Woman's Hour - 'Sharenting', Blood Scandal, Mary Shelley, British Gymnastics

Episode Date: September 22, 2023

Have you heard of the term 'sharenting'? That’s when a parent, caregiver or relative shares content about their child’s life, such as news, videos, images, online. Some have even turned it into a lucrative business. The psychologist Dr Elaine Kasket was an habitual 'sharent', chronicling her young daughter’s life on social media. But then four years ago at the age of nine, her daughter told her she didn’t like her doing it, so she stopped. Elaine’s written about 'sharenting' and her experiences in a chapter in her new book Reboot: Reclaiming Your Life in a Tech-Obsessed World. She joins Jessica Creighton along with her daughter Zoe. British Gymnastics has published a list of 62 banned coaches and members, as part of its response to the damning Whyte Review published in 2022, which detailed 'systemic' issues of physical and emotional abuse in the sport. The campaign group Gymnasts for Change has accused the governing body of "serious institutional betrayal" for not including more people on the list, who they believe meet the criteria. We heard from the co-founder of Gymnasts for Change, Claire Heafford and BBC Sports correspondent Natalie Pirks.In the 70s and 80s, nearly 5,000 people with haemophilia contracted HIV or Hepatitis C after being infected by tainted blood clotting products. Over 2,800 people died including women and children in what was described as 'the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS’.  With an ongoing public inquiry, we spoke to Sunday Times Political Editor Caroline Wheeler, who has interviewed countless victims and has been following the story for 20 years.You’ll no doubt be familiar with the book Frankenstein - but how much do you know about its author Mary Shelley? That’s a question that led director, Lucy Speed, and producer, Deborah Clair, to write, direct and produce their new play that’s about to start touring in the UK. Conception - Mary Shelley: The Making of a Monster tells the story of a journey of self-discovery, as the Frankenstein author returns, years later, to Lake Geneva where she wrote her famous novel. The play is hitting the stage around the 200th anniversary of the first publication of the novel under Mary Shelley’s name - having originally been published anonymously. Presenter: Jessica Creighton Producer: Kirsty Starkey

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

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Jessica Crichton. Welcome to the Woman's Hour podcast. Good morning. Welcome to the programme. Great to have your company. Now this morning, we'll have the inside story and what's been described as one of the worst health scandals in British history. 2,800 people are known to have died after being infected by contaminated NHS blood products in the 1970s and 80s. Tens of thousands more lives were impacted. One journalist has followed this story for 20 years, speaking to many of the victims and their families about their experiences for her new book. Caroline Wheeler will join me a little bit later in the programme. Now, can you believe it's

been 200 years, yes, 200 years since Frankenstein was first published under Mary Shelley's name? It was originally published anonymously, of course. Two women who are fans of Shelley's work have written, directed and produced a play about her life, which we'll be discussing later in the programme. Also this morning, I have a feeling many of you will have an opinion on this next discussion topic, sharingting, as it's called. When a parent or caregiver shares photos and videos of their child's life online, do you do it? Are you against it, maybe?

In today's social media age, it really does feel like the norm, doesn't it? We'll hear from a mum who constantly recorded her daughter's life and conversations online for a number of years until her daughter at the age of nine simply asked her to stop. What are your thoughts on this? Get in touch. Have you shared your sonogram online when you found out you're pregnant? Do you post your child's milestones like birthdays, riding a bike, swimming for the first time? Maybe you do post but you blank out your child's face. Perhaps you don't post at all. Why not? Let me know. You can text me on 84844. Text will be charged at your standard message rate. You can WhatsApp me as well, don't forget, 03700 100 444. On social media, we're at BBC Woman's Hour. And as always, you can get in touch via our website as well online.

Now, first this morning, British Gymnastics has published a list of 62 banned coaches and members as part of its response to the damning white review published in 2022, which detailed systemic issues of physical and emotional abuse in the sport. The campaign group Gymnasts for Change has accused the governing body of serious institutional betrayal for not including more people on the list who they believe meet the criteria. Later, we'll hear from the co-founder of Gymnasts for Change, Claire Hefford. But first, let's speak to the BBC sports correspondent, Natalie Perks. Good morning, Natalie. Good morning, Jess. Now, first of all, how has this list come about? Give us some more

context around this white review. Yeah, so last summer, we got this huge report. It had been co-commissioned by sport england and uk sport and as you said it found systemic abuse in the sport of gymnastics uh it spoke of a coach coach led culture of fear where the tyranny of the scales ended up in lots of gymnasts developing long-term eating disorders we heard of gymnasts forced to train on broken bones. Some were forced to hang from bars by straps for hours on end. They weren't allowed toilet breaks. It was quite harrowing to read. It took in testimony around about 90 clubs were mentioned, around 100 coaches, but none of them actually named in the White Review. So fast forward to now, 62 names on this list that came

out on Wednesday. It shows whether they were banned or expelled. Most of them were expelled. It dates back to 1994. It includes two Olympians, one of whom, Brian Phelps, went to jail for child abuse, child sexual abuse. But it only contains three people actually sanctioned since June last year when the White Room review was published. And anyone who's actually currently suspended and pending investigation isn't on this list. There's really very little detail about why they've been banned or expelled. Suffice to say, purely whether they've got a criminal conviction, a safeguarding issue, or a disciplinary issue. So British Gymnastics are saying, look, this is just the first step,

there are going to be more names added. They've admitted that some people objected to being on this list, which is perhaps why we haven't seen the names we expected. But I think for most people reading it, it was more interesting for those that left off off rather than those that actually were on this list. Yeah. Tell me more about the response to this list because there's been some criticism. There's been a lot of criticism and obviously we're going to hear from Claire in a minute. Now, I don't want to sort of paraphrase her, but, you know, for example, parents alliances who are working alongside British gymnastics say they feel incredibly let down and disappointed. Gymnasts for Change are obviously very, very upset and called it an institutional betrayal. This is something the White Review didn't actually call for.

