Woman's Hour - Suella Braverman sacked as home secretary, Natalie Cassidy, Breast Cancer treatment

Episode Date: November 13, 2023

Following a weekend of speculation, the most senior woman in government Suella Braverman has been sacked from her role as Home Secretary. To discuss Emma is joined by Lucy Fisher, the Whitehall Editor for the Financial Times; and Claire Pearsall, former Home Office special advisor under Amber Rudd and Sajid Javid. The gripping BBC One drama ‘Time’ focuses on the stories of three women, and shows the stark differences for female and male prisoners. Emma is joined by Time’s screenwriter, Helen Black, who has first-hand experience of the criminal justice system from her past career in the law, and Lady Unchained, who was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for grievous bodily harm following a fight in a club while trying to protect her sister. She is now a poet, performer and broadcaster. The actor Natalie Cassidy pays tribute to the late Anna Scher who taught children in North London to act for more than 50 years.How is our interaction with AI shifting our concepts of intimacy and sexuality as humans? Emma Barnett talks to the Kate Devlin Kate Devlin who’s a Reader Artificial Intelligence & Society at King's College London and the author of Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots, and to Trudy Barber, Senior Lecturer at Portsmouth University in Media Studies.Tens of thousands of women in England could benefit from a drug that helps prevent breast cancer. Anastrozole, used for many years to treat the disease, has now been licensed as a preventative option, and almost 300 thousand women will be eligible to take it. But is it as big a step forwards as it seems? Former surgeon and breast cancer survivor Dr Liz O’Riordan joins Emma to discuss.Presenter: Emma Barnett Producer: Emma Pearce

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

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, I'm Emma Barnett and welcome to Woman's Hour from BBC Radio 4. Good morning and welcome to the programme. It's quite the Monday morning in Downing Street, far from a quiet start. Suella Braverman, the most senior woman in the government, as you've been hearing on the news, has gone, sacked by the Prime Minister. And now is it jobs for the boys, the old boys? An amazing sight this morning.

David Cameron strolling down Downing Street to see Rishi Sunak. It's officially just been confirmed, I can bring you this breaking news, that he has been appointed foreign secretary. The former prime minister, David Cameron, is back in the fold as a secretary of state, the Foreign Secretary. He's not an MP. Presumably he would have had to be made a peer, a peer of the realm to be taking on this role. But David Cameron is back as Foreign Secretary. Suella Braverman is out as Home Secretary. And James Cleverley is in or across the table from being Foreign Secretary to be the new Home Secretary.

My question to you, while you digest that, you might be on to your second or third cup of tea this morning if you're joining me live, and good morning to you, is whether Rishi Sunak was right to get rid of Suella Braverman, who happens for the purposes certainly of this programme to be the most senior and at times the most divisive woman it feels at the moment for a lot of people in British politics. Was he right to get rid of her? There will be a rationale. We don't have the Prime Minister's reasoning. We just know who's been walking up and down that famous cobbled street this morning to that shiny black door. Rishi Sunak making some key changes this morning. I mean, the most eye-catching, just to bring you again, if you're joining us, that David Cameron has been appointed the Foreign Secretary.

He is back, not as anything as he's been before, but he is back as Foreign Secretary. Suella Braverman is out. In the last few weeks, if you just want to appraise yourself and remind yourself of why Rishi Sunak has been having to read about Suella Braverman probably more than any other Cabinet Secretary, she's been warning of a hurricane of mass migration. She's talked about homelessness

being a lifestyle choice when speaking about how to get tents off our streets and most recently attacked the police's impartiality when it comes to the policing of these now weekly pro-Palestinian marches and accused them of not doing a good enough job of weeding out and policing anti-Semitism in these marches. Was removing Suella Braverman a correct move by this Prime Minister? Or do you feel she has been saying it as you see it? Get in touch with me now on 84844, that's the number you need to text me on, on social media where at BBC Women's are. We're also just crunching the numbers how many women are left around the cabinet table. No women now in the four high offices of state. It is quite a statement for the whole idea of old boys and jobs for the boys this morning as the most senior woman is ejected from the government.

What do you make of that? This is of course unfolding as I'm talking to you. A reshuffle is definitely now on. This is important, of course, about who controls your safety, who controls how we respond as a country to events in the Middle East, to what's happening in Ukraine. All these jobs now changing again under this government. Of course, the Conservative government now more than 12 years part of that coalition. But who is in charge of what does affect your life and the way that this country is run? And today, I would like to hear your reaction to what you're hearing, but also specifically whether Rishi Sunak was right

to get rid of the Home Secretary. I'll be talking to two people in the know very shortly indeed. But let me tell you what else is coming up on today's programme. As the BBC airs the final episode of its prison drama, Time, last night. You may have been watching that live. Of course, you can catch up on it. That looks at the lives of female prisoners and a very powerful story it has been to. The writer

and a former prisoner will be joining me on today's programme to talk about the reality of that and those women's lives. Porn made by artificial intelligence and something I'm going to struggle to say. I've been trying to practice. Teledildonics. Yes, I will explain that to you. I've managed to say it. How is the future of some types of sex going to affect you and the view of women in society? Plus, the EastEnders actor Natalie Cassidy, otherwise known as Sonia, is going to be here to pay tribute to Anna Sher, the much-loved drama teacher known for championing people from working-class backgrounds who has died aged 78. All that to come on Woman's Hour this morning, as ever, a busy programme.

But following a weekend of speculation, the most senior woman in government, Suella Braverman, has been sacked from her role as Home Secretary. Lucy Fish is on the line, the Whitehall editor for the Financial Times. And then after that, I'm going to be talking to Claire Pearsall, former Home Office Special Advisor under Amber Rudd, then Sajid Javid. There have been a fair few Home Secretaries, it's safe to say, and now Foreign Secretaries as well. Lucy Fisher, coming to you first, an extraordinary thing just to pause on for a moment and quite a statement about Rishi Sunak's premiership as we get ready to hear when the election will be. He's brought David Cameron back. I do feel I have to start there, Lucy.

