Woman's Hour - Social media ban for under 16s, Class privilege at Cambridge, Women's sports coaches

Episode Date: January 21, 2026

Should the UK follow Australia in bringing in a social media ban for under 16s? The government has announced a consultation on the issue and peers debate the question as the former Conservative schools minister Lord Nash has tabled an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It would require social media platforms to stop children under 16 from using their platforms within a year of the Bill passing. Nuala McGovern discusses this with Hannah Ortel from the Brianna Ghey Legacy Project, and Dr Fiona Scott, Senior Lecturer in digital literacies at the University of Sheffield.How safe are the beauty treatments many women routinely use? MPs on the Science, Technology and Innovation Committee are investigating whether UK regulation is keeping pace with the scientific evidence behind products used by millions of women, from botox to hair relaxers, the latter predominantly used by Black women. Nuala is joined by the chair of the committee, Labour MP Dame Chi Onwurah, to discuss what the inquiry hopes to uncover.Eat the Rich (but maybe not me mates, x) is the acclaimed comedy show from Jade Franks. A sharp, funny take on class privilege, it follows Jade’s first term at Cambridge after swapping life in a Merseyside call centre for one of the UK’s most elite universities. After a smash-hit run at the Edinburgh Fringe, the show is now being developed for TV.Women who coach sports are twice as likely to suffer bullying and harassment as men, according to new research from the charity Women in Sport, which calls coaching in the UK a “hostile environment” for women. They spoke to 2,000 coaches about their experiences and found women are operating in a deeply unequal system, from pay and progression through to discrimination. They say many have quit, feeling unheard and undervalued. Lisa West from Women in Sport and Yasmin Clarke, a former pro tennis player and coach discuss.Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Melanie Abbott

Hello, this is Neula McGovern, and you're listening to The Woman's Hour podcast. Hello and welcome to the programme. Should the UK ban social media for under 16s? Well, it's a question that many are asking today as the government launches a consultation on the issue. There are thoughtful arguments on both sides about whether or not it would protect young people's well-being. For example, some say parents need help in this radical way.

Others say it will drive kids to darker or more. or dangerous parts off the web. We're going to hear the debate this hour. But I'd also like to hear from you. And in particular, hear what your children have told you about how they feel about a potential ban. What points are raised in the debate in your house by you and by your child?

What are the arguments for? What are the arguments against? You can text the program. The number is 84844 on social media. We're at BBC Woman's Hour. Or you can email us through our website. a WhatsApp message or a voice note, use the number 0-3-700-100-444. We'll get into it in just a moment. Also with us, the Labour MP, Dame Chi-on-Wura, who is the chair of the Science, Technology and Innovation Committee, and they are reviewing the safety of beauty products.

Today on the programme, we're going to look at regulation around hair relaxers and other procedures. And some are asking, why has it taken so long to recognise potential risk? posed to women. In the studio, we'll have the actor Jade Franks. She has this brilliant cutting comedy about her transition from working at a call centre in Merseyside to studying at Cambridge University and we'll hear from women

calling for anti-misogynie policies in the sports coaching industry. If you want to get in touch, 84844. But that's the question right this morning. Should the UK follow Australia in bringing in a social media ban for under 16s. Something on the mind of many people at the moment. For example, peers are debating the question today as the former Conservative Schools Minister, Lord Nash, has tabled an amendment

to the children's well-being and schools bill. It would require social media platforms to stop children under 16 from using their platforms within a year of the bill passing. At the same time, the government has announced there will be a formal consultation on a ban for under 16s, as I mentioned. Also, there is research underway to look at the effect of social media on youngsters' mental health. And what happens when we limit social media access to those under 16? Dan Lure is consultant in public health at the Born in Bradford program. He's co-leading the project. And he told the Today program he's been talking to young people about the idea.

They've been clear they don't want us to do a total ban. They're very aware of those potential harms, particularly around sleep and spending too much time on app, so they're not spending as much time with their friends and family and online bullying. And they want to take part in research that aims to make social media safer and healthier rather than a total ban. And we always have to do research that's supported by our communities and in this case, teenagers.

And so that's why we're looking at limitations. Does that resonate with you or with your child? Have you heard those discussions? 84844. I want to bring in Hannah Ortele, a supporter of the idea. She's from the Rihanna Jai Legacy Project, which was founded in memory of Brianna Jai, a 16-year-old who was murdered

and her mental health was affected by harmful online content. She's also, Hannah, the founder of Delay Smartphones, a charity working to protect children from their dangers. We also have Dr. Fiona Scott, senior lecturer in digital literacies at the University of Sheffield, who is skeptical. Let me start with you, Hannah. Why do you believe there should be a ban? Yeah, I think we're at a point where parents are completely on their knees.

We know that in homes with teenagers' smartphones are the number one source of conflict. And having a ban like this, it really just gives parents that support when 13-year-olds are begging to go onto a particular platform to say, actually, no, there's a reason that the government has said that this is not safe for you. It's not fit for purpose for under 16-year-olds. And I think it just, we regulate so many things like, you know, alcohol, gambling, driving, when we know that it's not safe for children. And I don't see this is any different. Let me bring in Dr Fiona Scott here.

What about some of those points that Hannah makes? Thank you. I think I want to start by saying that I think we are all on the same page here in terms of really wanting to support children and young people. My concern is that a ban sounds very. promising, but there are lots of problems associated with it. And my concern is that bringing in, or suggesting we're going to bring in a full ban is not going to be effective as a long-term solution and kind of gives people a false sense of security when actually children

could be even more vulnerable because we know that a lot of children and young people will still access social media and do so in a way that is sort of underground. Let's get specific about that, Hannah, how? Forgive me, Fiona, forgive me, Hannah, I'll come back to you in one moment. Sorry, Fiona. How do you expect that could potentially play out? We know that there are lots of mechanisms already for controlling with age. And that some of the different opportunities, you know, people have tried financial means.

