Woman's Hour - 'Victoria's' story, Child height, Medical tactile examiners in India, Professor Irene Tracey - University of Oxford

Episode Date: June 21, 2023

Nuala speaks to a woman who discovered by chance that her fiancé was secretly filming her naked in the home they shared. Victoria, not her real name, reported him to the police and he later pleaded guilty and was convicted on voyeurism charges. Last month she also won £97,000 in compensation, some of which she is aiming to put towards trying to remove the images he made of her without her consent from the internet. According to data gathered from a global network of health scientists, five-year-olds in the UK are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations. To discuss the contributing factors Nuala is joined by Anna Taylor, Executive Director of nutrition charity, The Food Foundation and also by Henry Dimbleby the former government food adviser who's also written a book "Ravenous" about our consumption of ultra processed food. In India, the majority of breast cancer cases are diagnosed in the later stages and between 2019 and 2021 less than 1% of women had undergone screening. But a team of blind and partially sighted women are trying to change this by training to become Medical Tactile Examiners where they use their hands to help detect the cancer at its earliest stage. Nuala is joined by Shalini Khanna, Director of The National Association of the Blind India Centre for Blind Women and Leena Chagla, President of the Association of Breast Surgery to discuss.Professor Irene Tracey is only the second ever female Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford. In the last few weeks she has had to deal with several angry protests in Oxford over the appearance of Kathleen Stock at the Oxford Union. She allowed the talk to go ahead, saying, ‘we have to defend free speech’. Professor Tracey joins Nuala to talk about the battle over free speech, as well as what it’s like being a woman in the world of academia. Presented by Nuala McGovern Producer: Louise Corley Editor: Karen Dalziel

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

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, this is Nuala McGovern and you're listening to the Woman's Hour podcast. Should there be limits on free speech? Well, we saw the uproar at the Oxford Union when gender critical academic Kathleen Stock was invited to speak. The talk went ahead and the new vice chancellor ofancellor of Oxford University, Irene Tracey, said in response, students must hear views they find distasteful. Well, this hour we'll hear

from the vice-chancellor on how she intends to make that happen and also where she thinks the line should be drawn when it comes to the airing of controversial views. She also believes that students' fears of being cancelled can lead

to a dearth of debate. I'm wondering, do you feel that you can express your opinions openly without fear of repercussions on controversial issues? Should there be a limit to who can speak? How do you decide how that is, where that

is, who that is? You can text the programme. The number is 84844. Text charged at your standard message rate. On social media, we're at BBC Women's Hour or you can email us through our website. For WhatsApp or a voice note, that number is 03700 100 444. Also today, we have a radio exclusive

with a woman we are calling Victoria who has successfully sued her partner for secretly filming her naked in their home and then putting those images online. You'll hear her story. And we continue our India series today focusing on incredible

work done by blind and partially sighted women who detect early stage breast cancer. Really interesting. So that is also coming up. But first, according to data gathered from a global network of health scientists, five-year-olds in the UK are on average up to seven centimetres shorter than their peers in other wealthy nations. Now, it's been suggested that height can be an indicator of general living conditions and that for some British children, a lack of access to healthy and nutritious food could be one of the contributing

factors. Well joining me now to discuss is Anna Taylor, Executive Director of the Nutrition Charity, the Food Foundation and also by Henry Dimbleby, the former Government Food Advisor who's written a book Ravenous about our about our consumption of ultra processed food. And let me start with you, Anna, and welcome to you both. What is the data showing us, do you think? Well, the data shows us really that the UK is in pretty poor shape when it comes to comparing us with other high income Western countries. In fact, for boys, we're ranked sort of worst in terms of the height of our five year olds. And why we look at children at such a young age is because that tends to tell us something about the environmental factors in which they're living

in the genetic factors tend to kick in when children are a little bit older. And so it's a good way of being able to compare how countries are doing. And in fact, children's height for age is sort of widely used across the world as a sort of measure of nutritional status. And has that always been so? I mean, how long are we tracking kids at the age of five? We've been measuring children in the UK for a while, but the inter-country comparison has only more recently become available.

And so it does allow us to be able to get the same types of data from all these different countries in the same way, which is what this scientific collaboration has done to allow us to make these inter-country comparisons in a fair way. But I'm also thinking, so we're comparing with other countries, Anna, but also there must be huge disparity throughout the UK when it comes to five-year-olds. How do you understand that? Because we're talking about food and nutrition here, but the socioeconomic factors must be incredibly different.