This is something British gymnastics took off their own back last October as part of their reforms and said, look, we're going to publish this list. And everyone was like, actually, you know, that's a really good idea. That'll make the sport safer. Parents who are thinking about sending their child to a certain club can look at this list and see whether there might be some names on it from that club, for example. But it's names we expected, it's names we knew. You can see from the list that back in 1994, between 94 and 95, sorry, in 2004, there wasn't a single ban or expulsion in an entire

decade. And we know from the White Review that the British Gymnastics actually had lost a lot of complaints. And for only 11 to have been banned or expelled since the White Review was commissioned, and only three to have been banned or expelled since the White Review came out, was a surprise, for example, to Anne White herself. She spoke to us for the first time on Wednesday. What did she have to say, Natalie? Yeah, she prides British Gymnastics for their transparency,

but she said she was surprised by the scant detail. And she said, you know, given that so few complaints of a safeguarding nature particularly have been upheld and given the systemic findings of her own review, she could conclude that a lot of people in the gymnastics community would be let down and feel that British Gymnastics is not responding adequately to their complaints. So why is there such this gap between who was expected to be on the list

and who is actually named on the list? That's a very good question and one, we put to British Gymnastics. And they, like I said, have admitted that some coaches have essentially taken legal action. They want their names kept off that list. And you can understand from a coach perspective, perhaps, why? Because if you have a criminal conviction for maybe you stole from the gym, you stole some money, you're locked in with the same people that went to jail for sexually abusing children. So there's no differentiation from that. OK.

Yeah, there's no there's this scant detail really on what the bans and expulsions are for. So I think that's something British gymnastics have to work through. They say they're talking to all their members. They'll be updating the list in due course. And they're taking legal advice on when they can publish the names of those who've objected. Now this is part of the Reform 25 plan wasn't it was British Gymnastics response to that white review have any other recommendations been enacted by British Gymnastics? Yeah so this was a 40 point plan called Reform 25 that they brought out last year and every six months they're updating us so

as of May they'd enacted 11 of their 40 points which keeps them on track for doing all 40 of them by October 2025 so this would be their 12th you know they promised to gymnasts we'll have this list this will make the sport safer but actually all it's done really is anger those who can't see the names of some very prolific coaches that we've spoken about on the BBC for the last three years. People with very serious allegations made against them that just simply haven't made this list. So a lot of people are saying this hasn't gone far enough. Exactly. Exactly right. I don't think there's anyone that's actually happy. Across the board, I can't see anybody that's happy with this list. So British Gymnastics are going to have to do something about this? Surely there's going to be a follow up? Well, they say this is the first step. They're going to add more names. they have issues with their own policies that they

have to work through and things take time and i think it's the time of things that's causing the issue because we know that almost 40 gymnasts are still locked in a civil claim with british gymnastics only one of them to date has had their case settled. And yet, even though British gymnastics settled the case said, yes, your coach was abusive. He is not on this list. Natalie, thank you very much for providing that context. I want to bring in Claire Hefford now, who is co-founder and campaign director of Gymnasts for Change. Good morning, Claire. Firstly, what's your reaction to this list? I think that the list is an indictment against a failed organisation that's struggling to tackle the culture of coaching in the sport, which has been extremely poor for decades.

I would go as far as Natalie said to call this an institutional betrayal for many of the families who've been fighting for, in some cases, 10 years or more to report abuse and to have those coaches sanctioned and to get the names of those sanctioned coaches in the public domain. So there's a lot of very angry families up and down the country this week. We did ask, of course, British Gymnastics to come on this morning. We did tell them we'd be speaking about this subject. They said they were unable to join us. They have given us a statement, which I'll definitely come to but you do whilst you're not happy with the the contents of the list you do agree in principle with the fact that some people

have been named for inappropriate behavior absolutely there needs to be a list and if you look at UK athletics for example they have been doing a pretty good job at publishing not only the names of people who've been banned but also details from the hearings processes and that gives you so much more context information about why a coach might be deemed not appropriate to be operating within a particular sport and that is absolutely what we need in British gymnastics particularly because the culture of coaching and gymnastics is so problematic and has been for so many years and that's what Anne White's report was all about and I think if you look at this list

what you see is a list of 62 names just three are women and yet of the 90 coaches that were reported to Anne White the majority of them were women and so I think that when you look at the list what it is interesting to consider is the information that's contained there shows that British gymnastics still do not understand what emotional and physical abuse looks like. It is a list which represents a lot of sexual abuse cases and very very little emotional and physical abuse. Now in their statement British Gymnastics said the publishing of the banned and expelled list is an important step in our commitment to ensuring gymnastics and other sports are safe and this forms part of our wider reform plans that are changing the

culture of gymnastics. You've been in touch with a number of gymnasts for a number of years. Claire what have they had to say about this list in particular? They are furious. One gymnast in particular called me just after the list went live, absolutely in tears, feeling completely betrayed. She had been contacted and was very hopeful that the list was going to name her coach and it didn't. There are a group of parents who spoke to British Gymnastics very recently about the list. They were very, very hopeful that it was going to contain the names of people that we know have been sanctioned and do fit the criteria to be on that list.