So you can only sign up to a certain service with a credit card. There is a lot of experimentation in terms of facial recognition. And there are also other strategies to do with sort of signing up with a parent's email. We know that a lot of these things can be navigated around using a virtual private network. It's the same technology that lots of us use to work from home or access systems in countries that we need to work with. So there are lots of ways. And it's really complicated because some of these technologies as well, you know, like the facial recognition technologies are also things that people have real worries about in terms of their own privacy, you know, as I'm. adults. So I think there are real risks there. I sort of figure recently that in

Australia, where this ban is already coming into effect, almost half of parents said that they plan to help their children and young people circumvent. I mean, that's an interesting point. I'll pick up on that one first, Hannah, perhaps, with you. You know, when parents, and there's always a divergence of opinion, you're never going to have a monolith of parents on the same page about an issue. If all parents aren't on board about a social media ban, perhaps it can't really work. Yeah. So I think that, you know, I mean, what Fiona was just saying about, you know, them being able to get to, you know, darker places on the web, still being able to access social media. Of course, you know, the dark web existed before it's going to exist, you know,

whether this ban goes ahead or not. But we know laws like this still reduce the overall exposure. And just because something's difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. You know, we still have, you know, a ban on people drinking under the age of 18, even if that's difficult to enforce. So I think that, you know, putting in place something like this, it really does just set the message to parents that it's not appropriate for your children, you know, to be on a platform younger than this age. In any other arena, whether it was a food product, whether it was clothing, toys,

you know, when a product is not fit for purpose and it's not safe for children, it would be withdrawn. And, you know, we have our social media companies over and over again to make these products safe for our children. They haven't been able to do that. And that's why they need to now be removed. But you bring up a really important point there, Hannah, which one of my listeners has just got in touch about. That is Heather, who says, I'd rather that social media companies were held to account than a blanket ban for an age group. What happens then at 16? A free-for-all? I'd like to see people taught how to use it responsibly.

And, of course, bringing social media companies into that. Let me throw that back to you, Fiona. Should that be the way forward? Yes, absolutely. So my argument isn't that this was desirable but hard. It is that I think we do need to go further. I think saying that we're going to ban something is just something that we say.

And there's already evidence in Australia that I think I've read something that's only one in eight of accounts belonging to children and young people, have currently been successfully prevented at the moment. So my sense is that, yes, we actually can hold technology companies to account. There was a lot that we've learned over the last sort of 10 years or so, you know, all of the sort of Facebook whistleblower scandal about how a lot of tech companies

actually know things like algorithms that are doing a lot of harm and directing people towards hateful content and encouraging people to argue online. technology companies do know a lot about this. And there have been successful examples. I'm always very inspired by the work of Professor Sonia Livingston. And she talks about how Microsoft Education, for example, were held to account in Europe around the way that their children's data was shared in technologies that they're used in school.

So I think we do have examples of where companies can be held to account. But we also have examples of where they haven't we spoken about it many times. on this program, whether it's about children or indeed about adults, particularly women. Your thoughts on that, Hannah, about the ban shouldn't be for under 16s but it should be for social media houses

to get, social media companies to get their houses in order. I should say I don't have a response from those companies at the moment. So this isn't an either or issue. We need everything and we need everyone working together on this. So we need the online safety act to be a lot stronger.

We need more regulation. so that places like the dark web, you know, don't exist at all. Social media should be safer for everyone. There should be less, you know, addictive algorithms. There should be less harmful content for whether you're an adult or a child on these platforms. But I think that, yeah, where we are right now, you know, we are in a huge mental health crisis, you know, for young people. We know that even if you removed all the harmful content, it's still the most addictive, you know, platforms that have ever been created. And so children are now, rather than living in the real world, you know, they're watching other people live in the real world.

They're not having that childhood. In just over a decade, you know, we've gone from that play-based childhood to phone-based childhood. And so we owe it, you know, as a society to our children to protect them from this harm. And at the moment, they are just not having that opportunity to live in the real world. And I'd be curious for the parents out there or those that are taking care of children. And what happens if you take the phone off them? If you kind of impose the ban yourself, I'd be curious 84844. Of course, a lot of you getting in touch.

Here's one comment. If you're a gay or trans teenager and your family isn't supportive, perhaps you live in a rural area or a small town, social media is the only way you'll get access to the community and support that can be life-saving. What about that, Hannah? Yeah, so I just think that isn't factually true. So Esther Gai's daughter, Brianna,

was a trans child. And Esther has explicitly explained that, you know, she was a very vulnerable trans child. And actually, she was, you know, driven to spending all her time on her phone, in her bedroom, alone and was rejecting her real life friendships, people who she loved, who wanted to support her in the real world. And so I think that, you know, the argument that, you know, people who are vulnerable, you know, in, you know, this is the only place where they can go to safety. Actually, they're the most at risk. They're the most vulnerable to harm. And I know with Brianna, you know, she was served, you know, so much dangerous content, self-harm content, eating disorder content. And so actually, and many people from the trans community have got in touch with Esther to

say how much they do support the ban. Yeah. And of course, there will be differing opinions within the various communities as well. But I understand, Hannah, you're putting that a point, point across from estergye as well. Fiona, what about that though? You know, whether it's really a place for connection and community for those that need it or, as Hannah has put across, what was the case with Brianna? Yeah, I think it's, there are always going to be different opinions here. And the reality is that's because it is a really mixed picture.

