPost UK and Rowan Pelling, editor at Perspective and former editor of The Erotic Review.

Thank you both for joining us. Let me start with you, Rowan. You were a fan of Rivals the first time round. How does the TV adaptation measure up for you? Oh, it's absolutely glorious. I mean, I was exactly the age that Taggy was when that drama is set. So I sort of came of age in Jilly World, stealing those novels from friends of, you know, mothers of my friends at school, because my mum wasn't racy enough to buy them. And, you know, you do have, you do hold it quite sacred in your head how it should be done. And this is the first adaptation I've seen that really captures something of the joyousness, but also looks at the 1980s with a sort of shrewd, slightly dark eye saying, do we really want to go back there?

Well, that was kind of a question, I suppose, that I was asking at the top for how people were feeling about it. I'll read some of the comments that have come in. But let me turn to Dana. You're 31. You don't remember the 80s. But I'm wondering what you think about the world that you're seeing created in Rivals. I mean, when you look at it, it's certainly not like shying away from the era shortcomings whatsoever, right? Like I found Rivals so much fun. It was very British. It was sex is meant to be silly and that's definitely how it was portrayed it wasn't this sleek American sex between Egyptian cotton sheets and perfect teeth and tans it's like very much how's your father it was rumpy pumpy and it but in the same way as much

fun as it what it was it really didn't you, hide the fact that there was plenty wrong in that era. And I think seeing it through a 2024 lens was really interesting. How does the sexual landscape of the 80s differ from today, Dana, in your eyes? I think certainly from my side of things, we have, I don't think my, I know I come under the millennial umbrella, but I don't think we're shying away from sex by any means. I think the difference now is that we have the language. We have a bigger understanding of consent. The one night stand has been mastered. We know how to ask for pleasure. apps like Field, which for people who aren't aware is a bit more like a kinky liberal Tinder,

where you can, you know, where you can have sex tailored to what your pleasure and fantasy might be. That's not to say that horrible things don't still happen out there. But I think, you know, it's certainly a lot more open in terms of pleasure isn't a dirty word. And we know a lot more about consent. But what about that, Rowan? Like I'm looking at the 80s to 2024. I mean, do you think it captures the sexual atmosphere of the 80s, Rowan? Well, clearly, we were growing up in a world where there wasn't internet, there wasn't Tinder. People met in real life situations and that meant that alcohol was often involved. I think what really I noticed about the series it reminded me of being at those kind of parties where you would just gulp back a glass of wine you didn't even like and then the end game was to get off with

someone by the end of a party. So I think my children would find that tremendously vulgar and silly. You know, they'd be going through stages of dating, you know, they're all set in stone, these different stages before you're even committed. And we would be just saying, when's the slow dance? Before the slow dance happened, you have to have found someone for that night's entertainment. You didn't know what you were doing. You hadn't seen sex education. You didn't have those kind of models. You might have found your mum's joy of sex, but that was about it. So you had to sort of learn by doing it. And I'm not sure that was an entirely a bad thing. Let me throw that back over to Dana. What about that? The way Rowan describes that night. I mean, does that still happen? Go go to the party knock back some bad wine and start looking for somebody to hook up

with I mean I certainly think there's still plenty of that on a on a Saturday night and I think there's parts of parts of rivals that definitely still exist now in 2024 I mean I'm not sure that you'll catch me doing naked tennis anytime soon um but but I think certainly that was what quite a lot of the appeal about Rivals has been when I've spoken to my friends over the weekend about it, that that's what was actually the sexiest bit of it. It wasn't the sex, it was these organic power dynamics and meeting organically and sort of having that, God, that, you know, that just doesn't happen now. That's so interesting to me. Is nostalgic the right word? If you weren't there the first time, probably still is. What about that though, Rowan, like not having the real life, you know,

power connections, dynamics that, of course, you would have grown up with and it was just not even something you thought about, to be quite honest. I mean, flirting in the office as a de rigueur. And, you know, you really expected that people were going to hit on you. And then you could sort of go, no, not interested. Or maybe you were interested. I met my husband at work in a magazine office. And at the time that magazine, this was in the 90s, a bit later, but it was known as the love boat because there were so many relationships that got going there. And I think that would be rightly frowned on, but something has probably been lost in the mix. You know, we were having a very riotous time that wasn't policed and sometimes people were properly

harassed and it was serious. And it was hushed up in the way we see in the programme by HR too. I mean, you realise that was happening, someone would just disappear. And then you'd hear this terrifying tale about how it was always the woman's fault. That was true then. The man did not get punished. The woman was shuffled off to another role. There are a lot of aspects, and I'll come to some more of them as well when it comes to the uncomfortable storylines as well. I was asking earlier, what about more sex on television?

Is that what people are all ready for? I love the fact that we all look younger today than we did then. The hair, dreadful and delicious telly. Another one though. Please, please, no more sex on television. There's far too much already. It shows what a vulgar base lot we are. I can't bear it.

Can't some things remain private and behind closed doors? I will not watch Rivals and couldn't watch Bridgerton because of the excess sex. Yours from Prim Squeamish in Edinburgh. So 84844 if you want to get in touch. But there obviously was an appetite for this. And I was just looking at some of the viewing figures before we came to air.