And yet they have not been named. And that means that they are free to continue in the sport. Now, it sounds like some people are losing trust. What would you like to see happen next? I think that there needs to be a major commitment by British Gymnastics to start to understand what the problems are with their investigation processes. Until there's greater transparency in the investigations, complaints and appeals processes, and until trauma-informed approaches are taken into the hearings processes and until whistleblowers are given much greater protections this list is going to remain an empty promise. Indeed and we thank you for for coming on and for sharing your insights. As I said earlier British Gymnastics were invited onto the programme this morning they weren't able to join us but did send us a statement let me just read that to you now.

They say, we've been very clear that there is no place in our sport for any kind of abuse and that anyone found to be acting in this way will be removed. Publishing further information is something we are actively discussing and will engage with our members and experts in the field around the benefits to this. We have acted on previous feedback to make this enlisted and incorporates historic bans and expulsions. We acknowledge acted on previous feedback to make this enlisted incorporates

historic bans and expulsions. We acknowledge there are calls to publish names of those who are subject to a temporary suspension of membership. To ensure a fair and robust process is taken in a neutral way, we will not be publishing the names of these individuals. Importantly, these individuals have been removed from gymnastics until an outcome is known. They continue to say our priority is to ensure gymnasts are safe. And there are thousands of gymnastics coaches, officials and volunteers doing great work to ensure our 350,000 members are having a positive experience of this incredible sport. Claire, thank you very much for joining us. Claire Hefford, their co-founder and campaign director of Gymnasts for Change.

And earlier speaking to Natalie Perks, the BBC sports correspondent. Now, have you heard of the term sharingting? That's when a parent or caregiver or relative shares content about their child's life, such as videos and images online. Some have even turned it into a lucrative business. The psychologist, Dr Elaine Casket, was a habitual share-ant, chronicling her child's, young daughter's life on social media. But then four years ago, at the age of just nine, her daughter told her she didn't like her doing it. So she stopped. Elaine's written about share-anting and her experiences in a chapter in a new book, Reboot, Reclaiming Your Life in a Tech-Obsessed World. Earlier, I spoke to Elaine and her daughter Zoe, and Elaine told me when she first started sharing her daughter's life online. It started so early. It started with a sonogram.

I'm originally from the United States, and in the year that I was pregnant, something like a third of expectant parents in America, a lot of my social media feed was my historic friends and family circle, were sharing sonograms. And I had never been a parent before. And I think I was sort of taking my cue from the digital environment. If everybody around you that you know is doing a certain thing, you kind of think, oh, this is what we do. It's very normalized. Yeah. And social media more, not in its infancy, but very new at that point. So I think that a lot of people were doing things without really being able to see into the future or to really consider wider implications.

And so we were just reacting to this novel situation. I think that once then your beautiful baby arrives, it's not your instinct to stop sharing at that point. You don't just quit. Everybody's waiting for the next phase. So I had a large circle far from me. I was maybe 5000 miles away from home, didn't have my tribe around me. And it was a really effective way for me of feeling like I was connected and grandparents and other people feeling like they were connected. So people really asked for information and we just got very accustomed to sharing it on that platform. It was very normal. It's a very normalized process now. And it's almost weird when you know someone's had a child for them not to post pictures of their child now. I wonder what kind of things you were posting

and where were you posting them exactly? I was posting them on Facebook. There was a little smattering of Instagram, but at the time I didn't really understand Instagram when Instagram came along. So I didn't really do that. But it was, I'm a, as a professional psychotherapist, psychologist, I did keep my privacy settings pretty tight and restricted to people I actually knew in a family and friends. But you know, that was a number that went into eventually the hundreds. And so... So it weren't necessarily close friends, but it was people that you had met? Yes, it was all people that I'd met, but the association wasn't always super close. So all the inner circle people were in there, including my parents and my siblings and cousins. But there

were a lot of people that I knew much more lightly. So it was spreading further than just, for example, somebody I would have been on a family WhatsApp group with, for example. And what kind of things were you sharing? Can you give us some examples? Sure. I mean, I was a keen amateur photographer, still am. So I would share lots of photographs.

But then when she began to talk in particular, and this very funny, sarcastic, darkly humorous personality started coming out, I started really appreciating these conversations. I'm a super verbal person, so I was really appreciating our interchanges. And I started transcribing them. And they would be on every topic under the sun. So I started giving them these titles, like on love or on nature or on death on sex, whatever it was that she was talking about. And from the child's vantage point, and I

would share those and that got really popular amongst my family and friends circles, people would give me a lot of reinforcement, they'd send me direct messages saying it was really cheering up their day. If there hadn't been one in a while, people would remark on it. So I was gaining a lot of social capital about that, I guess. But as she grew, she started displaying more awareness of the fact that I was half in the conversation, and half with an eye towards sharing it later, taking it down, because I was very big on it being exact, a real representation of the conversation. Or as she grew, she became more aware that when I was saying, oh, please, let's take a picture here. And why don't you do this and curating the image, that it was something about me and whatever feedback or social capital I was gaining from

social media. And I was pushing past some of those objections. So my social media instincts were usurping or overtaking my parenting instincts. And I should have, I feel like I should have understood that better or been more reflective about that given my profession. But for whatever reasons, I kept on doing it well a lot of us don't we we post because it seemed to be the normal thing and we just go with the flow and now Zoe you're listening intently and giggling along there what do you remember of that period particularly when your mom was talking about the subjects that she was talking to you about what do you remember about those conversations in that time yeah I do like remember some I don't remember too much from then because it was, like, quite a while ago.