Well, I think you're right, Emma. It is a sensational return for David Cameron and also a very marked gear change from Rishi Sunak, who, you know, just weeks ago used his keynote conference speech to, frankly, try and distance himself from and pour scorn on what he calls 30 years of consensus while shaping himself as the change candidate. So unsurprising that Labour have been quick to leap on this appointment to point out that Sunak was recently framing David Cameron as part of a failed status quo. But I do think it's an interesting move at a time of war in Europe and Ukraine, in war in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. Obviously, David Cameron is a very experienced diplomat. I think it's a move that

will probably be welcomed by many other foreign leaders and dignitaries. It could yet cause Rishi Sunak some problems within his party, however, because David Cameron, of course, presided over the now infamous golden era of Anglo-Chinese relations when many Tory MPs think London and Beijing became far too close. So there are parts of the foreign policy that could yet present problems for Sunak. And the decision to remove Suella following on from that line of thought, because this is a prime minister preparing for an election, he's never yet gone to the people, with his name on the ballot, certainly. As he prepares, he's removing Suella. Is that a good move? And is that in line with what we may now see from Rishi Sunak, which is a move away from the sort of further right of the Conservative Party?

Well, certainly it does seem it's a shifter and it's a win for the sort of the centrist wing with Soella leaving the cabinet and David Cameron joining it. Look, I think the fevered level of speculation that had arisen over the weekend meant that it was likely Soella Bravman was going to have to go this week. many Conservative MPs, frontbenchers and backbenchers last week, who said that Rishi Sunak had to sack her after that act of insubordination in publishing what many of her critics called an incendiary article in The Times that ignored edits requested by Downing Street. And for many MPs in the Conservative Party, that wasn't a standalone event. It was the latest in a long line, a growing pattern of what they saw as her increasing confidence and boldness in deviating from the public government line, maybe not on policy, but certainly in terms of language and rhetoric. I'm thinking in terms of her describing immigration, you know, people coming across the channel as an invasion or a

hurricane, more recently describing rough sleeping as a lifestyle choice. She was increasingly making the One Nation centrists in her party feel pretty uncomfortable. There will be some, though, who wonder why she had to go. They will be understanding perhaps what she was trying to say, even if maybe they didn't like the way she was saying it. Claire Purcell, you've worked in the Home Office. What do you make of, I'll go first if I can, because we're on this now, to the removal of Suella Braverman, getting some very interesting text messages in from the Woman's Hour listeners, but I'd like to hear from you first. I think it was pretty much the only move Rishi Sunak could make, given that the headlines have

been dominated by Suella Braverman since last Thursday, and it was looking like it was going to continue into this week. And we also have that decision by the courts on the Rwanda scheme coming up. So it was going to be heavily dominated by this one person. And as Lucy has said, this is not the first time Suella has taken the headlines. It is not the first time she has made quite inflammatory statements which go against what Number 10 wish to have, go against what a large part of the party wish to have out there, especially when we are quite close to a general election. So it was always the prime minister on the back foot trying to either cover up or ignore or make other statements. And Suella Braverman being at the centre just takes all of that pressure and builds and builds and builds. Do you think

she was trying to get fired? It's an interesting one, because part of me thinks, yes, it was pushing the buttons a bit like a toddler does, see how far you can push it before someone turns around and explodes. But she was in a position of more power than the prime minister. I thought that she would perhaps get shuffled to a different department to perhaps stave off some of the anger that is inevitably going to come. Why is she in a position of more power than the prime minister? I was just trying to follow that. Because she is now acting as if she has been a victim. So those people that support her will as if she has been a victim. So those people that support her will see that she has been treated badly. She likes to think that she was right about the police and what happened at the weekend, even though that situation is much more nuanced. She will also now

look towards the Rwanda decision. If it goes against the government, she can say, well, it was all the fault of lefty lawyers or the movement or whoever else she would like to blame for it and not take the blame on her own shoulders. So I think she's going to be sitting on the back benches looking a little bit like a martyr and looking like a victim and having more power to her elbow. Okay, it's important to understand that and messages coming in around whether this was a good move or not. One saying some of what you're saying here, Rishi Sunak had no choice but to sack Suella Braverman. I suspect she's expecting the legal ruling about her Rwanda policy. Well, that was already there, that policy before her, but it would have been hers to go against the government and therefore she wants to be sacked before it comes out to avoid looking like a failure. Another one here, conservatives don't appear to have any decent women,

apart from maybe Theresa May. Look at the dreadful women who've held office. I think you're talking about office here from your perspective. Nadine Dorries, a complete joke. Liz Truss, Priti Patel, Suella Braverman and Therese Coffey. What can I say? Another one, a terrible move by the Prime Minister. The Home Secretary was the only true conservative in the cabinet.

If I could come to that idea, Claire, just back to you, because the attack on the impartiality of the police, even if people have not agreed with the language or some of the former Home Secretary's language around this, there will have been some who could see that certain, who would say that they could see that certain marches had been treated differently. You've worked in the Home Office. What do you make of that? Yeah, I mean, this is the one point that I do agree. The police do not act in an equal manner when it comes to policing these protests. We've seen that especially around the Sarah Everard vigil, where women were treated appallingly for just being there to recognise the murder, the brutal murder of a woman. So I think that it is quite right to call out the police and look at how they manage riots, how they manage protests, how they manage marches. But that is

also something that should have been done behind closed doors. I don't think we needed to go out to a national newspaper in order to have that conversation, but I'm glad that it's having it. It's also now pushed Rishi Sunak to perhaps have a look at what powers the police have around protests, which I think is quite interesting. We are going to see perhaps a discussion in the Chamber of the House of Commons as to what powers the police have, what extra powers they could have and what behaviour is deemed acceptable when it comes to protests. I think it's a really useful conversation to have. I just wish it wasn't held quite the way it was. Yeah. And in that view, I mean, you may expect this in some ways, but the Metropolitan Police said after the demonstrations, we should say Suella Braverman did go on to say that he talked about the bravery of the police over the weekend.