There's people crying out for a second season. They seem to have lapped up those first episodes already. And there's obviously that excess and debauchery or sense of fun that you were talking about, Rowan, and also Dana saying some of the stuff you're nostalgic about. But getting into some of those difficult lines, for example, something very moving, actually, about a gay relationship that takes place, but just also that there was no space for some gay people in those lives that were there. I was wondering, Dana, as a younger person watching that, what you thought. I mean, certainly, even now in 2024,

there's plenty of people who still feel that they have to remain closeted. But I think it was a really important thing to have, certainly, for us to appreciate where we've come from and the sort of hardships that people before us in terms of LGBT have been through you know we are in a far more liberal landscape now sexually it's just a part of that you know across everything there is still problems as well but I think it was so important to have something like section 28 included in it so that we could pause and reflect on that as well. Yes. Another, you know, I just had J. Smith Cameron in talking about her role as Gerry in Succession when she had an unconsummated relationship with Roman Roy in that TV drama.

But in Rivals, there is the main love stories between ayear-old woman and a man more than twice her age. What did you make of that, Rowan? Kind of par for the course at that time? Yes, I think relationships with older men and often with the boss were far more common then. And I'm going to say again from my own experience that when I was first in London and I was 23, I was dating a man who was 50 for two years. I didn't work with him. He was an architect.

But, you know, he was powerful and interesting and took me to grand restaurants I could never afford. And, you know, I can't look back and say that was a mistake. It was a learning curve. And I sometimes wonder whether in our very sort of policed finesse, you know, we think about things so carefully that we sometimes overthink ourselves out of situations because everything comes with this sort of side dose of anxiety in 2024. And I suppose with that relationship,

he was obviously older, but it was obviously consensual. Perhaps there were not the power dynamics that there would have been within a work relationship, for example. Dana, I'm wondering how you see it. I mean, as someone who also in their early 20s dated someone that was a lot older. Sorry, mum, if you're listening um I think you know it is just a bit par for the course I think again the good thing about

where we're at now is again we have a bigger understanding of this right it's not just about age it's also a power imbalance it's all of And yes, God, we know that power is sexy and that there is such an appeal with that as well from a dating perspective. But again, I just think there's more of an understanding about the warning signs that you do need to look for. And do you think, you've probably heard the term, and I'll start with you, Dana, that Rivals is anti-woke? I think that's really a stretch. I think that, quite honestly, the sex is probably the least interesting part of it in some of the cases. The storylines are fantastic within it. The reflection of what working in the media looked like in the 80s and all these crossed crossover interlinking stories between all the characters is interesting I mean the sex is silly

it's fun it doesn't shy away from the fact that you know there is everything from homophobia racism or you know sexism it tackles all of these as well. I don't think it's anti-woke as such. It deals with these hard things alongside portraying the era. It does also have a difficult storyline involving a rape, which was something I noticed the columnist Zoe Williams was writing about today saying, you know, they were hushed up in the 80s as well, as you alluded to, Rowan. But you don't see it as anti-woke. Rowan, how would you see it? I think there was an element that was, if you like, anti-PC, but not to do with the sex particularly or the storylines. I just really enjoyed the fact that people were

gleefully drinking, smoking, driving their fast cars far too speedily down narrow country roads, not really worrying about wearing helmets on horses. So there is that carefree aspect, which of course, you know, it's not you're going, oh, I wish we could return to the good old dangerous days when everyone's livers exploded and they got lung cancer. My father got lung cancer, but there's a certain nostalgia for the James Hunt way of life, I suppose you'd call it, and a playboy who didn't care. And it's just fun. Like Austin Powers is fun about the 60s. Do you remember how different the world was? So maybe like a, yes, a carelessness that maybe has something attractive about it as well.

Interesting stuff. Dana Mack, Alpine, sex and relationships writer and lifestyle editor at HuffPost UK. Rowan Pelling is editor at Perspective and former editor of The Erotic Review. Thank you both for joining me and talking about rivals. Here's Lucy in Surrey.

My husband screwed up his face when I put rivals on with the comment. You can watch it if you want to. He enjoyed it just as much as I did. Hilarious. Let us move on to New Zealand, who have won the Women's T20 World Cup. Music to the ears of my next guest,

the superstar cricketer Susie Bates. Some of you may remember she joined us live from Lourdes when Women's Hour broadcast from the Cricket Grand earlier this year. This is an achievement that can't be overstated. For a country, it's a population fewer than six million. Its best female athletes tend to opt for netball or maybe rugby

and they're not blessed with a talent pool like countries like England or India or Australia, their usual rivals. But Australia's dominance, they've won six of the last seven championships

and it's led to some claiming the sport has become too predictable. But Sunday's win may mark a turning point for women's cricket and woman who was central to the win was Susie Bates batting all-rounder and stalwart of the White Ferns. That is how they're known. Susie,