But I do remember, like, sometimes seeing her, like, writing under the table on her phone. So trying to hide it from you? Yeah, yeah, trying to hide it from me. I knew what she was doing. Yeah, and sometimes, yeah, I could, like, see those in the thing and I was like, I knew that you did that. I knew that you were writing. And when you saw her writing and almost trying to hide it from you

how did it make you feel uh well I feel like she shouldn't have like hid it from me like even if she was even if she was like posting, like, for her friends to see, like, she shouldn't have been hiding the fact that she was doing it from me because I feel like that's not a very healthy thing to be doing because, I mean, your child should know if you're posting things about them. And you felt this way at quite a young age. You were nine when you first spoke up about it. Well, I wasn't... When you first spoke up about it uh well I wasn't when I

first spoke up about it that's because she was like she wanted to she wanted to talk to me about it like you brought it up and like I think we were having I think we were in a pub I was like sitting there having a lemonade I think um and uh yeah but I had I had brought it up before the fact that I didn't want her like to take pictures of me or post things of me but I hadn't like objected like too hard to make her actually stop that was like the first time she actually like realized that it was wrong for her to be doing that I think maybe and why did you want her to stop because I just I didn't I didn't really enjoy having my picture taken too much. And, like, I didn't enjoy, like, being, like, if we were, like, somewhere

and she wanted me to pose next to something, like, it would take quite a lot of coaxing for me to actually do it because I just didn't, like, if I was enjoying myself or doing something, I didn't really want to have to go and pose for a picture or just like go and stop what I was doing to have my picture put on Facebook yeah yeah understandably and when she came to you and and she said mum I don't I don't like this what was your reaction because you were getting something out of this as you said you were getting that positive reinforcement after posting everything online so when your daughter said no can can you stop? How did you feel?

Well, this was a fairly transformative conversation that actually I initiated because I had written a previous book about our digital footprint over the lifespan. And I started getting, I started thinking about our digital footprints aren't just ours, other people contribute to them. And how had I shaped her personality or development or how I had been quite powerful. So I started thinking about this issue a few years, probably before we sat down. And I said, Listen, I really want to know how you feel about this. I said, some kids are growing up there. In some countries, they're suing their parents, some people really object to this. And I actually really want to know I'm here, I'm listening. And I asked her very open questions.

That's the first time we'd had that kind of open conversation. And that was when she was age nine. Yes, exactly. But as Zoe says, there were protest behaviors, I guess, before then, where she'd say, what are you doing? Are you writing this down, putting it on everyone's iPhones? Or she'd cover her face until I coaxed her to do the smiling one. And of course, parents have always said smile for the camera, right? But it hasn't been followed by publication. And so, and with

all of the possible consequences that that has in this day and age. And so, and the relational consequences, though, was what I was concerned about when I talked to Zoe in the pub, because I thought I've been really powerful here. And I've sort of unwittingly taught her the opposite of lessons that I want to teach a child, a kid in the digital age, which is that you have the right to set your own boundaries. If you express yourself about your privacy boundaries, that needs to be respected. These are what the lessons that kids should be learning through experience and through word and deed. And I did believe that intellectually. But yet, I wasn't playing that out in my relationship with her. And so sometime during that conversation,

I said, which I think is kind of a hilarious question for a person with such great power to ask somebody of lesser power. I said, Why didn't you say something more explicitly earlier? And the single most powerful thing she could have ever said to me was, I didn't think you would stop. And then I thought, okay, whoa. And I asked her what she would like me to do. And she said she didn't want me to post anything anymore. And she wanted me to take all the previous down. And it kind of clutched at my heart, right? Because I thought, that's essentially the entire record of her childhood. It's an archive. And you'd been doing that for seven years? Is that right? I've been doing it ever since she was born. But the dialogues, yes, ever since she started talking.

So I had this. So I found my own reaction really interesting. The panic was such that I had to ask myself, wow, I'm really attached to this. I'm attached to this archive, but I'm also attached to the practice. And that really caught me up where I thought, okay, whatever social or psychological or emotional itches I am scratching in those moments where I collect the post or curate the post or do it, there are other ways to be addressing those completely legitimate social needs. Of course, I want to be connected. Of course, I want to share my life. Of course, I want my family and friends to be in on things or I want those things. Those are normal things to want. But there are a gazillion other ways of meeting those needs other than doing what I was doing, which is curating and publishing stuff in the face of what I should have seen a lot more before the conversation were objections from my child that she didn't feel comfortable

so Zoe when you first said that to your mum and you were sitting there having your lemonade in the pub and you said mum I don't want you to post anymore do you remember being worried about how she might react or do you remember being scared or apprehensive at all I don't think so I think I was just really stating my opinion about it but I do remember that you uh you said it was you said it was for like your own personal use only but you were recording that conversation yeah and I was I remember before when you started recording it I remember asking you what you were going to use it for which really like because I thought I thought you were going to post it yeah that was our first said, listen, I think we might be able to do a project together.

And I want to have a conversation with you about something really important. And is it okay if I record it? And immediately she was like, are you posting it? But that had started to be her reaction every time I took my phone out of my bag. So this was impacting your relationship, your personal relationship with your daughter? I think it was because I think that every parent wants to be present for their kids. And what you were saying earlier, Zoe, about like I was interrupting what I was doing or I'd be enjoying myself and it would basically be interrupted to serve whatever social need that I had.

I felt really crap about that when you said that, because that's exactly the sort of things that I would want my child to feel like I was fully showing up to that moment that I was there with them, for the purpose of being with them, not for the purpose of something else, to, you know, curate that moment for somebody else's benefit or for my benefit alone. And, and so I think it affected it because it wasn't present, I wasn't present, I think she felt commodified. There are also really long-term consequences that are yet to mature. Well, yeah, I did wonder about this because, you know, people often say once you post something online, it's there forever.