But the Met Police said in a statement after a week of intense debate about protests and policing had helped increase community tensions. Lucy, a few people getting in touch and responding to the idea of the lack of women in the cabinet now. If we're looking across that, I believe we're about eight of 31. I think we're eight of 31 around the cabinet now. If we're looking across that, I believe we're at about 8 of 31. I think we're at 8 of 31 around the cabinet tables. This message says it's nothing to do with anything about the gender. It's a shame that there are no women now in those top four offices of state. Another one here, Suella Braverman did nothing for women's rights, was actively regressive on the rights of refugees and the homeless. It's bad that there are no women in the big four roles, but frankly, women who do nothing for equality, justice and human rights are no great loss, reads Serena.

But the other messages here that coming in, Kerry says, Sunat was wrong. Braverman may speak out, but she's voicing what a lot of people think. Our government cares more about accommodating the rest of the world than caring for its own at personal cost using our taxes. Lucy Fisher, the Whitehall editor for the Financial Times. What do you want to say in response to that? Well, look, I think it will be an awkwardness that will have been carefully thought about in the Downing Street bunker,

having no women in the four great offices of state. Let's see what happens, you know, feels that the day is young. It does, doesn't it? Quite a far-ranging reshuffle. And look, there may be more women to go. Therese Coffey, the Environment Secretary, she's been a name tipped to leave the Cabinet for a while now. Steve Barclay, the Health Secretary, he may be on the move. Equally, there are also women set to rise if the briefing coming from government is to be believed in recent weeks.

Laura Farris and Laura Trott are considered rising stars. Someone like Victoria Atkins, we could see a move up to the cabinet for her. So we'll have to see what the numbers look like when we get to the end of the day, if indeed the reshuffle completes today. But just looking a bit further afield, there's been a lot of speculation about what might happen with Jeremy Hunt. I would be very surprised if he were moved before the autumn statement, which is on August the 22nd, less than 10 days away now. But further down the line, could you see Rishi Sunak look to promote his key ally, former advisor Claire Coutinho, to the Treasury? It's an option and one that potentially,

if he does fear that he's heading out of office, would at least allow him perhaps the grim satisfaction of preventing Labour from claiming that they have the first female Chancellor by appointing Rachel Reeves if they head into power next year. Yes, we'll see. I mean, November is potentially when the election will be. And we don't know yet, though. We're still working around that. And I'm very intrigued by there's such a difference of reaction here around Suella Braverman. Just to read a bit more, Sia says, for women of BME backgrounds, Suella would have had to deal with a lot of challenges to get to that position. Let's commend that as women for balancing her job as a working mother of two and as a Brit who values British freedom and values her seer.

Patricia says Suella Braverman was the only one to speak the truth. Police, immigration, typical of government, bringing back another failed prime minister. That is a theme, Lucy, just to, I mean, actually, sorry, Claire, if I come back to you, I haven't given you a chance to talk about David Cameron. You know, I know we're talking about Suella here and we're here on Woman's Hour, but it affects all people everywhere, including women. The idea of bringing back somebody like David Cameron. What is your response as someone who worked in the Home Office with Amber Rudd, a good ally of David Cameron? Well, I think it's quite interesting. I don't think anybody had David Cameron walking down Downing Street on Monday morning and ending up in Cabinet on their bingo card.

It's a good move to bring the party back to a more centrist position. It will help with the relationship between the One Nation Conservative group. And David Cameron does have some really good qualities when it comes to diplomacy and acting on the world stage. It's an interesting move. I don't think we've seen a foreign secretary placed in the Lords to run that department since the 1980s. So it is quite a new item for us all to have to deal with. But I don't think it's a bad idea. I do wish that we had more women, as we were discussing. I think more women, senior women in politics need to come up, but I don't think they need to be there for tokenistic reasons. There are some incredibly strong and good women that I hope David Cameron will help

to bring those people back, considering he brought a lot of them in in 2010 when he was put in as leader. Is this a hint what we should have on the so-called bingo card? Have you heard from your former boss, Amber Rudd? Has she been invited back? Are you telling me something we need to know? I have heard nothing from Amber Rudd. I'm sure that she is keeping a close eye on the situation as we speak. I think anyone is always good to check, always good to check in case you miss something in my line of work. You know, I'm sure nobody was expecting to be called back, not least David Cameron, but perhaps there will be. There's also Theresa May and Liz Truss to pick from if you're looking for senior women who've been at the very top.

Claire Purcell, thank you very much. Former Home Office Special Advisor. Lucy Fisher, thank you to you. The Whitehall editor for the Financial Times a message here that I just thought was striking from one of our listeners who says they're ready now for a general election Amanda in Exeter says Rishi Sunak is so clearly out of his depth that he's needing to lure back David Cameron

it is time for a general election so the public can decide what is best for the country. Are you ready for that? Is that where you are this morning? Hearing David Cameron's back in the fold? Are you feeling relieved? Some of you saying there's a grown-up back in the room. Well, of course, we've been talking about the Home Office,

we've been talking about your security, we've been talking about safety. Included in that is crime. And last night, you may have been completely gripped, and a lot of people have been, by the BBC One drama, Time. It came to a conclusion last night. You can catch up on iPlayer or Star all over. The series focuses on the stories of three women,

Orla, a single mother of three children, sentenced to six months in prison for tampering with her electricity meter, Kelsey, a young pregnant heroin addict, and Abby, who is serving life for a crime she's trying to keep a secret. Women make up just 4% of the prison population and are often sentenced for non-violent low-level offences and 60% receive sentences of less than

six months. This could be set to change as the King's speech revealed plans for most sentences of less than 12 months to be suspended. What has this series done then for awareness? This screenwriter Helen Black of Time, who's had first-hand experience of the criminal justice system from her past career in law, is with us. I'm happy to say good morning. Hello there. And Lady Unchained, who's been on the programme with me before, you may remember some of her poetry and some of her work. She was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for grievous bodily harm following a fight in a club while trying to protect her sister, but is now in the creative space, a poet, a performer and broadcaster and also a mentor for those facing incarceration

and runs poetry workshops in prisons. Lady Unchained, welcome back. It's good to have you on the programme. Good morning. Thank you for having me. Helen, I'll come to you. What research did you have to do for this and what were you trying to show about the differences between women in prison and men? Oh, good question. In terms of research we visited prisons and we spoke to ex-offenders and we had dedicated researchers on the show so we were really well served even though I've been a solicitor in the past.