I mean, this is my bread and butter. So this is where I do research, you know, all the time with children and young people. And they themselves are aware that it's a really nuanced picture. So for some children and young people, seeking connection and social connection community online is really important. And I know that you might say, oh, well, you know, it would be better if they were seeking that in real life. I don't think it's always a helpful distinction to make because as we know in our own... between digital and real life? Yes. It's the same?

It's not the same, but the digital is part of real life. And actually, you know, for children and young people who perhaps are in conflict with their parents about their sort of sexual identity or are perhaps, you know, grappling with mental health issues that they don't feel supported by their families or able to talk to families and friends, it is another way of seeking access.

I'm not saying it is better or worse, but that there are positive. I think it's important to come back on that binary as well in terms of play. You know, children are not playing anymore and that they are only living this digital life. Again, it's really complicated when you try to define what social media is. I have done a lot of research about children and young people playing video games, digital games. And for a lot of them, actually being able to connect with friends online through their play, is a really important way that they connect, particularly,

you know, perhaps because they don't live close enough to actually physically play with friends. You know, we don't have that culture of playing out on the street because people have other safety concerns now. So I'm not saying, you know, either way is right or wrong, but we need to move away from this kind of binary understanding of children's digital lives. Lots of messages coming in.

Let me see. Unfortunately, this generation of under 16s have effectively been experimented on. It will be hard to change their usage as they already have established accounts which they likely used a false age to attain. The ban would give hope to those younger children who are yet to set up accounts. The ban would be a proactive step forwards, changing things for future generations. So says Amy. There was another here. Parents should ban screens behind closed doors. This would at least stop children sending compromising photographs of themselves. until he was 18, I insisted my son left his mobile in the living room when he went to bed.

Yes, he complained, but our relationship survived. Let me turn back to you, Hannah, when we talk about this. There's another, is there any parent in the UK that doesn't think a ban on social media isn't a good idea? I doubt it. We're losing the ability to communicate by using our brains, expression and our emotions. Being able to socialize, look up and see nature, feel the calm in life, is probably, part of being human. We can't relearn these things once we are adults. But back to Fiona's point, for many people, there is no line, it's not even a blurry one, between real life, I put that in

inverted commas, and digital life, Hannah. So we are embodied beings. You know, we are supposed to live through our body. And so just being on a screen, we know that, you know, the average amount of time that teens are spending on their phones now is 17 hours a week. You know, so this is going to be, I'm sorry, 17 years of their life, 35 hours a week of what they're spending on their phones. And so, yes, you know, a bit of video gameplay can be really healthy, can be really fun for kids. But the problem is, is that, you know, these platforms are designed to be addictive. They want to keep, you know, engagement at any cost. They want them on, you know, no matter what.

And so we are supposed to live through our bodies. We are supposed to, you know, use all of our senses. And the screen doesn't allow us to do that. And so as families, we're seeing, you know, more. more disconnected than ever. You know, parents also, you know, modelling behaviour. As adults, we're so addicted to our phones and social media. So for children who are brought up on this,

they have absolutely no chance. And so even if a few children may benefit, we're not going to just keep it when everyone else is being harmed. You bring up a good point. We have to end it there, but about should there be a social media limitation for those over 16, perhaps. Hannah Ortell, Dr Fiona Scott. Thanks so much to both of you and to everybody who's getting in touch.

I'll continue looking at your comments. So do keep them coming in. 848444. We're going to turn to beauty treatments for a few minutes now. How much do you know about the safety of the treatments that you use? Well, it's the focus of an inquiry by MPs on the Science, Technology and Innovation Committee that is opening. They're looking into how effectively UK regulation assesses scientific evidence on the safety of products being used by millions of women. And the treatments under the microscope, they range from Botox to hair relaxers and many other products in between.

Hair relaxers mostly used by black women. Last week here on the programme, you might have caught Anita when she was speaking to two women within the sector who are calling for change. Today I'm joined by the chair of the committee. It is the Labour MP Dame Chi-on-Wura. Welcome. Welcome. Good morning. Why did you want to look into this world? Well, you know, and you know, not surprisingly, I've had a lifelong interest in hair and beauty. And in my teens, in my 20s, I used hair relaxers.

In fact, growing up in Newcastle, they weren't available there. I would be hitching down to London to get my hair relaxed and actually still have the scar from a treatment that went wrong. But I didn't necessarily think that my grooming regime should be part of the work on the science. Select committee. but when we did it, we did a big call for, you know, tell us to everyone to schools, tell us what science is important to you. And this issue of this regulation and the science of hair and beauty came up time and time again, and particularly for marginalised groups. And that made us think, I mean, on my committee, we've got a good number, we've got five women on the committee. That made us think that we talk about hair and beauty and we talk about, you know, scientific.

proven, but what do we actually understand of the science behind it? And are these products being treated in respect of the scientific impact they make and particularly the harm that they can do? And I have to say, it's been a bit of a revelation. I mean, one of the things I didn't, I know that Botox stood for botulism toxin. The clue might be in the name there in terms of the harm it's possible. and yet, you know, effectively it can be injected by anybody. And of course, the word is bandied around so freely as well. We have previously covered on the programme the emerging evidence that creams to relax afro-type hair

and synthetic hair products commonly used by black women can contain harmful chemicals. The BBC reporter Chelsea Coates has been looking into the potential risks. For decades, getting your hair relaxed has been a central part of many black women's beauty routines. Every few months, you make a trip to the salon where a hairdresser applies a thick, chemical-smelling lotion to your tight curls to straighten them.