Even after you delete it, there's an imprint somewhere. Were you worried that the pictures, the videos, the dialogue might still be out there somewhere? Oh, absolutely. Because I think that, you know, various platforms have various practices, but just because it's deleted off of my account doesn't mean that it's deleted generally, or that the data is not being used in various ways. Data online, it's replicable, and it's searchable. And it's, you know, it can say, you know, and you can't know ever have control over what ultimately happens to that data. Zoe is now 13.

Yeah. So how do you go about sharing pictures, photos or sharing her life with people in your life? Usually on the family WhatsApp. And if there's a picture that's taken at an event like there was recently when we were at a music festival, we took a few photos. I showed them to Zoe. I said, I'd like to put one of these on the family chat is that okay and which one were you are you happy with so that's the process that we would go through I don't share anything on social media I haven't since that conversation when she was nine and now when your mum pulls out the phone and says can I take a picture how do you react

I mean it's still not my favourite thing, having my picture taken. That's probably normal for a teenager, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's not, because I know she's not going to post it online. She's just going to send it to my grandma or something. And my grandma's not going to do anything about it except like, oh, wow, my grandchild. She's not going to, and I know who my grandma is, so it's fine.

And the relationship between you both now? Well, like you said, she's 13. But, you know, I think that our relationship is definitely the better for my having had the conversation, the open conversation with her, and for my having respected her wishes. The question had been asked and answered. I followed through on it, and I completely changed how I did things. And I think that that definitely has improved our

relationship. If I'd carried on as I had, I don't think we'd be as friendly as we are. Dr. Elaine Casket and her daughter Zoe talking to me, they're fascinating conversation. And of course, as I mentioned, Elaine has written about her experience in her new book, Reboot, Reclaiming Your Life in a Tech Obsessed World, which is out now. And having that conversation really made me stop and think. And I think it's touched a nerve with quite a few of our listeners as well who have got in touch. Someone has said, I rarely share photos of my daughter online and I will not until she's old enough to understand implications and give informed consent. She's now nine. And on the rare occasion I do so, it's usually within a family context with me and husband. And only if she agrees. Someone else has said, I don't because several of my friends don't have their own children.

Some can't. Others choose not to or just haven't got around to it. I realised how uncomfortable and insensitive it was when a very close colleague was going through IVF. It felt like bragging, also because the children haven't consented. Thank you for that message, Louise. Stephanie says, I don't post at all. I don't need that validation or feel the need to share my life. We mark occasions with photo books and have plenty of family photos on the wall. For me, this is the right way to do things. And someone else here has posted, I post pictures of my children on Instagram. I have a private account of family and friends, so I know who's looking at them.

I see my Instagram feed as a photo album of happy memories in a modern era where I no longer print photos out. I get a lot of stop taking my picture and don't post that from the 16 year old. But I do say to her when she's 30, she'll look back and there'll be a big gap in pictures of her growing up. And she loves old pictures of herself. That's from Mark in London. Thank you to everyone for getting in touch. You still can as well. And talking about big gaps in photos, that leads me to the next subject, which I want to talk to you about, which we are running next week. We're going to be talking about beauty standards and the pressure it puts on women. I want to hear from you. What were the prevailing ideas of beauty when you were growing up? Maybe heavily plucked eyebrows,

the big hair of the 60s. Did you have your Afro out maybe? Or the supermodel height and athleticism of the 80s. I can definitely relate to that plucked eyebrow era. I plucked my eyebrows to with an inch of their life when I was in secondary school. But I found going from primary to secondary was such an eye opener. There were so many standards aimed at women. We had to pluck, prune, shave every inch of our hair to be thought of as desirable. And I was a tomboy. I played football. I never really thought too closely about my appearance. I was too busy cooking a football around in the playground. And then all of a sudden I was so heavily judged on my appearance. So what did I do? I didn't fight it. I immediately tried to assimilate and fit in. I wish I'd been maybe a bit stronger to fight against those societal norms. But it's

something I probably still am fighting back on today. What about you, though? Did you conform to the look of the day or perhaps you rejected it? And did you please? We want to hear from listeners of all different ages. Please do get in touch. And I mentioned the gap in pictures from when I was growing up, and that was because I was so horrified at how I looked. I refused anyone taking pictures of me as a teenager. So there are massive gaps in my photo history. You can get in touch with us via text 84844. Text will be charged at your standard message rate.

WhatsApp as well, 03700100444 on social media. It's at BBC Women's Hour. We're looking at beauty standards and the pressure that it puts on women. OK, let's turn our attentions now to my next guest. Tens of thousands of people in the UK contracted HIV or hepatitis C in the 1970s and 80s after being infected by tainted blood. The blood was imported from the US and was taken from paid donors, many of whom were in so called high risk groups, such as prisoners and drug users. 5000 people with haemophilia were affected and many weren't told about their diagnosis and so unknowingly infected their partners. More than