We were very well served and what the current situation is and what we were trying to say or um that you know the trite thing you know it's different for girls uh that the women's estate is completely different to the men's estate and that women and women's bodies within the space of being incarcerated everything about it is it is completely to do with how we experience life as a woman so then how we experience jail as a woman is completely different so right from the opening scenes we wanted to talk about periods about pregnancy about um the way that the women's estate is set up so that that the abby's character isn't able to be separated from the rest of the prisoners. So she has to deal with the fact that she's done something very terrible

in a situation that is potentially quite dangerous for her. And also we should say that, you know, apart from being a tiny part of the population, the overall population, women's sentences tend to be of these much shorter types, don't they? Absolutely. And that was the point of all his character, Jodie Whittaker, is to show that she's sent to prison for a relatively minor offence and she gets a short sentence, but then she ends up in the revolving door of jail. There's a great line in which she says in the first episode,

I'm in here, but it's my kids that are doing the suffering. And it's about how a short sentence can completely implode. So Orla starts with a job, a family and a home. And by the end of episode one, she's got nothing. I was going to say to that point then about how women experience prison, Lady Unchained, what are your memories of going in, the sights, the smells, the feeling of it? Honestly, when we're talking about that simple line of like, I came in prison, I had a home, I had a family, I have nothing now. That's literally the reality of it. The sounds, the screaming of women just screaming because mental health is a massive issue.

So many women are suffering from mental health. Not to say that the men of state is not suffering, but with women, it's very different. The self-harm is a lot higher. You know, I think what that show done was that it showed the public for the first time, if anything, that this is what really happens within the women's estate. And when you talk about the abuse, you know, a lot of these women are going into prison. They've already come from abuse. They've either been abused by a family member, a boyfriend, a partner, a husband, a friend even, and then go into a very depressing, dark place and continue to be depressed and continue to be traumatized by those same issues. So I think what the show has done is absolutely amazing in regards to just talking about these stories,

but talking about how women especially come together. And if you have watched it, you will see that, yes, at first, it's hard to trust people because you are afraid, especially if it's your first time in prison. You don't want to trust anybody. This is prison. People are violent. You know, you see it on the news, you see it on the TV. Well, I was also going to say you were very young when you went.

I was. I was 21 years old, so I was very afraid. And what did it smell like? I don't know if this is going to make sense to people, but if I'm honest, it smells like depression and it smells like death and sadness. There's a scent that you can't get rid of and you don't know what it is until you're there and start to realise this is just the pain of so many women crying and suffering all at the same time. But also the violence within the prison, the women's estate, is because they are all harmed.

They are all abused. And so sometimes we act out in violence because we don't know how else to deal with those emotions. And that's why for me, creativity has been amazing to help me kind of rebuild my life. I wouldn't ask everybody that question,

but I know from reading your work, you're all about the details and you're all about taking people into that space and being visceral. And I also know you're very honest about this because I remember our conversation. I'll never forget something you said to me. You said that we're all quite close to potentially ever going to prison. We're one step away, I think. And I want to highlight that. I wish that every woman that watches Time can kind of understand that we are all one step away from a prison sentence.

What do you mean by that? Because what I was going to ask, and there'll be people reacting to that, is, you know, when you talk how you talk, and you describe the sounds and time's done, you know, a visual aid for everybody and taking people into the drama of it, there will be those thinking you're making these women sound like victims. But at the same time, these women are in prison because they will have victims of their crimes. Not always. And so it's hard for people to think that they could be close to that world because they try, as they would see it, to live a law-abiding life. What do you mean by that then, that we're close to it?

I would say, what I'm going to say is this. Women, as women, we go through many things, many forms of abuse throughout our life. Some women manage to go to therapy. Some women manage to go to a mother's house or a friend and they have that support. If you don't have the support around you or, you know, you don't have a family member that's there willing to protect you and help and fight for your case. Sadly, we find other ways to deal with that pain and trauma. That could be drugs, that could be alcohol. So again, I could say, you know, somebody can lose their job tomorrow and not be able to get a job tomorrow and then be faced with, okay, how do I feed my children? For example, when she's fiddling with the electric at the end of the day, that's, she's still working. And she says,

I'm working full time on minimum wage. And if we're thinking about where we're living right now, the circumstances, the cost of living, everybody is going through it. So it's very easy for one thing to be taken away from you. And then all of a sudden, you are now faced with the options of actually, I have to commit a crime.

I have to steal milk to feed my children today because they don't have milk to be fed. And so that's what I mean when I say we are all one step away from a prison sentence because I never went to prison. I've never been to prison. I've never been in trouble before. I've never had any issues with the police. And yet I've got two and a half years in prison for defending my sister. So in a split second, life can change. And that's the reality of what we're dealing with.

Helen, for you, you have focused in this programme on women as mothers and how they go through the prison system. That has been the central part of some reformers campaign around why specifically women, the vast majority of their cases being short prison sentences, shouldn't go to prison in the first place. Have you come out of this programme thinking that? Oh, went into thinking that. You did? Absolutely nothing changed my mind along the way. Do you think that's about men as well? I think the difference between men and women in jail is when men are in jail, women tend to be holding the fort outside.

There will be some men for who that's not the case, but their family will be held together by women, by their wives, girlfriends, mothers outside. When women go into jail, it's very, very rare for the children's dad to look after the children. So if there's not a mum or a sister to step in, the children end up in care. And that's just the reality. And I think you have to ask yourself, you know, it's two sides of a coin. Yes, people have done something wrong and there needs to be some sort of punishment.

But does the crime fit the punishment? Is there any point in exploding a perfectly working family just so that we can say, oh, this woman was punished for doing something wrong? Well, there'll be those who say yes. I mean, there really will be. And that's why it's important to hear why you've gone into that. You've not changed your mind. You've kind of doubled down on where you went in as a position when researching this and talking to people. Because lots of people, their only interaction with prison will be this programme or programmes like it, you know.