Research from the UK beauty subscription company Treasure Tress shows that three out of four black women in the UK have done this at one point in their lives. But over the last few years, a growing body of research has suggested these cultural beauty practices could have long-lasting health implications. In 2021, research released by Oxford University found that frequent use of relaxers was associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer. However, others say not enough is known about the links between these products and potential health risks to draw concrete conclusions.

Sheifa Lodden-Libbard, from the Women's Rights Organization Level Up, has been calling for companies to remove harmful chemicals from hair relaxers for years. She said the inquiry showed that the government was started. starting to take the issue seriously. A lot of the time the response black women get when they make complaints about the harms of hair relaxes is, well, just don't use hair relaxes then. And that misses the point. You know, black women are the biggest consumers of hair and beauty products.

We spend the most amount of money. And as consumers, we should be able to trust that the products we buy won't harm us. But some feel that this inquiry should have been done sooner to protect women. Beauty writer Shania O'Delowa says more research needs to be done. Women's health, in general, isn't taking that seriously. And then you add on the issue of being black on top of that, there's just such limited research.

And without this research, we can't really make any claims, because there's always been claims that relaxers or synthetic hair are harming us. Without the evidence, it's hard to actually get regulated. If we've done this way before, we probably would have regulations in place way before as well. And I think it's only now that we're really catching up. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee plans to publish a report on how regulations should be improved this Easter. For many black women, regardless of whether they use relaxes or not, there are hopes that the inquiry will help them make informed choices, not just about beauty, but about their health. Chelsea Coates reporting, thanks to her. But why did it take so long? Well, I think there you have, as I said, you have a history of not taking seriously women's health in women's issues.

And we know that, you know, the average subject of a research, medical research, is a white man in their 40s. And there's just the assumptions that that health is the health concerns of everyone. So we have women aren't the subject of research. And black women in particularly, health inequalities, lack of visibility. but also we don't take health and beauty seriously. It's 1% of our economy. It's 25 billion. It employs 700,000 people,

but we don't take it seriously and people feel ashamed to report issues with their experiences. Yeah, it was a very powerful testimony we heard on the program last week about a woman who had gone through a cosmetic procedure who was left with terrible disfiguration. And I'm wondering about that, about being able to speak out if something does go wrong. You had personal experience you just may alluded to it there very briefly. Yes, yes.

So you feel stupid. I mean, I don't say you feel stupid. But I think this is part of the reason for this inquiry. You must not. You know, this is, beauty and health are really important. And we shouldn't be ashamed of that. And regardless of that, this is about women's choices. And I have a right.

Everyone has a right to be able to. to choose what they do with their time and their money. And they should be able to do it safely. So we really do need women to speak out and to collect so that we can collect the data on what is happening. But also, and this is why I think, I mean, my back, I've got a scientific background. I'm an engineer.

We've been let down by science. We need the scientific research. Generations of women have been applying. You know, the chemicals and straightener, I didn't know before this. The chemicals and straightener are, you know, are really serious and dangerous, can be dangerous chemicals. What is their impact?

Their creams and their lotions. And still very little known about the impact on health. Do you think you will get to a result of what? I think what we're doing, we're not going to be able to do the scientific research to identify the impacts, but what we're doing is calling on the industry and also calling on the government. We spent £20 billion a year on public scientific research. to do that research.

And really what we need, because, you know, the innovation in this sector, and it's fantastic, you know, we're getting new products and treatments all the time. We need a task force, which brings together scientists, the industry practitioners, you know, different groups to identify how we regulate this, how we forget the scientific research and also how we collect the data. And we have a, you know, we need a, we need, what's really important to me is that you shouldn't need to have a degree in pharmacology to decide whether you want to have your hair relaxed. You know, we should be able to see that those products are safe and we should understand

that we should have the protections in place for that. Yeah, so this is really interesting. So what you're doing is really being a catalyst or initiating for the work to go ahead to try and figure out exactly what's safe, what's not, what regulations need to be put in place. There has been discussion about potentially those who carry out beauty treatments could be required to have higher qualifications. Now beauty is often being a good option for women without higher education qualifications. Could the industry in a way be less inclusive? Yeah, this is a really, really difficult one.

But I've come to the conclusion that the level of risk of harms is such that we do need to professionalise the sector. And that's what the sector is calling for. But that must be done in a way that mustn't be done in a way that excludes women in it harder for women to get into these professions. So we're looking at talking to training councils so that the training is much more easily available. And indeed, there should be training, including black women's hair in all the beauty treatment

and training that is available. But I think it's really important that, as you say, this is an opportunity for, you know, as a scientist, as an engineer myself, women are not well represented in the scientific profession, but they are in research for beauty treatment. So someone like L'Oreal exploits thousands of women scientists. I want that to continue. I want women to be able to become entrepreneurs through the beauty industry. But I want that to be doing a way which is supportive of them and safe for everyone who uses

it. I suppose the practitioners as well could potentially be at risk from some of these products. That's exactly it. I mean, the sort of the chemicals which are in these. which are in these products, if used wrongly, they're in danger to the customer, but they can also be dangerous for those who are using them. And again, we haven't got adequate research or data on that. And so this is about, you know, hair and beauty.

It's part of our lives. We haven't, it's really important. We haven't taken it seriously. We haven't taken the science seriously. We haven't taken the regulation series. We haven't taken the profession seriously. And that's why I think one of the things we will be looking at is how we can get a task force to come together to address all these different points.

So as I mentioned, we spoke last week about fat dissolving age and skin rejuvenation treatments. Those ones being injected, currently have the same regulatory classification as ballpoint pens. That's where we've got to bring the science in. I mean, the potential for harm from your ballpoint pen versus the potential for harm for injecting to yourself, something which is, you know, basically, it could be a filler, used in the construction sector where it would be properly regulated, but anyone can inject it into somebody without having a qualification.