welcome back. Congratulations. How are you feeling? Thank you very much. A little bit jaded. I've got a little bit of a croaky voice from singing and celebrating pretty hard. And we've just arrived in India this morning because we have a series starting on Thursday. But yeah, overall, just like there's just so much joy thinking back to not just that day, but the whole tournament and the way we were able to perform in the big moments and yeah just really special

considering like you said um no one really expected us to win um Australia are always the favorites at world cups and um to play South Africa in a final as well who haven't won one before it was just a really special day and the girls are still buzzing even though they're a little bit tired I am sure and I'm glad you have that croaky voice because it has been that you have been celebrating well let me, I was thinking of my colleague the BBC Sports, Fionn Wynne who got across

the emotions of this moment for you, let me read a little for our listeners New Zealand's hands were all but on the trophy and their legendary captain Sophie Devine looked to the sky in a brave attempt to fight back tears. And when the victory was confirmed, Susie Bates, her international teammate since 2006, left into her arms in an overload of emotions from joy to disbelief to pure ecstasy at a lifelong dream finally being achieved. Tell me about that moment with Sophie Devina.

I remember so much when you were with us at Lourdes, like thinking that something like this may not be possible for New Zealand just yet, but it happened. Yeah, and that summed it up perfectly. I think they needed 42 runs off 12 balls. For those that follow cricket, that's pretty unlikely. But I remember being like, 12 more balls, come on, stay in it. Because I was starting to think about the victory. And then we're needing pass and bowled the last over. After every ball, Sophie and I looked at each other with a slightly bigger smile, knowing that we were getting closer. And, yeah, I think knowing how long it's taken to get back to this point

and potentially even Sophie and I not quite believing that we could get back to that point with how the Games moved forward. It was just so special for her as a captain to be able to have that moment and the way she led. Yeah, we just sort of had this big embrace and we didn't want to let go because we were just so proud of each other and the group and the fact that we were able to pull off something quite remarkable. And, yeah, there's been a lot of highs and lows throughout both our careers.

So to share that high of all highs was really awesome. She's been through a bit as captain recently because we haven't been able to perform and get any results, so to be able to play our best cricket at a World Cup, really special and something I'll never forget sharing with Soph. What do you think this will mean for cricket in New Zealand? I'm also curious about the reaction at home. It must have gone wild.

Yeah, it's a little bit of a shame because we haven't been able to travel home and see all our family and friends and fans, but we saw videos of people watching at their club cricket grounds, supporting lots of young girls, young boys, and it was a 3am start for New Zealanders back home on a Monday morning, so people were up watching. And the number of messages that we've had,

I think we've just really inspired, hopefully, another generation to want to win World Cups, not just to play cricket. And when I was, I think, I can't remember how old I was, but 2000 was the last time um the White Ferns or any New Zealand team had won a World Cup and I watched that game it was a 50 over game and I remember wanting to be a White Fern then and believing that a New Zealander could win a World Cup so it's taken us um another 24 years to be world champions but now the future generation of cricketers can have those dreams and set big goals as well.

So, yeah, hopefully, you know, we have lots of not just young girls but young boys wanting to be world champions. But it must imbue you and the team with a sense of confidence that, like, bring it on. Yeah, absolutely. And I think after the first game against India, you just sense the belief after not having won a few games. We won a warm-up game against South Africa and then beat India

and it was like, yeah, everyone realised if we play like this, we can win the whole thing. And from then on, we didn't look back. Always fascinating how the belief then plays into victory. What's next for you? Defend the title. Well, yeah, maybe it's in England. We're at 2026.

I think the next 2020 World Cup is. But right now we've got a game on Thursday against India, 50 over cricket in Ahmedabad. So we've got to, I guess, still enjoy the last couple of days and then make sure we're focused for Thursday. And then we'll head home for a little bit and hopefully celebrate, like I said, with our family and friends. And then we've got a summer of cricket at home.

But, yeah, there's still more in the tank. like I said with our family and friends and then we've got a summer of cricket at home but yeah there's still more in the tank. I never like to think about the end but all my energy was going to the World Cup and now sit back and reflect what the next goal is but yeah exciting times for the White Ferns to try and defend that title in 2026 and I know England there'll be huge crowds because they love their cricket and England are going to be very determined after this

last result to try and win it. So great to have you back on the programme Susie Bates and also with such wonderful news for the White Ferns as New Zealand

won the T20 World Cup women's cricket. Tomorrow send best practice what is working a phone in. Do get in touch in all the usual ways and we will speak tomorrow at 10. That's all for today's Woman's Hour.

Join us again next time. Hello, Russell Cain here. I used to love British history, be proud of it. Henry VIII, Queen Victoria, massive fan of stand-up comedians, obviously Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor. That has become much more challenging,

for I am the host of BBC Radio 4's Evil Genius, the show where we take heroes and villains from history and try to work out, were they evil or genius? Do not catch up on BBC Sounds by searching Evil Genius if you don't want to see your heroes destroyed. But if, like me, you quite enjoy it, have a little search. Listen to Evil Genius with me, Russell Cain. Go to BBC Sounds to see your heroes destroyed, but if like me, you quite enjoy it, have a little search, listen to evil genius with me, Russell Cain,

go to BBC sounds and have your world destroyed. I'm Sarah. 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.