That's right. I mean, we also see big differences in height between children in Britain. So we've looked at the data for white British children, and you see by the time they reach the end of primary school, there are significant differences in height between those living in the most deprived areas compared to those in the least. So for boys, a difference of about 1.3 centimetres, for girls just over half a centimetre. So we're seeing these inequalities actually playing out in the bodies of our children, if you like. The height is a really good way of capturing those environmental factors. It's a very good marker of overall development of children.

And yeah, these differences are really quite shocking and have been in place now for a little while. And I would expect in the current situation that we'd start to see those differences widen further. So you believe the trend is getting worse? Well, I think that's very likely, that those inequalities are widen further. So you believe the trend is getting worse? Well, I think that's very likely that those inequalities are widening. We're seeing the picture widen across a range of measures. So childhood obesity, the differences between the most disadvantaged and the least disadvantaged are widening. We've got big inequalities in

dental caries amongst children, got big inequalities amongst diabetes amongst adolescents, which is a growing problem. And again, that's very much socioeconomically patterned. So these inequalities have become entrenched now in the UK. We can solve them. But they're playing out in the health and development of our youngest citizens. Let me turn to you, Henry. I mean, it's interesting there, Anna mentions these other indicators that could be health indicators of, I suppose, children as a whole at that age, obesity, dental, diabetes. Height is just one of them. How helpful do you think it is to focus in on that aspect?

Well, I think it's a really good way to take our eye a little bit off obesity. So we are health diet now is by far the biggest cause of ill health in this country. 2035, the NHS is projecting it's going to be spending as much treating type 2 diabetes alone as it currently does on all cancers. It's going to bring down the NHS. Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, says it's the biggest drag on economies, on our economy. So unless we get a grip on this diet problem, we're going to end up both sick and impoverished. Can I stop you for one second? Just that line. It's going to take down the NHS? Yes. And what will happen is Chris Whitty, during COVID, was online in his spare time in lockdown, giving lectures to anyone who would listen about the oncoming tsunami of ill health that was going to hit the NHS due to diet. He was giving lectures about diet related disease.

And what that looks like is actually it doesn't take down the NHS first. It sucks money from the rest of society because the government can't let the NHS fall. And then they have reduced tax receipts and GDP because everyone's too sick to work, which is what Andy Haldane was saying. And so, as I said, we end up sick and impoverished. But I think this data on height is really important because people tend to focus on obesity alone when it comes to this. And it is possible to be both obese and undernourished. It's known as being the invisible hunger. So you have now in the UK,

700 children are admitted to hospitals with rickets and scurvy, diseases of diet that we thought had gone, we'd put to bed years ago. In America, one in four people who are normal weight have pre-diabetes so the diets they're not overeating but the diet is so poor it's messing with that uh insulin response ultra processed food making them sick they're more likely incidentally to die of diabetes than overweight people because they probably don't know they've got it so the the problems of diet-related disease

are much broader than just obesity. They are causing sickness, not only in those who are overweight, but also in those who are of normal weight. I want to bring it back to children as well and also read a little what we got from a government spokesperson saying there are a range of factors

that can impact children's growth, which are not just limited to diet. We're taking steps to support families by providing record financial support, they say, to families who need it most. They talk about £94 billion cost of living support package worth around £3,300 per household. What would you respond to that, Henry? Well, it's true.

You know, if you look, there are definitely other factors. And one of the things that the Department for Housing and Leveling Up has been doing is trying to reduce the terrible conditions in rented housing. And that definitely will have impacts on the immune system. If you have an overactive immune system, you will grow. You'll put less energy into growing. But the government has the biggest issue is diet. And the government now has consistently gone backwards on diet. So they were going to be, after Boris Johnson was sick in hospital, they said they were

going to ban advertising of junk food to children. They haven't done that. They do say, sorry to interrupt you, Henry, but they do say that their sugar reduction program has seen dramatic reductions in the sugar content in foods eaten by children. Well, I'll let Anna comment on that, because she will have the data to her fingertips. But I just want to point out, so they've kicked back the advertising. Last week, they kicked back the bog-offs. They're not just doing nothing. They are moving backwards. And every time they kick back one of these things, they say, oh, well, it's because we're doing other things but what other things

and i think you've fundamentally got an ideological problem in parts of the tory party and steve barkley particularly you know who is welcome to come on and respond directly but go ahead we we live in a swamp we live in a a swamp of bad food and yes you, you can, around the edges, try and help people learn swamp craft, teach them to be a bit better at cooking. But in the end, we've got to do something about the environment. And the government aren't doing anything about that.