What other treatments do you think you might look at? Well, so we're looking at fillers, at, we've looked at Botox. Also gels. So nail gels are really interesting, sort of scientifically, and really concerning in a regulatory environment, because unless they are fixed properly, you know, they can leach into your body and they can cause long-term allergies. And in small portion of people, long-term allergies,

which mean that you cannot respond effectively to medical treatment in the future. Now, the beauty industry has responded to it, and I know there's been investigations, but the beauty industry, the sector took two years. We took two years to go from concerns being raised to actually having appropriate response. And so we're looking at the process by which, which harms are identified, how we can make it happen more quickly,

and how we can look to the future. This is innovative, and we need to be aware of that. So a task force is what I'm looking for. Chelsea was talking about Easter. Is that... Yes, I mean, it's all a question of what the resources you get, but we've got another session which we'll have with ministers.

We'll also have as a committee to discuss and identify what the best recommendations are, but we'll be hoping to get something out by Easter. And, of course, if you are concerned about your own health, please do consult your GP. While I have you, I know you were listening intently to the social media ban debate for under 16s. Your thoughts? So we need a debate.

So I'm really pleased about the consultation. Yes, childhood is changing. Some of that is for the better. Some of it is maybe for the worse. But we need to understand the impact of social media and then the impact of screen time and then the impact of desocialization. So it's not an easy like, let's just ban it tomorrow. let's debate and understand and get an evidence-based approach.

We haven't even got into all the beauty advertising on social media. That's another item. That's a total intersection of it. Labour MP, Dame Chi, Onwara. Thank you very much for coming into us here in the Women's Hour studio. We did ask the Department for Health and Social Care for comment.

We were signed posted to a statement that they sent us last week about cosmetic procedures. They said we're taking decisive action to crack down on rogue operators putting people's health and well-being at risk. Our new regulations will ensure only properly qualified healthcare professionals can perform these types of cosmetic procedures.

Anyone considering a cosmetic procedure should research their providers, qualifications, insurance and track records. Thanks for all your messages that continue to come in. I have signed the social media ban petition, says Tabitha. She says I have an 11-year-old daughter. But a better solution is age rating like film classifications. This is a permanent issue

and needs a solid solution. Well, actually, that's something that the Liberal Democrats have been speaking about as well, doing kind of like film age classifications. 844, if you would like to get in touch.

We need to move on. We need to speak to Jade Franks. Eat the rich, but maybe not me mates with a little kiss. It's a hit comedy stage show. It is a sharp and funny take on class privilege and follows Jade's first term

at Cambridge University after swapping life in a Merseyside call centre for one of the UK's most elite universities. She's after wowing audience at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. Netflix is interested. And Jade joins me now as the show takes to the stage at London's Soho Theatre. Welcome.

Oh yeah, thanks, having me. So glad to meet you. I did watch your show last night. I was lucky to have a copy of it. You are such a keen observer. of life. Thank you. Are you making note

as you go through life? Do you have a notebook there somewhere? Up here. It all just stays up here, yeah. And I think it was interesting because I graduated quite a while ago. When was it actually?

20, 21. Okay. So to kind of delve back into those memories and on air things that I'd maybe forgotten about or like push to the back of my mind has been really interesting.

But yeah, I think using comedy to critique. Yeah, to critique. So, this, I mentioned the call centre, but you worked it as a cleaner during your studies. It's semi-autobiographical, I believe. And the title, Eat the Rich,

but maybe not me, may. So tell me a little bit about how you came up with that. What are you trying to get across? So the title I actually came up with in my fair day when I was doing a stand-up show. So it was originally more of a stand-up kind of showcase. And I think what I'm trying to say with that is, you can have your politics, you can be where you're from,

you can have big slogans like, eat the rich but there's always new wants to it. Not every rich person is going to be inherently evil. Everyone's kind of a victim of their own upbringing. And so the book, maybe not my mate's bit, is kind of a nod towards the friends I made along the way and the friends I still have now.

Including your maze. Exactly. Exactly. If you'd like to tell people who he was. I'm not going to full name him, but you come and see the show the other day. He's a doctor and came up from Brighton where he works to see it and he really enjoyed it.

But how he got the nickname? Well, I can't confirm Mose and I all of my secrets I can't give everything away you know what I mean You're going to get people to go and see the show So you were in a call centre beforehand as we mentioned

What was that transition like Getting into the hollowed halls of Cambridge So originally I I took a few years out after school Because I was applying for drama schools And I did get into a few But then I couldn't afford to go And so that kind of spark

in me this feeling of like why is this system so unfair why is it that some people are allowed to go and pursue their passions and it felt like I wasn't able to and so I was then looking into like education policy and I was reading loads of different books about like the arts and who is allowed to afford to be in theatres and that kind of stuff and so I saw the course education and theatre at Cambridge and I got in touch with an outreach coordinator who kind looked at my context, looked at the school that I went to and invited me to come to Cambridge because I've never been before.