2,800 people died in what has been described as the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. A public inquiry is ongoing to find out why so many people died and if those deaths could have been prevented. The report was due out this autumn but has now been moved to March next year. Sunday Times political editor Caroline Wheeler has been following this case now for over two decades. She's interviewed countless victims and their families and has now published a book called Death in the Blood. And she joins me in the studio. Good morning, Caroline. Morning. Tell us more about what this scandal was and who exactly was affected by it? Gosh, it's going a long way back now. But in the 1970s and 80s, there were big advancements

in blood treatment. And that was particularly relevant for people with haemophilia. But it wasn't exclusively for those with haemophilia, because obviously blood is used for all sorts of things, including people that get blood transfusions and but the advancements happened and first there was a product called cryoprecipitate which was a single donor blood product which basically crystallined a part of a coagulation factor which basically helped people with bleeding disorders to to clot their blood so it was a real advancement. And followed on from that was factor VIII concentrates, which again increased the power of this coagulation factor. But actually a lot of these products came from mass-produced donations, so pool donations, which meant that in some cases

20,000 donations could be distilled into one unit of this blood, which meant that if any one person had been affected with any of these viruses, the entire blood donation was infected with it, which meant that during the 70s and 80s, as you say, quite rightly, they estimate around 35,000 non-haemophiliacs and 5,000 haemophiliacs were infected with diseases including HIV and hepatitis C. Now when this was originally discovered, it was seen as a beacon of light. You write in the book about how it was a hope, it was something that people had been waiting for to help them with their condition, but that's not how it turned out at all. Who called for this public inquiry and why?

So there's been a long-running campaign on this for a long period of time. And you're right, it was seen originally as a sort of miracle, a sort of cure, particularly for haemophilia. And there was real clamour for people who wanted this product because particularly the factor VIII concentrates were much easier to use at home, which meant that haemophiliacs who perhaps were spending long periods of time in hospital being treated could now self-treat, which meant that it really offered them the chance of a much more normal life. Throughout, ever since the kind of risks were first identified, and let's be clear here, in 1975,

the World in Action programme did a fantastic piece of investigative journalism, where they showed some of the donations being sort of taken from drug addicts and alcoholics on Skid Row, and showed how the donation system in the United States was working. Many of this were paid donors, which meant it did become a kind of magnet in particular for down and outs. There will be people listening to this thinking, how on earth was this not checked? How on earth were people in high risk groups allowed to give their blood and then the UK not check it before it's imported? It's a question that I think people are still asking themselves today. I mean, in this particular case, back in 1975, they actually saw people being asked these questions screening questions you know have you drunk in the last 24 hours no of course I've not drunk in the last 20

have you used drugs and it was upon that basis and that people were allowed to give blood and they actually had a sort of colloquial term for it in the United States at the time which was ooze for booze it was such an established practice that this was something people were doing to raise funds to support their various addictions, that it even had its own term. And so yes, that blood then came into the UK. And again, in 1975, it had already been identified that there had been 60 cases. So there were warnings? And so we kept importing it because we couldn't produce enough of these factors ourselves. And there has been ongoing litigation. There has been ongoing campaigning work done over the decades right up until 2017 when Theresa May finally agreed to that public inquiry. And behind the scenes, that had been a piece of work that myself and Diana Johnson, the Labour MP for Hull North, had been involved with.

We'd worked out just before the election that there were more political parties that were now aligned with the idea of holding a public inquiry. Crucially among those was the DUP. And as you will remember, when Theresa May lost her majority in 2017, it was the DUP that held the balance of power at that particular time. And it was really a stroke of political luck that that happened. And shortly after that election, Diana and I met and we got together and tried to concoct a letter signed by all of the political leaders, which they did. A tiny story, page four of the Sunday Times, a letter from all the political leaders calling for this public inquiry. And Diana used that letter to then bounce the House of Commons and with the support of John Bercow to have an emergency debate on it.

And just two hours before that emergency debate took place, I got a phone call from Downing Street, telling me that the Prime Minister was going to announce that public inquiry. And it was it was absolutely unbelievable. That was a massive relief. I can see the emotion in your eyes just recalling that. It was, it's the kind of phone call that you never expect to get. You know, it, we'd been fighting for so long by this point. And it had felt every time that we were kind of further and further away, in many ways, it was always so piecemeal. The Prime Minister, even before Theresa May, David Cameron, had increased

the support for the victims, but again, had shied away from the public inquiry. And that was really what the victims wanted because it wasn't just financial support and let's not forget many of the victims you know had been unable to work they'd lost their livelihoods they they had been suffering from these debilitating illnesses while all the time struggling with their own you know personal circumstances and it wasn't just the financial support they needed they wanted the answers of course why had this happened to them why had they not listened to the warnings why had we not ever become self-sufficient in our own blood supplies and in your book you speak to so

many of the victims and their families and there's one story in particular that really grabbed me about children that were injected with these blood donations and from one particular school and you're talking about Treloar's and it had a harrowing effect on those children please give us more detail and an overview of that situation so Treloar's was a pioneering school it was a school that was set up to treat the disabled in particular. And in the kind of mid 1950s, it became a sort of magnet for haemophiliacs to be treated because there was an on-site medical centre, which meant that the pupils could be treated whilst attending school. And many of the haemophiliacs that had been treated there had not had a normal school life.

Lots of those that I'd spoken to had missed a year or more of school because they'd been being treated for their condition. And so often they were offered places at this school, which was a boarding school, and it really offered them the best chance for normal life. But they went there and and again, they were treated by haematologist Dr. Aaron Stam, who again was really pioneering in his treatment of these pupils and wanted to give them the best possible chance of life. And that included giving them imported factor VIII concentrates. Again, parents weren't asked beforehand.