They're going backwards. Well, what they would also say, other parts of the statement they gave us, we're also promoting healthier lifestyles for children by investing over £600 million in school sport over the next two years. And they say they're supporting the NHS to tackle some of the root causes of poor nutrition, including their healthy food schemes to help get more than three million children the nutrition they need.

Anna, listening to that, what do you want to respond, particularly to the government statement? I mean, I think the main point is that it's very piecemeal and it's just sort of skirting around the edges of this really pretty ginormous problem that Henry's articulated. I mean, the sugar reduction programme is a great example. They set a really ambitious target and didn't meet it. By a long stretch, it was a voluntary programme. You can't expect companies to behave without creating a level playing field for them through regulations you can't expect them to

um behave in a way which is going to set them at a competitive disadvantage from other companies it's sort of unrealistic expectation because you might find chuck yeah i mean that statement is a fantastic example of they've pulled back on everything and then someone says woman's hour is asking us what we're doing on health and they've gone and looked up all the little bits and pieces of stuff that they're doing here and there and put them into a press release with no strategy no minister talking about it they're completely blind at the moment this huge public health problem well i will in 10 years time whoever is in power whatever color they're going to be crippled by this problem unless we get a grip on it now.

And I will indeed reiterate my invitation for Annie Minister to come on and talk about some of these issues you feel that they're just chipping away at. Before I let you go, though, Anna, I know you have the annual broken place survey that will be coming out a report next week. Yeah, that's right. And that's a big report that presents a whole set of metrics about the health of our food system and the impact that it's having on our health. It showed we've been doing this now for a number of years

and the data is just all going in the wrong direction. So yeah, we'll be publishing that next week. So that's something to look out for. OK, well, we definitely will. I want to thank both my guests, Henry Dimbleby and also Anna Taylor, for coming on, speaking about children's height and its relation to nutrition. Now, I want to turn to a radio exclusive we have here on Woman's Hour next.

My guest is a woman who discovered by chance that her fiancé was secretly filming her naked in the home that they shared and then putting those images online. Victoria, which is not her real name, reported him to the police and he later pleaded guilty and was convicted on voyeurism charges. Last month, Victoria also won £97,000 in civil compensation from him in what is believed to be the first case of its kind in England and Wales. Victoria is aiming to put some of that money towards trying to remove the images of her ex-partner that made of her and put them then on the internet. I got to speak to Victoria, but in order to preserve her anonymity, we changed her name and also her words are spoken by an actor. I asked her when she first became aware that her partner had been secretly filming her.

That was in October 2017. And did you have an idea how long it had been going on? Probably since we first moved in together. I know that he had been recording in the shower for longer than we were together because there were other images, shall we say, of other people from before I came onto the scene. How did you find out? Initially, I was looking for something in the shared office that we had at home. And when I went into his office, unusually so, his laptop was open and there was an image of what looked like a puppy on his screen.

And we'd been talking about getting a dog and I press play on his computer screen and that's when the image presented itself that it was a young girl who was playing with this puppy but she was lying on her on her front on a towel in the sun somewhere and that's when I noticed that she was naked and I think the girl must have been about probably seven or eight I suppose and so at the time I'd seen in the you know the left top hand corner of the video a name of something and I just recall thinking you know I need to remember that name but then I put the recording back to where it was and strangely enough when you go through these things you actually remember every single minute detail. So it was at 17 seconds and I knew I had to get it back to that spot.

And then I came downstairs and he, my partner, was making his way upstairs. And I went with him and said I was looking for my power cable for my laptop. And so I went in the office just before him and I asked him, what's that? Where did he get the puppy image from? And he said, I don't know. It's something people send me. You know, I have no idea. It's WhatsApp or whatever, because, you know, WhatsApp, you can get it on your PC and that's when i remembered noticing that there was a hard drive connected to his pc so i left and went downstairs and typed in the name of that website and that's when i discovered that it was child pornography

and some people prefer that we use the term child sexual abuse images instead of child pornography, but I can't imagine how. I mean, your partner is upstairs at this stage. You're downstairs. You've had this horrendous revelation. What do you do? You question if you're going mad. If it was, in fact, something that someone would send to him on WhatsApp,

you know, with group chats and so forth. And then you start questioning things, and you realize you can't do anything to let him know that you're curious or suspicious about something. So the next step is to process what you're going to do next. And he used to play bridge most Tuesdays and I always would drive him there. He would take a cab back with his friend and this time around I suggested that why doesn't he get his friend's wife to take him? And for some strange reason, this time around, for the first time in a year and a half, this happened. So I knew that I had a little bit of time to start investigating what