And he basically held my hand and supported me through the process. This wasn't part of the play, but it's part of the actual story. And then he ended up being my director of studies for three years and like properly supported me. And so there are people at Cambridge who are doing a brilliant job in getting people in and making sure they stay

because I definitely would have dropped out if it wasn't for him because it was quite a stressful time as the play kind of talks about. Yeah, it's interesting. tense and it's rapid fire and it's very funny and there are grenades being thrown left and right. You say I'm not watering down the fury, just sneaking it through the back door. What do you want people to know you are angry about? I guess what I've just talked about, the fact that some people are able to pursue their dreams and some people just aren't. And you can

talk about meritocracy, you can talk about like, you can work this hard and then you'll get this at the end of it, but it's just not the case. Like, people are born into circumstances with people, parents with connections or, you know, family who know people in certain industries or whatever it is. Or if you go to private school, you're taught certain ways of like interview technique and all this kind of stuff. Or learning or how to do exams or what it might be. Yeah. But I think what is also very stark, and we might be. somewhat familiar with that academically or on paper. But I think what really brings it to life

are things where you see that culture clash, for example, in somewhere like going out or out-out-out. Exactly, yeah. And I think that's drawing on the idea that class isn't just about how much is in your bank account. It's about how you were brought up culturally, whether that's like when you're in the club, you buy everyone around and everyone does rounds.

And that was something that at Cambridge, I was like, wait, I've just bought everyone a bevy and no one's buying me one back but you don't say it. It's just meant like that was just how I was brought up and how I knew like the, I don't know, the unspoken rules of going out.

And there are the aspects of observation that I think are so clear. Another one that struck me was you had a screen protector bag for your laptop that you put in while the other students were just throwing it into the tote bag loose because it wasn't as,

valuable, I suppose, an item for them. Exactly. And I think what's interesting is, like, as time's gone on, there has been times where I've put my MacBook in my bag without a case. And it's, yeah, it's also an observation of, like, how much you change when you're around. Well, that's what I was really interesting as well, because we see you dressed up, you got the lashes, you got the heels, you got the hair, you're going out. You mentioned that the other girls, for example, were shopping, that were wealthy, that we're shopping from charity shops

instead of going super glam, shall we say. But that you have now transitioned in some ways perhaps to shop in a charity shop, for example, in that way to maybe change your aesthetic. Yeah, I think fashion's changed as they do and people change when they go to university. But I think the show is also like a love letter to my younger self in the sense that like I really enjoyed that culture

of getting dressed up and wearing heels that were ridiculously too big and going out in Concord Square in Liverpool and that fashion and that lifestyle isn't obviously going to last forever you grow out of it. Some do. Yeah, some do.

I mean, I do love dressing up when I go back in, to be fair. But I think it was interesting as well because in the show you tell the story of your sister, so that part of your life coming to Cambridge with hilarious and heartbreaking results in equal measure. How was that for you? It was heartbreaking and that's, one of the stories in the show that is 100%

true. If you want to give a little off it, if not a lot. Yeah, no, I'll give a bit away. So she, basically she came in, she was dressed up proper glam, makeup done, hair done, and she was wearing an off-the-shoulder blouse. And one of the professors at my college was

not happy with how she was dressed. I think it was just because she looked really glam and kind of stood out a bit. But he said it was because her shoulders were out, which... That it was inappropriate. It was in a formal dinner. Yeah, for one of these formal dinners where everyone wearing a gown and so he put a PhD gown over her to cover her up,

which is humiliating, right? He doesn't know what her education is. He doesn't know how that feels as a person who doesn't have a PhD to be covered up with a PhD gown. Like, it's those things. To be covered up. And to be covered up full stop as a woman. Like, I think it was also incredibly sexist and like, um.

But your sister seemed to take it, um, with a pinch of salt. I mean, she was fuming in the play. She took it with a pinch of salt in their life. Was she? Okay. She was more just like embarrassed. Like they'd made a mockery of her and she was really upset. And it was her birthday as well. Yes. Yeah. But I think it does bring it into stark relief, this kind of clash of cultures. Was it difficult when you went back home to transition back into life in Merseyside, for example? Yeah, a little bit. I think that I, I mean, before I went, my dad was like if you come back with an accent, You know, and I was like, with an accent.

So that was something I was thinking about, like, how I was speaking, how I was dressing. Like, it was that thing of, like, code switching. And then having, like, even the humor and the comedy that I was around, like, the bits that people do in that university, like, set in, isn't the kind of humor of my mates from home. And so it was also, like, having this, like, different language. You know what I really wanted to know when I was watching it last night?

what those that came from a different background to yourself that were at Cambridge, what they thought when they watched it? I don't know. There's some people that have come to see the show and I'm like, why are you here? Like with respect, thank you to buying a ticket. I'll take the 20 quid.

But I cannot believe that you've shown all. Because as they show up with it, a knotted sweater perhaps over their shoulders. Exactly. But you know, you talk about a working class voice in Cambridge, for example, but also within the creative industry, for example, that can be,

you talk about connections, etc., that can be a hard door to knock through. What advice would you give to a working class creative hoping to get into the industry? Yeah, well, I guess it depends whereabouts in the country you are.

It's a couch surf in London for six months while I was finding a job in London. And like that was kind of my path. And not everyone can do that, of course. And there's other people that might be able to stay are friends or have a flat in London or whatever it is. But I think finding the education teams in your local theatre. So like for me, the Everyman, for example,

they've got an incredible education team with loads of resources. And if you send an email or ask for a coffee, often there will be someone at the other end of that. Really happy to, you know, give you some time. So I think it's about being brave as well. There's like an entitlement that I think working class people aren't often born with or taught, that you can just ask someone for a bit of their time

and to impart some wisdom on you. So I'd encourage doing that. So, and we haven't even really talked about you being a cleaner at Cambridge, which was disallowed, which was shocking to me. But I suppose lots of people perhaps know this, but you're meant to concentrate in your studies and not take a part-time job with hilarious consequences. But with this great show, Netflix have come knocking. Yes. Okay, so who would play you? I hope myself.