And what's fascinating is they really want to watch these programmes. I mean, there will be those who think, I don't know if I want to watch this, but then they get drawn to it. Why do you think we find it so fascinating watching what's going on behind locked doors? I think part of it is it's the otherness of it it's something that we're all scared of and you can experience it without really experiencing it I always say that drama is a bit like a roller coaster you know you

can get really scared really excited you're not in any actual danger but programs like Time that are really authentic and realistic that gives you an even closer view of what it's like and people do enjoy that. Although I did get a tweet from somebody when he was watching the first episode saying, this is rubbish, I'm going to bed. Well, isn't that interesting? I bet you've got lots of other tweets saying nice things,

but the one that you remember is the one that says, nah, this wasn't for me. I was tempted to tweet back and say, you know, sleep well, but I resisted. You know, that element of, which is also shown, Lady Unchained, in the programme, is around going in and going out of prison, that revolving door.

And I know for you, you were very, you're very passionate about that not being a revolving door. And I'm sure for yourself, you were scared of that. Yeah, I mean, when you go to prison, they tell you that when you get out, you know, you can rebuild your life, but nobody tells you what happens after you get out. You now have a new identity.

If you've never been to prison, you've never been on probation. This is a new identity that you don't know how to navigate. You know, trying to apply for a job, having to send in disclosure letters, having to explain your crime is very difficult. It has taken me 15 years to be able to sit here, talk to people, be able to go into prison and do the workshops that I do within the prison system with women and men. But it hasn't been an easy journey. And sadly, that part of the story isn't being told enough in regards to, yes, people are being sent to prison, but what

happens after? The idea of being given a tent when you went in, leaving your flat? That for me is crazy. But we know it's the reality of what is going on when you're being released from prison. If you don't, they don't have any way to give you. You are given a tent. Now, tell me how you then get medical assistance. You know, if you was on methadone, you need an address in order to get a methadone script. You don't have an address. You can't get a GP. You can't get a GP. You can't get methadone. You know, you can't.

You want your children back. You don't have a flat. You have to have your children in order to get your flat back. So there's these complications that nobody tells you that happens after prison. And this is why there is a revolving door. This is why women are returning to prison, because sadly, women are feeling a lot safer and understand how to navigate the prison estate because at least they're the doors locked.

You know, they're dry. They can communicate with who they need to communicate if they had them. But that's the issue that we're facing, that women are finding it more comfortable and safer living in prison. And that is a scary thought for me. Lady Unchained, thanks for coming back.

Thank you. It's good to have you on the programme. Helen, as you came on air, we were learning that the former Prime Minister has gone back into Downing Street and has come out of that shiny black door, not as anything to do with the Prime Minister in terms of being deputy or anything, actually as the Foreign Secretary. But it's striking that Suella Braverman has gone as Home Secretary. We're getting a lot of messages while we're talking about change

and it'll be interesting to see. I mean, maybe she'll have a bit more time to watch Suella Bradman's programmes such as this. But do you hope when you write, just very briefly, if you can, do you hope when you write something, it will affect change because drama can do things sometimes that public debates can't? I think Jimmy and I have been really clear that we don't think drama can change things and we wouldn't be arrogant enough to think that they can. This is Jimmy McGovern. Jimmy McGovern, who I co-wrote with, yeah. But we hope we can start a conversation.

Well, I was at an event this weekend where I heard the parent of a survivor of Hillsborough, sorry, excuse me, of a victim of Hillsborough and then talking about the survivors as well, where they felt what Jimmy McGovern wrote when he wrote Hillsborough as a docudrama did have an impact. But it's interesting. It can be a lot later sometimes as well. Yeah, I think that's right. And Jimmy talks a lot about the Hillsborough tragedy, obviously, but also the drama. And it definitely moved the dial in terms of the conversation. Maybe that's what we hope we can do. That's what we always hope we can do. It's good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The programme is called Time, the drama you can catch up on, the iPlayer. Messages about Suella Braverman. We were just saying now no women in the top offices of state. Some of you reacting to that, some of you reacting to her. Suella has been a breath of fresh air, says Christine. Such a shame. I do not agree with all she says,

but at least she had the courage to say what a lot of the population think. Unlike the current Prime Minister, Dishi Rishi, who should be renamed Wishy-Washy Rishi, sack her no, promote her to Prime Minister, says Christine. Another one here, the Prime Minister was right to sack Suella Braverman. I am no great fan of David Cameron, but we need more grey hair and cooler heads in government. A pity Amber Rudd is apparently not available

and not many women, it seems, in this government would be up to the job. Very happy Suella has gone. I hope Therese Coffey goes too but David Cameron just going back in. That is going back in time. Can't they find anyone else? And so it carries on. Please keep your messages coming in. It's good to hear you and have your company this morning. But let me tell you about someone who is described as a true hero of the working class. Anna Sher, who taught children in North London to act for more than 50 years, has died at the age of 78. She's been credited with creating many stars, but was widely known for championing people from working class backgrounds. The Anna Sher Theatre, which she started as a

drama club in 1968, has a long list of well-known alumni from Pauline Quirk to Kathy Burke. Natalie Cassidy, a.k.a. Sonia, is on the line from EastEnders and many other roles that you'll know Natalie for and a very personal connection. And you wanted to pay tribute this morning to Anna, didn't you? Good morning, Natalie. Good morning, Emma. How are you?

I'm all right. And this is a moment for those who know her work, isn't it? I really, it's such a sad day yesterday uh my dear friend James Alexandru um dropped me a message to let me know and yeah if if you were one of Anna's you know that that was it I feel very very proud to have been one of Anna's people I started at theatre. I went along with my best friend when I was at 1991. I was kind of nine-ish, eight, nine. And you wandered up the road and you paid £1.50 and you got two hours of the best teaching you could ever have. And Anna's was not just about the drama side of it I learned more from Anna than any school teacher that I ever had I learned about diversity I learned about equality I learned about words I

found my love for poetry with Anna's it was improvisation it was aboutation. It was about respect. And it was about being individual. And honestly, she was just amazing. And I wouldn't be where I am now if it wasn't for her now. And I know that Patsy Palmer would say the same. Jake Wood has done a wonderful tribute on Instagram today. You know, there's so many of us. Kathy Burke, Phil Daniels, Martin Kemp and Gary Kemp. You know, the list goes on, especially obviously from, you know, EastEnders where I am now. There's so many of us that have Anna to thank. There have been concerns about a lack of opportunities and ways in for those from working class backgrounds into the arts, into acting. What was it that she did that created that road where others are struggling? Well, I think the accessibility was the place itself.