was going on. And that's when I went into his laptop bag and I found not one, but two hard drives. And I started taking a look at what I could find. And then I sort of uncovered a few other things and that's when I realized that there was an image that was of a similar makeup to the bathroom that we shared but it was just not the same exactly so I remember that he said that they had you know redone the bathroom so I went upstairs to the bathroom and found a sort of very tiny like it's smaller than the size of a screw you know the top of it and that's when I took my flashlight on my phone and realized that that was actually a camera and then I got a ladder and looked up into the attic and realized that there was a flattened cardboard box which was hiding

there. Do you remember those old computer towers? Yeah, it was hiding that. So I realized that that's where he'd been, you know, recording and saving whatever it was on there too. And then he came home from bridge and I had to pretend like everything was normal. Why were you afraid to confront him? Because there was, when I started looking at the hard drives, I had this really strong sense that there was just so many things on there. And I didn't want to do anything to jeopardize whatever investigation might need to happen. And I didn't want him to destroy anything.

But at that stage, I also didn't understand the full extent of what was there. I just pieced together, you know, a part of it. At that stage, I hadn't found any imagery of me or couldn't find anything just yet. But I mean, I could estimate there was tens of thousands of stuff that was on there from videos to whatever it might be. So I just knew that I had to find out more before I could go any further with it. But you did find out that he had been recording you? Yes. Do you want to tell our listeners what some of those images were? I found indecent images of a child, imagery of myself, videos of myself. And that's when I realized that he had taken those recorded images of me and put them next to a Facebook profile photo of mine. And it had some strange wording like

dirty sister caught naked. And there was a count of how many times this page was viewed and it was hundreds and hundreds of times it was viewed and then there was a library a thumbnail library of all the different imagery of myself and videos and of other people and it was just I just lost count I can't imagine how you process that um I imagine feels like you didn't know him um were there any warning signs previously nothing nothing I think that that was the the challenge because there is a disconnect of someone that you see as caring and kind and loving and thoughtful and everything. And then you see this and you start thinking, am I going insane? Am I? Am I losing it? And, you know, have I just gone into the matrix? I don't know. It's just something that you can't, it's huge.

It's disbelief, complete disbelief. You got the police involved. Yeah. You did that without alerting your partner. Was that a difficult decision? No, not at all, no. That was just it. There was no way that I could not do that,

but I needed to do it in a way that number one, I could feel safe as far as my personal safety was concerned. I didn't also understand at the time that I was, you know, after going for counseling, you, your understanding is a lot better. But he was controlling and coercive. And I've always been known as a very strong, independent woman, never really having to worry about these sort of things. But you don't realize how someone has manipulated you for such a long time and is making you think things are your fault. You did manage to get him charged and convicted. He pled guilty to voyeurism

and to making indecent images of a child. He received a two-year suspended sentence and 10 years on the sex offender register. You weren't satisfied with that and wanted to take things further. Talk me through that a little. When I spoke to the police at the time, the detective, I did mention that there was imagery of me and that, you know, I didn't feel it was right that he was, you know, putting things online and doing certain things.

But at the time, I don't believe they thought it was, I don you know, putting things online and, and doing certain things. But at the time, I don't, I don't believe they thought it was, I don't know, I don't want to put thoughts into their head, but I don't believe it was an avenue that they felt was, I suppose, necessary to take. And I feel like he needed to be held accountable for doing what he did to me as a human being, but also to find some recourse to, you know, remove what was online. I just, I didn't feel that I should have to bear the financial burden of that. You won your case and you were awarded £97,000, which you're going to try and get those images removed to start with? Yes, absolutely.

Are you hopeful for that? There is a way that from what I understand, you know, from speaking to the specialists, there's a way to, I suppose, suppress and make it harder to find. And it is going to be difficult because of the fact that we don't know where it's you know being what websites are what websites have shared the images that's just the nature of the worldwide web isn't it you don't know where you don't know where else those those images could be so I mean forever hopeful I mean I think people didn't realize that this could happen that I could get justice in this way so I'm still hopeful that there is a way to at least make it harder to find

I'm just thinking about your story as well Victoria the fact that you found out you were covertly filmed, number one, and number two, that there are those images of you out there. What effect has that had on you? Or what effect does that have on you today? And I know you said you've gone through therapy trying to understand what happened. It makes you quite paranoid about a lot of things. Paranoid about being in unfamiliar spaces, you know, the fact that I'd been living there and it was just absolutely no way that any normal person would have thought that you've taken a look around to see what you can. There's an app that you can use which actually tells you whether or not there's recording devices in the room. So it actually picks up what's on the Wi-Fi network of where you're staying.