So the dream is that I play myself as long as it gets developed and greenlit in enough time that I don't get too old. So I either need to get, you know, we're talking about Beauty Sanders. Maybe I need some Botox and then I can play a 20-year-old still. But yeah, I'm hoping I'll be able to do it. But if not, there's loads of incredible Scouse actors that would be able to do a brilliant job. And I would insist on anyone who's Scouse being a Scouser. Who'd play Greg?

This is a love interest, by the way. I don't know. Maybe one of the actors that I knew at Cambridge. I'm not sure. We'll see. It's going ahead, though. It's still in process. you're kind of chatting about it.

Yeah, I mean, it was something that I wanted to keep to myself, but obviously these things get leaked to the news. Oh, sorry, I just made that worse. No, no, no, not at all. I mean, I've just kind of owned it now and I'm happy to talk about it. But, yeah, we're developing it. I'm writing it at the moment.

And I'm really excited to work with Phil Barantini as well, who's a scouter, incredible director and producer. Well, you're just fantastic to watch on that stage, owning it, changing personalities and hilarious from beginning to end. giving us a little bit away Jade, but Jade Frank's show is Eat the Rich, but maybe not my mates, little kiss, on at the South of Theatre in London until the end of January. Then Bristol and then it's homecoming. It's going to be incredible. It's going to be wild. Everyone that I've ever known has bought a ticket. I can't wait. Enjoy that night in Liverpool as well and thanks so much

for coming in. Thanks for having me. Lots of messages. Hi, Hainula. Parents need to set an example and get off their phones everywhere you go. People are staring at their phones. and scrolling. It's an epidemic. It's not just young people. It's an addiction that's affecting everybody. It's so sad. You see tables of people in restaurants looking at their phone and not communicating at all. Another ban on social media. We seem to always be farming out responsibility. This is our fault. These are our children. We should be making more effort at home to set good examples. Manage our own phone use and educate. There was one more I wanted that had the hours. Yeah, here we go. I'm a retired high school.

school teacher and currently work as an art therapist in learning support. I asked a small group of 14 to 15 year old girls yesterday what their average daily screen times were. It ranged from between nine and 13 hours per day. It is completely ruining their teenage lives. They're completely addicted to their phones and missing out on friendships, sports and family activities. So says Liz. Well, I'm going to move on and talk about sports next. Because a female sports coach in the UK are twice as likely to suffer bullying and harassment as men. This is new research. It's out from the charity women in sport.

They've described it as a hostile environment for women after speaking to 2,000 people about their experiences, everyone from grassroots volunteers to elite sports coaches. And many actually reported giving up as a result of feeling unheard and undervalued in a deeply unequal system. To discuss the report and how to tackle. the problem is Lisa West from women in sport. Good morning, Lisa.

Good morning. So that is the charity dedicated to transforming sport for women. And we also have Yasmin Clark, a former pro tennis player turned coach. Good morning. Good to have both of you with us. So Lisa, perhaps let's start with this study. Looking at the experience of women coaches. What's the background to all of this?

So ultimately coaches are the backbone of sport, whether that's community coaches and grassroots sports coaches who are probably changing the last. of kids and adults, inspiring them to it to find their love of sport, right up to performance sport. And we're so grateful to all of those people that give their time. But what we know, you don't have to look far,

whether that's the coaching teams at World Cup, football World Cups, whether that's men or women, or your local grassroots club, to see there just aren't enough women there. And it really matters that we've got female coaches. It matters for women and girls. We know that from other research we've done about the importance of having female role models

and creating single-sex environments where girls can thrive, women and girls can thrive. It matters for young boys because having those female role models, we heard earlier, didn't we, about social media, the power of social media, and we know the stories that young boys are hearing. So having those amazing female role models,

especially in sport, I think, is critical. And it's just not fair. It's just not fair. Women should are just as capable and should be just as present in coaching. But the bullying statistic is one of the most striking that comes across in the research. So women in coaching are twice as likely

as their male counterparts to experience this across all levels of coaching. Who is doing the bullying? What is bullying in this context? Bullying to anyone is unacceptable. And it is important. We did this research on men and women to understand that bullying is rife for cross-born.

And it does point to issues within coaching more broadly. Okay. And that's a really important point because it talks to what the solutions are, that we're not focusing on women when we're talking about the solutions. We have to focus on something bigger. But yes, women are twice as likely to experience bullying in sport. And that does get worse as you go up through into talent pathway and high performance sport.

And for women, the most likely perpetrators of that bullying are fellow coaches. And there's a couple of aspects with that. That one, is there not a mechanism to report it to the equivalent of HR? Well, sport is an interesting one. It's a fairly fragmented structure, which is part of the problem and part of what we talk about within this report, thinking about working conditions and contracting and pay and policies and all of that sort of side of it.

But it also means that a coach might be reporting to a club committee, a sports club committee, which is a bunch of local volunteers. who were trying their best, but they're not a HR function by any stretch of the imagination. And bullied by other coaches, are those other coaches men or women? The research shows that the perpetrators, whether that was men or women as the victims, it was men or groups of men who were the perpetrators in the main. Yasmin, your coach. Does this resonate? I think the research resonates with me.

I think one of the things that I've always strolled with as a coach is having that credibility. I'm a level five master performance coach. I've gone through all my qualifications. I coached my brother from when he was 12, when I just stopped right the way through 12. He was 18. He was British junior number one. But I never really got that credibility as a coach. I wasn't able to really progress in that performance sector.

It's so interesting because some of the research that I was looking at, Yasmin, it's almost to be a woman and a coach that you have to have already proved yourself as a high performance athlete in a way that a male coach doesn't necessarily have to do so. Yeah, no, I totally agree. I think when we look at female coaches generally, they're all ex-pros. They've sort of been. They've done the hard yards. Absolutely, yeah, exactly.