You know, you really could wander up the road to this wonderful building in Barnsbury Street and pay a couple of quid. And obviously that was open to everybody. I mean, she was formidable. She'd have 65 to 70 sometimes in that building. And she would, you know, rule the roost of that room she used to have a wonderful saying that she used to say to us that I'd love to say which was keep your eye on the ball I am the ball uh and we all listened you know we all listened to her and uh if you didn't listen uh you got told off you got sent down to the green room to think about it but you know she had so we all respected her so much she spoke so much sense and um and that's why that's

why it worked and and she's going to be dearly dearly missed by many for you and your colleagues who are thinking about this and talking about her i suppose you know it's just a it's a chance we wanted to make sure we did it this morning on woman's Hour to pay tribute to her as well as a person, because people say she was such a character and she had, you know, a lot about her that people want to make noise about today. Absolutely. And I thank you for doing this piece today because she's so special in many, many ways, you know. Did she let you get to know her as a person or was it all quite professional?

It was quite professional, but there was always a twinkle in her eye and I feel like there was care within her, you know. Obviously, I was very young and I left Anna's at 15, 16. But even that, you know, the kindness about leaving her and I remember giving her a hug and moving on, you know, from a child's agency onto an adult one. And there was no malice. There was nothing but kindness and love, really. And people also say the word formidable. So we'll put all those words there. And it perhaps makes people think what they can change in their space and what they're doing today.

Natalie, thanks for taking the time. Natalie Cassidy. Thanks so much. Thank you. Remembering Anna Sher, who taught children in North London to act for more than 50 years, who has died at the age of 78. Now, following on from our recent discussion, you may have caught it or you can catch back up, about the changes that are happening online to do with children, but actually to do with the abuse of children and imagery because of what can be used or, as people say, misuse of artificial intelligence or AI, as it's called. We're going to turn now to a related issue which is coming your way,

whether you like it or not, AI-generated porn. It's becoming more and more popular. It's created by algorithms ingesting the expanse of existing human imagery and remixing it and regurgitating it ingesting the expanse of existing human imagery and remixing it and regurgitating it to suit the specific desires of users. And it doesn't end there. But what will it mean for the future of sex and intimacy? And crucially, how women are viewed in a sexual context and in wider society? Let's talk to Dr. Kate Devlin, a reader of artificial intelligence and society at King's College London, also the author of Turned On Science, Sex and Robots. And also I'm going to talk now to Dr.

Trudy Barber, Senior Lecturer at Portsmouth University in Media Studies, whose interests include the body, sexuality, machines and computing technology. Good morning to you both. I'll come to you first if I can, Kate, Dr. Kate Devlin. I've tried to explain what this means and how it will work, but it's a mashup of a lot of different material. And will you be able to tell it's been generated by AI? Well, initially, there were a few tells. You could check what was AI or not AI by looking at things like how many fingers there were on the hands, or perhaps you could even scrutinize other body parts more closely.

But now I know it's actually got to the stage where it's very, very difficult to distinguish between AI-generated imagery and real imagery. And what's the issue with this? What are the concerns about AI-generated porn? There are a number of different concerns about it. One is that it can be mixed with the faces of living individuals, so deepfakes, but also that it's taking content without any permission. So you could look at it

both ways. You could look at it being exploitative. You could see it as being something that could be damaging or hurtful to people, but also that it could be taking content that other people have created and passing it off. And Trudy, let me bring you in on that. Is that one of your concerns? Well, I think it's very intriguing as to how people do manipulate different imagery using AI, particularly in terms of how you are re-represented within these different alternative spaces. And I think it depends on how you generate the images yourself if you are using AI to create an image. So you're teaching the AI and the AI is giving you back what you're teaching it. So I think it's going to have an interesting impact on how we think in terms of what language we use

to create the pornography or to create the imagery. So I think there's all sorts of different layers going on here as to how we think about pornography, how we think of eroticism and erotica and how that's represented too. So in terms of what you put into it is what you get out of it? Yeah, because you need to be able to get the AI to generate what you have suggested. And are you worried about that or are there concerns about that, about sexuality generally then?

And I mentioned the dehumanisation or the potential dehumanisation of women. There's all sorts of elements with it. It's just the same with going into virtual reality and changing your identity in virtual spaces and changing your physical appearance in virtual spaces. I think people will always try and play around with this. And this is where we've got to be thinking ahead of the curve in terms of the ethics of this, which I think Kate really looks at quite closely, because, you know, who has the right over your specific image, for example, because about 30, no, 25 years ago, I said that famous people would be, their images would be taken and be used for something else without them knowing. And you could see it coming down the pipeline. So I think we need to think about who is going to benefit from this, but who is also going to have serious problems with it. What do you make of the ethics of what we're doing about that, Kate? Yeah, it's difficult. So there's a lot of questions around consent as well.

So has anyone consented to having their likeness used? Are they going to, what kind of stuff is being created? Is it stuff that is going to be shared that might be upsetting to other people? And for some platforms, for example, there's a lot of moderation that goes on. And that moderation is carried out by other humans, not by the AI. It's very hard to moderate, justify a machine. So there are people having to sift through really graphic and disturbing images to process this information. So that's also a question of consent too. So there's definitely questions around that. And then yes, more widely

about what it means for us in terms of our sexuality going forward. Yeah, let's just talk about that because we are going to do, and we have done before, more detail on deep fakes and people's image being misused. But what do you think it will do for us? Because, I mean, there are some programs that allow you to have dirty talks with an avatar. And then some users may think they're talking to a real person or they may not care that they're not talking to a real person. I mean, what have you found out about that? And what are your thoughts? You've had a lot of time to think about that.