One of the big themes that runs through the book is informed consent. And actually, the evidence that was presented to the inquiry and the stories that I've been told for the book were that these pupils were often given this treatment and their parents were never asked. They were never told of the risks. And as we've already discussed, the risks were known at the time. And more shockingly, there were trials done at this particular school. And again, the parents weren't told. And again, the pupils were not told that these trials carried a risk. And a good friend of mine, and I know he won't mind me mentioning him,

Ade Goodyear, who I wrote about in the Sunday Times this weekend, was one of the children put on these trials. There were 50 of them in total and all of them came down with HIV as a consequence. And even more shocking than that, if you can believe it, he recalled to me the way in which he was informed of his infection. He was 15 years old. It was 1985. He was called in to the health centre with a group of friends. There were five of them all together. And the haematologist that was looking after them simply pointed at them one by one and said, you haven't, you have, you haven't you have you haven't you have in order to tell them which of them had HIV. Such a horrific way of doing it isn't it?

I mean you've been covering this for over 20 years and you've had to talk to victims and talk to families and you've almost lived it I imagine how much has this impacted your life and your emotional stability? I think it's just one of those things where you it sort of bubbles away in the background all the time I mean the first time I learned about this scandal I was 21 it was the first story I ever wrote for a newspaper I was a rookie reporter in Birmingham working for the Sunday Mercury newspaper and we had a ring in and Mick Mason who has also told his story for the book called in to tell me that he had contracted hepatitis C and HIV from a contaminated blood and he now feared that he'd also contracted the human form

of mad cow disease as he just received a letter from the hospital warning him that the batch of one of the batches of treatment that had been used with him could have been infected with that. And it was just the stuff of absolute nightmares. I just couldn't believe that this had happened in this country. And so it felt to me at that time that so little attention had been given to it. I had no idea about it, and I was an avid reader of newspapers by that point and had trained as a journalist and was, you know, reading the news every day.

And it just, the sense of injustice that I felt was just really palpable. And that's what powered you through to carry on. And that's what powered me through. But also, yes, you know, compared to the suffering that obviously the victims have had to endure and some of those pupils at Treloar's who have had to bury all of their school friends, 89 of those pupils have died. But it does all the time kind of come back to haunt you during the course of writing the book and there were really only there were 10 main characters through whose eyes I told the story, two of them died this spring.

And that really kind of brings it back to, for me, what this is about. These people have endured unbelievable, unbelievable treatment. You know, they have been howling, it seems, in the wind for nearly five decades, trying to bring about justice for themselves and for their families and nobody has listened and then you see that they are dying at the rate now of one every four days and they still don't have those answers and I just for me it's thinking about those friends that have died as part of this that have gone to their graves despite you know battling on and fighting when literally they've got no strength left in their body to do so and yet have have not had the answers they deserved or the financial settlement they needed to have given them a death that would

have enabled them to die peacefully knowing that their families were looked after. Some incredible work that you've done and you've really brought the situation to light. Caroline Wheeler, Sunday Times political editor. Thank you very much for joining us on Woman's Hour. Let me just say that there is a government spokesperson. It sent a statement to us and it says the infected blood scandal should never have happened. The government accepts the moral case for compensation and has made interim payments to infected and bereaved partners beneficiaries. Work is ongoing across the UK government and in consultation with the devolved administrations to prepare for the publication of the inquiry's final report. And as I did mention,

that final report is now due in March next year. People getting in touch with us on the programme about that story. Email here has come in from Victor saying the blood scandal goes along with the post office scandal and the wind rush scandal. About time these were settled in full and not waiting for people to give up or die. Also, more messages coming in about sharing ting. My daughter is due to deliver her daughter, my first grandchild in the next couple of weeks. She wants to discuss the social media policy as I am active. She would say overactive social media sharer. Really helpful article and preparing for humble pie.

That's Mel. This one comes from Phil from Wales. We don't post anything at all. We don't own our children's images and it will be their choice what's online and what they present, what they have. I've got four children, another message. I've got four children ranging in age from 19 to 7. And I always ask for permission to take photos of my children and send to known people. They know I respect their decisions and trust me for it. It's actually quite, I'm quite surprised to hear that a lot of people are actually aware of posting

and getting consent from their children. Please do keep your messages coming in. Thank you to everyone that's got in touch. Again, you can text, you can get in touch via social media, and you can WhatsApp as well. Even send me a voice note if you so desire. Now, let's turn our attentions to this subject. No doubt you will be familiar with the book Frankenstein, but how much do you know about its author, Mary Shelley? That's a question that led my next guest to write, direct and produce their new play that's about to start touring in the UK. Conception, Mary Shelley, the making of a monster, tells the story of a journey of self-discovery as the Frankenstein author returns years later to Lake Geneva

where she wrote her famous novel. The play is hitting the stage around the 200th anniversary of the first publication of Frankenstein under Mary Shelley's name, having, of course course originally been published anonymously. Joining me now are the play's producer Deborah Clare and the director Lucy Speed. Welcome both to the program. Thank you thanks for having us. Yeah great to have you on. Now Lucy I'll start with you tell us a bit about this play because it follows Mary Shelley later in her life after she's written Frankenstein is that right? That's right so she

returns to the Diodati where she was hanging out with Lord Byron and Percy Shelley during the time she wrote Frankenstein at Byron's house which was called the Diodati on Lake Geneva and she returned Villa Diodati yes and she returns there on a sort of pilgrimage in our play. And we follow her sort of memories and recollections of that time. And it feels as though Mary Shelley as an author just seems to continually resonate with audiences. I was so shocked to hear it had been 200 years since Frankenstein was published under her name. There's an enduring quality about her. What is that? Well, mainly because she lived an incredible life and she was a brilliant, brilliant writer.