And I think it is slightly different for men. I think the credibility that they get through going through the system, we don't quite get as female coaches. And I think there has been some female coaches that have done really well, that have coached their children. So Kathy May, coached Taylor Fritt, who's been top five. You've had Claudia Isterman who coaches hers on to top 30.

But the first instance that we had of a female coaching, especially on the men's tour, was Amalie Morezmo when she coached Andy Murray. And she really got put through the ringer. And she was a former world number one. She was a grand slam champion. There was no one more qualified to do it. But I think the standards that she got held to were very different.

Because I think what I'm seeing as well in your port and hearing is how sport is tied up. with masculinity and a masculine version of leadership. Yeah. And it's even, it's exactly as you said there, it's two really clear points. It's the connection of sport and masculinity. It's still a male domain.

It's shifting, but it's not shifting fast enough. And also, coaching is leadership. Coaching is an authoritative role, and we still have this issue with women in leadership roles. We still don't know what it looks like. So it's sort of this converging of, masculinity of sport and women not seen as leaders and that I think in coaching makes it quite so hostile

but I'm also thinking about the hostility and bullying for example because if we think back to 80s even 90s coaching it was somebody shouting at somebody really loudly in a very domineering way and I wonder how coaching A has changed or whether anybody's still holding on to those old stereotypes, Yasmin? No, I think coaching's totally evolved.

I think the last sort of 20 years, coaching has completely changed. People now, it's all about putting the player at the centre of it and actually what they can get from it. So the way to get the best out of someone is not through shouting at them. High performance sport, of course it's under pressure. People are there to perform. But actually, you need to put that player first and what they need. And actually now it's a lot more around conversational.

about getting that player on board. So it has fundamentally changed, but I still think it's got a long way to go. Because I suppose that a kind of shouting culture is something that might be considered more masculine in certain spheres as well. But I know you're calling for an anti-misogynie policy, and I'm like, what does that look like?

Lisa. Yeah, it's one of the big asks that we at women in sport have had because it affects all parts of sport. not just coaching. The heart of it is properly understanding what misogyny is and how it manifests now, today, what it looks like, what those behaviours look like, and making sure that people understand

what they actually underpin that so much of this is underpinned by the fact that misogyny is still rife within our society and therefore within sport. So the heart of the policy is let's understand it, let's name it. And we talked about reporting structures earlier. You know, so often we were asking, a reporting structure that doesn't have a policy sat behind it

to even define what misogyny is to enable people to report against it and for it to be fairly dealt within a system. So if we don't have that sort of heart of it in place, then we're never going to get reporting structures that are going to enable women to feel fully confident in them, which is what the research really showed. Actually, all coaches, to be honest,

struggled with how confident they felt in reporting structures, but women particularly. So to that end, how would that even take place or take shape, should I say? Like who would decide what is misogynistic behaviour? Well, the policy will set that out. So we've been developing at women's sport a template policy that organisations can use. We have the support of this work. We've seen in the press release, Chris Bordman, the chair of Sport England.

is fully behind this work and understanding that change needs to happen. And this is our moment, you know, we really do have an opportunity here. With the rise of women's sport, we're on the cusp of gender equality in sport. We've got a long way to go until we achieve it, but we're on the cusp of, you know, being able to talk about sport in the same vein for both men and women. And so we mustn't leave coaching behind. This is our moment to recognize that if we get this right, then we absolutely can flood the system with female coaches.

Let me read a little actually from the Chair of Sport England, Chris Bordman, who said this research is a clear wake-up call from safety fears when exercising to online abuse and bullying in coaching. Too many women and girls still face barriers across sport at every level. There's a need for real cultural and system change, particularly to improve the experience and the retention of female coaches. If we're serious about closing the gender activity gap, women and girls must feel safe, valued and supported and see women in senior coaching and leadership roles providing they proving, excuse me, they belong to the sport. We also asked UK coaching to comment, but haven't received our response yet. Yasmin, I know there's a real issue

just in our last 30 seconds about retention. People start coaching, but then give it up. What needs to happen there? I think we need to stop looking at trying to get more people into the system and we need to start listening to people like women in sport who are advocating for policies that will keep people in the sport for longer. And I think we're getting to a point where people have such amazing experience and then we're letting them go.

And these are the people that we need to keep in the sport. Thank you both for coming in. Good to hear your thoughts. We had Lisa West there and also Yasmin Clark. I do want to let you know. We'll have Alice Kinsula, speaking of sports. The Olympic gymnast, attempting something very rare in gymnastics, a return to elite competition after having a baby.

Anita will chat to her. Also the double Olivier Award-winning actress Dennis Goff will be here to discuss her latest role as Amy Fowler in a new play, on the famous Western that is high noon. And last comment, I pay my son's phone bill, so whilst I'm doing that, he doesn't have access to any social media apps. I'm not convinced by a full ban.

Tech companies should take more responsibility and more education is needed for young people. Do keep your messages coming. And thank you very much for listening today. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. I'm Paul Kenyon, and for Radio 4 and the History Podcast this is two Nottingham lads.

When the invasion happened, it was completely hell on earth with the sounds. The sad thing about war is people lose their empathy and their humanity. I want to know how two men from Nottingham ended up on opposite sides in the war in Ukraine, and what became of them after a chilling encounter in a prison in Danyetsk. Out of all the places in the world where I meet someone from Nottingham, it's in captivity on two sides of the conflict. It's a story about how and why you pick a side in a war that's not your own. You can listen to two Nottingham lads first on BBC Sounds.