Right. So that's a really interesting area because we're seeing the rise of these artificial partners, artificial girlfriends or boyfriends. It tends to be quite gendered. It initially started with female avatars or female chatbots gendered that way and men accessing them. But it's actually opened up much wider and there are entire communities, hundreds of thousands of users who get a lot out of this, who really enjoy and benefit having these interactions with virtual AI persons, personalities.

And it's been very good for them and they report, anecdotally report that it's been something very beneficial to them. And those feelings are real. Those feelings are no different than the feelings we might have if we have a crush on another human or if we fall in love with a character in a book or a film. It is a parasocial relationship, but it feels like a valid relationship.

Now, the problem comes if that goes too far, if it's starting to interrupt people's lives, if it's causing any negative effects but there could be a potential to have uh quite you know quite a lot of support from these AI chatbots it's not necessarily a bad thing do you do you agree with that when you when you listen about it might not necessarily be a bad thing Trudy yeah I'm I'm all for experimentation to see how these contexts work, particularly with things like, say, people who are, say, in a care home or have Alzheimer's and they have not had any affection. sort of robotic toy things that actually hug the person. And that's proving to be quite positive for those people experiencing that. So there's lots of different ways that we can experiment and try to see how we can look at our more in-depth emotions, not in-depth feelings that will be able to be expressed using these other contexts.

But it is so new and it is so different. And there is an ability to come up with something completely different and completely original that's not been seen before. And that's one of the things that excites me about all of this, because you sort of deviate to innovate with all this stuff. So, yeah, I like that. You should get that on a T-shirt. Maybe you have already deviate to innovate. Let's talk about deviation. I'm going to ask about something I know nothing, which I love to learn. And I think that's why we're here and certainly why we listen to Radio 4, I hope. Telly dildonics, Kate. Have I said that right? Because the word dildo is right

in the middle of that word. I've absolutely butchered it. Okay, carry on. No, you have said it right. And it's pretty much what that does include that word. Yes. So it's essentially remote controlled sex toys. It's smart, if you want to put it that way, smart sex toys that can be controlled over the internet. This is nothing new. This has been around since the first wave of virtual reality. So it's becoming more and more common now. It's becoming less taboo. That's why we're talking about, sorry, it's becoming more common in this landscape. Yes, and much less taboo as well. I think having gone through the pandemic where people were conducting relationships online, then that's quite an interesting thing

to be able to add to your relationship, isn't it? So you'd get one of these sex toys, you'd buy it for someone you like, or they have it already, and then you control it from where you are to do whatever you want. It can be that. It can be toys that mirror each other

so that you have similar things going on each end. Now, of course, there are lots of things to think about around that, including, again, consent. So what happens if someone else takes over the control? What happens if it's hacked? There have been a few cases of hacked sex toys in the media in the past. What happens with a hacked sex toy? Why don't you put it in the bin at this point?

Yeah, you probably should. They're getting better at sorting out the problems there, so a lot of them are very carefully tested now to ensure it doesn't happen. Yeah, but it's again something perhaps people have not thought about or they don't know about, even if it is more common. Yeah, it is more common also. It's been used in sex work as well. So it's things like cam models of people who are performing sex acts online

where other users can pay to have the control of those toys. Where are we going with this, do you think, Kate? Where are we going to end up? Do you know? I think there's quite a bit of fear when I talk about this and people think, oh, am I going to be replaced? Ultimately, are human-human relationships doomed to failure? And I don't think that at all. I think there's something so intrinsically, fundamentally human about finding another human and seeking out a

companion. But it does provide us with more options. It does provide us with some fun as well and some pleasure. It's not all bad. It's not all scary. But we need to go forward ethically and we need to consider what the impact's likely to be. Well, it's interesting to get this perspective this morning. Dr. Kate Devlin, thank you very much to you. Dr. Trudy Barber, thank you to you. And the beginning of a discussion, I'm sure, and lots of questions people will have from that. And as I mentioned,

Turned On Science, Sex and Robots is the book by Dr. Kate Devlin. Many messages coming in talking about back to politics because of what's been going on a rather dramatic reshuffle at the top of government this morning with David Cameron back in as Foreign Secretary. We're all sort of getting used to saying that and Suella Braverman

out as Home Secretary and James Cleverley who was Foreign Secretary into that role if you're just joining us. You've been saying whether the Prime Minister was right to get rid of what happens to be the most senior woman in government, now leaving no women in the top offices of state. People keep applauding, Suella Braverman reads this message, for being honest.

This is total nonsense. We have had a lot of messages like that as well as some of these. She is queen of divisive dog whistle politics driven entirely by her own political self-interest and ambitions. I do not believe for a second she cares deeply about her policies. At the end of the day, she is elected to be a public servant, but she's clearly not interested in meaningful solutions, only whipping up division and grabbing headlines. Thank goodness she's gone. And another one, I do wish people would stop assuming that Swella Bravman was saying what most people are thinking.

These women do not know what most people are thinking. And another one saying she was a breath of fresh air. Another saying if you were going to bring back the ex-prime ministers, Theresa May is the one. This message says that you would bring back a much needed balancing act to the cabinet. The pandemic would have been handled very differently. She is experienced and I feel had the public respect. Well, certainly there was division on that

when she was in post, a position she had to resign from. A headline last week, and I did say we'd return to this, and I'm happy we can, was hailed as a major step forward in the fight against breast cancer, the drug that can halve breast cancer risk. The idea you could take something that's already in circulation for treating breast cancer in advance to prevent it. You'll remember this story perhaps from last week.

Dr Liz O'Riordan is on the line. She comes at this from a pretty unique perspective, a retired breast surgeon, but she's also had breast cancer herself twice and co-author of the best-selling The Complete Guide to Breast Cancer, How to Feel Empowered and Take Control. We are talking, Liz, good morning.