And also because we've kind of plagiarised and absorbed her stories and her work into all of our culture, into many, many a story that we'll recognise on our screens. And also, mainly the reason for us doing the play is because what she endured and what she went through and how she lived in society as a female hasn't changed very much today for females today. You feel like she's still fighting the same issues and the same battles? I think personally, as the director, when I went to see Barbie, I went, this is Mary Shelley's story.

And then I thought, well, it's every woman's story and and I think it's about the expectations of society and how us as females how from young to very old fit in with society's expectations without realizing where we're turning ourselves into a million things and and mainly for me as a mother and a career person and somebody who's been a career person since I was eight years old in this industry I'm in which has afforded me to play many different roles I realized that what we do is we carry shame and guilt for doing everything for doing so much and not always doing it to the best of our ability as we understand it but what Mary Shelley's story tells us is that's what she was doing and then she wrote Frankenstein which is on the set text and she did that while she was juggling children losing children having miscarriages following her husband and the love

of her life around collating all his work in order for him to be remembered and Byron to be remembered and juggling all those those balls. And society was telling her that she was doing it wrong. Society was telling her that she was ruining it for everyone because she wasn't happy. Society was telling her that you can't have the name on your own brilliant work because no woman should think like you. So what for us Frankenstein is about is about the lack of female voices, her telling us she wasn't listened to and the hell that ensued after that. Because if anybody has read any of Mary Shelley's other works, the females do take a lead and life turns out very differently. Debra, your theatre company is run completely by women. How do you think that influences the way you approach projects like these?

Right. Okay. Well, I'm actually the playwright as well, because I wrote the conception. How does it influence? Well, we want to put women front and centre of the action. That's why I write. That's the whole reason for the theatre company being, you know, coming into existence. So we want to write for women of all backgrounds.

We want to particularly put women who are over the age of 40, perhaps over the age of 45, those women that, you know, people would rather just sort of went off, they've had their children um they've uh you know they're perhaps not very fanciful anymore you know we that society would just rather go away we want to make women particularly older women visible and that's the whole point of of the stories we tell and um the reason that we put women in prominent roles we have lucy the director i'm the playwright uh the cast is uh put women in prominent roles. We have Lucy, the director, I'm the playwright,

the cast is all women. We have a fantastic younger actress. She's here with us, Tyra Gordon-Brown. She's here just as a younger female voice. Brilliant, brilliant. And what we want to do is tell women's stories and make women visible. You know, we find as well when we produce these plays

that the majority of women that come to them are, well, they're older women. They want to hear the stories. They want to see themselves represented. And I think in this particular representation of Mary Shelley, it is it does women reflect all the time on themselves. And we are asking this story, how much as older people do we recognize our younger selves and when we're younger we're asked to make so many huge decisions um that we're ill-equipped to make and actually if we were faced with our younger selves and asked and questioned each other about the decisions we've made how would we feel about each other and a lot of our guilt comes from, oh, I wouldn't have done that if this hadn't happened or that hadn't happened. And the whole point is, is life makes you better equipped to come to the decisions you're asked to make when you're very young.

Poor Mary Shelley, of course, she had a mother. We all have a mother. But, you know, she died. Mary Wollstonecraft, she was a very famous feminist and she died 10 days after Mary was born. So she never had that guidance. She never had that guiding hand. And that was Mary Shelley's whole sort of reason for writing. You know, she wanted to put her mother's ideas and mother's theories. She was a great activist, wasn't she? At the mother's ideas and mother's theories she was a great activist wasn't she at the heart of her writing yes she was a great activist so um yes that's another aspect uh to all of this and sort of that passing things down and lucy talking of

uh inspirational women and people not wanting to erase history your career has spanned many decades you've been in the bill you've been in EastEnders and people might be recognizing your voice as you also star in the archers playing Stella Pryor and she's actually won half of the show's first lesbian relationship has it been exciting to be a part of that dramatic storyline it's been deeply exciting and then a great honor and um as is being part of the archer cast at all. On the week that that came out, that Stella and Pip were in the first lesbian relationship, was also around the week that Stella's dog died in the Archers, and that was all over the Times and the Telegraph, the dog dying.

So it also proves that we're really really as equally attached to our animals yeah uh look it's been a pleasure to have you both on woman's hour thank you so much could we just mention that we're coming to london to lauderdale house next week if anybody wants to see us and also that we're going to be in bournemouth uh taking part in the shelly festival and there are some fantastic this is the the Shelley Trust that's organised that. Fiona Sampson and Charlotte Gordon, the Mary Shelley authors, are going to be guests there. Great. That's where Mary Shelley was buried.

Fascinating. Thank you so much for that. Conception, Mary Shelley, The Making of a Monster, actually opens at the Growth Theatre in Eastbourne on Saturday before, of course, touring the UK this autumn. Time is up. Thank you for listening to Woman's Hour. Join me for Weekend Woman's Hour tomorrow at four. And that's all for today's Woman's Hour.

Join us again next time. Who's in the news for all the wrong reasons? Step inside the world of crisis management and so-called spin doctors with me, David Yelland. And me, Simon Lewis. In our new podcast from BBC Radio 4, we tell you what's really going on behind the scenes as the week's biggest PR disasters unfold. Simon and I used to be on opposite sides of a story in the media when I was editor of The Sun

and Simon was communications secretary to the late Queen. Now we've teamed up to share everything we know about what's keeping those big stories in and out of the press. As the great philosopher King Mike Tyson himself once said, everyone has a plan until they're punched in the mouth. And there's a lot of people punching people in the mouth in this town. Listen and subscribe to When It Hits The Fan on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Treleaven, and for over a year, I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered. There was somebody out there who was faking pregnancies.

I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service,

The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story. Settle in. Available now.