Welcome back to Woman's Hour. We are talking about a particular drug and what we wanted to know was what you made of the news, you could take it now in advance, because you've been on it. And what's it like? It's not a nice drug to take, I'll be honest, Emma. And that's because it gives you symptoms that are worse than a normal menopause. After the menopause, most women still produce a little bit of oestrogen in their fat with an enzyme called aromatase. And what this drug does is stop that working. So that means as long with all the night flushes and the hot sweats and the brain fatigue and the mood changes, you get aches and pains in your joints, you get

really bad vulvovaginal dryness, and there's a risk of breaking your bones. So it's not a simple drug to take. No, and I mean, the headlines, of course, celebrations, the idea that you could stop something before you get it. But the reality of do you think people could hack? Do you think women could hack taking that drug for I don't know how long they'd have to do it? So we know anecdotally that a lot of women with breast cancer who take the drug find it very, very hard to tolerate. And there are women who've taken the drug tamoxifen to stop them getting breast cancer. And they've stopped after a couple of months because they find it hard. But I think it's easy to get confused with the statistics in the headlines. They gave the drug to almost 2,000 women and they gave a placebo to another

2,000. And it halved the number of breast cancers, but that number dropped from about 89 to 39. So it doesn't mean that your risk of getting breast cancer is reduced. It means that if you give a load of women the drug, some of them won't get breast cancer. But a lot of them will have to cope with those side effects and not take HRT in the hope they're the one that doesn't get it. So what's your view of how realistic this will be of women opting to do this? I think it's great news for women with a high risk of breast cancer. And that means after the menopause with at least two relatives diagnosed. But I'm not sure how many women will be able to put up with it knowing they can't have HRT.

And I think it comes down to a personal choice of how worried you are about your risk and what you're willing to take. But we do know that boring things like exercise and cutting down alcohol can reduce your risk far more. And you say boring things, but obviously easier in some ways than the side effects exactly easier and free and no side effects but it's hard to make the time and i'm an example of that but um i think the drug will help a small number of women who can cope with the side effects but it's not the panacea it's made out to be and how long would you have to be on it do you think you'd have to be on it for five years according to the trial and that's a long time that is a very long time isn't it yeah without hrt without anything else to help with the symptoms plus the risk of bone thinning um aches and pains and stiff joints and you only sorry do you only do it from a certain

age this is only for women who have gone through the menopause it is okay you did say that i just wanted to double check because i'm not sure again that in the headlines i you know that everyone took that in no and uh it's important to go in the headlines, you know, that everyone took that in. No. And it's important to go behind the headlines on something which was a real celebration. You know, I said how nice it was. I said last week how nice it was to say this. And it's great. But I think a lot of GPs were flooded by women who wondered, can I have it?

And if I've had breast cancer, can I have it again? So I think getting the message out there, if you've got more than two relatives with breast cancer and you are over the menopause and you want to consider taking the drug, then it may be an option for you. Are there other treatments on the horizon that you think are more feasible perhaps? So there's been two other drugs available to reduce women getting breast cancer, tamoxifen, a breast cancer drug, and a drug called raloxifene. But what is interesting is since I wrote my breast book, there are now 20 new drugs to help treat women with primary and metastatic breast cancer and I think treating breast cancers on a molecular level with individual gene mutations will be the future and it's really exciting. How are you? It's always good to ask. I like to ask everybody that to be honest but in this case

really how are you? I've just come from the oncology unit having injections in my bum to stop my breast cancer coming back a third time but I'm doing alright That sounds like a lovely morning akin to some cabinet ministers this morning about what's going on in the news but is that something then you sort of, do you live how do you live with this in that limbo

I know you're talking to us as a professional but it's a talent in itself isn't it You put up with the side effects and the collateral damage and the hope that it stops your breast cancer coming back and there are days I wish I wasn't taking them because it's miserable but again it's different when you've had cancer and what you'll do to stop it coming back compared to a healthy woman choosing to take these drugs but at the moment I'm plowing on and loving life is there a difference you might not know this but is there a

difference between the threshold of what women the discomfort women can tolerate and the pain and those sorts of things and the side effects from drugs and men? I'm not sure, but I think women do put up with a lot. And it'd be really interesting to ask, actually, because men get breast cancer, too. And I'd love to know how they feel on the drugs. Yes. You know, and years of obviously taking things like the contraceptive pill or having an IUD. Do you train women? And whenever I'd looked into before having written about this subject, not this subject, sorry, but around the contraceptive pill. You know, one of the reasons there isn't a male contraceptive pill, although there's lots of jokes and apocrypha about this, is that whenever they start a trial or they have started a trial, the men report headaches. They don't feel well. They can't proceed with it.

No. And I think women are just you and again we deal with so much you know pregnancy periods there's so much you're kind of used to dealing with pain and symptoms for most of your life and i think we're very good at just getting on with it but i really wish we didn't have to okay well it's it's important thank you this morning for giving us your personal take but also to to go behind that headline and that message that public service message of uh who it's for who it's not for and how it actually feels is an important one was there anything you wanted to add liz i think it's really important to check your breasts every month

and make sure you go for your screening mammograms because if we can pick up breast cancer at an earlier stage it means you're less likely to need chemotherapy or have a mastectomy and it might just save your life and what age do you start those from so screening mammograms start at 50 um but everyone should be checking their breasts from about the age of 20 onwards do it every month there are loads of videos online showing you how to i didn't i don't and i i had a large cancer and i thought it would never happen to me because i was a breast surgeon but i was 40 with no family history so please if you're having periods do it mid-cycle i'm gonna do you don't i'm. I'm going to put this in my calendar afterwards with a monthly reminder. I'm going to do that as I get off that.

There you go. That's a change of behaviour, which is always good. Fantastic. News you can use, as we say in the trade. Dr Liz O'Riordan, thank you very much for that and reminding us of some of the basics. And thank you to you for your company this morning. Very spirited views, very different views on the decision by the Prime Minister to remove the most senior woman in Cabinet, Suella Braverman, and bring back David Cameron. What a morning. Thanks for that. Be back with you tomorrow at 10.

That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. Hi, I'm Sean Keaveney and I'm back with a new series of Your Place or Mine from BBC Radio 4, the travel show that's going nowhere. I'm a proper hornbird, me, but each show sees another remarkable guest try to persuade me off my sofa and into the big wide world. And it is warm. It is warm, but you just don't wear a lot of clothes and you just find a banana tree that's wafting.

Happy days. But will I make it out of the front door? Lots of smiles from people. I don't know if you're against that. Find out by listening to Your Place or Mine with Sean Keaveney 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.