And you're just really paranoid. You try and stick to familiar places. As far as relationships go, whether it be friendships or romantic partners, you are very cautious about trusting anybody because you're not sure what lies beneath. So I've become extremely obsessed with crime documentaries, wanting to understand the psyche that is involved in a person that could lead separate lives and fool people. So it does make you a little bit unsure about humanity, I suppose. Yeah, because you have been diagnosed with PTSD. Yes.

You talk about trying to understand the psyches of people who carry out these double lives, as your partner did. Have you ever understood his thinking? I think it's about power. And I think that in my opinion, I'm not a trained psychologist, but in my opinion, he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. Therefore, you know, his behavior towards me by being coercive and controlling, but also wanting to have power over other people and just sort of relishing it because I wasn't the only individual that was filmed covertly in that bathroom. There were many others from what the detectives told me because they've had an opportunity to go through all the devices. I believe there were 60 or 70 pieces of evidence that were captured. So I think he is troubled and hopefully this is going to give him the help that he needs

in order to get the type of support to change his behaviours. I don't know if you can. I've read books on narcissistic personality disorder since then and really tried to understand it from that perspective as well. What changes would you like to see? Because I know you're in this process now of trying to have those images of you, if not removed, not come to the surface online. The challenge for victims is the fact that even though they could be a victim of this type of crime, they do not own any of the imagery. So from a copyright law perspective, they cannot force websites to take that imagery down. So I'd like to see a change in the law. I know that I've spoken with Georgia Harrison, who is a campaigner. She's a remarkable woman, and I would love to see, you know, a bill passed in Parliament in order to support victims. And then I think the police could probably, I think things have changed since I first reported this five, almost six years ago but they need to understand that this has a really massive impact on victims and you know just to understand that having something done about this would go a long way

to healing and I would love to see there be more dedicated resources in order to support victims because I think this is just a scratch on the surface. There's, I would imagine, tens of thousands of victims of this type of abuse. It happens every single day and we're not even aware of it. The woman we are calling Victoria, and if you have been affected by any of the issues raised, there are links to support organisations on our website. we are calling Victoria. And if you have been affected by any of the issues raised, there are links to support organizations on our website. 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's faking pregnancies. I started like warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake.

No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this? From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story, settle in. Available now. Now back to children's height and nutrition

for just a moment with your messages One from Sue says Surely a lack of physical activity is as large a contributor to type 2 diabetes as poor diet We're talking about the role of nutrition And here's another one from Julie She says

Part of my job when working in a junior school was to use the government's website on deprivation It showed our school was among the most deprived in the country When we were put into special measures Keep your messages coming, 84844. But now, to free speech. In January this year, the University of Oxford appointed its second ever female vice-chancellor.

Irene Tracy is a professor of anaesthetic neuroscience and a warden of Merton College. Both of those roles she has temporarily stopped to become vice-chancellor. But within months of starting, the vice-chancellor was dealing with the controversy

surrounding Professor Kathleen Stock's invitation to speak at the Oxford Union. Many students, including LGBTQ plus groups, held strong protests that you might remember, and they called for the talk

to be cancelled. Professor Stock questions the idea that gender identity is more socially significant than biological sex. But Vice-Chancellor Tracey said that it was important for the talk to go ahead in order to protect free speech. Well, we wanted to speak to her more

about her thinking and that decision. So to start off our conversation, I asked Irene Tracey how she was finding her time as Vice-Chancellor so far. Oh, it's been fantastic. Obviously, it's a university I know well, because I've been an academic here most of my career. But coming into this role, you know, it's given me another opportunity just to sort of know more about the university beyond medical area, which is where I've been before and running a college and it's just breathtaking you know to

sort of uncover just the amazing amount of you know fantastic research that's going on and then just you know the dedication of the people doing the teaching you know and the students always an inspiration and all the stuff they get up to so it's just been wonderful to sort of I feel very privileged to be honest you know to be in this role and to be you know looking after this place that I love very much and, you know, means a lot and contributes a lot. Well, let us talk about the students to begin with. The last couple of months, there were a lot of angry students,

a lot of protests. It sounds to me like you expected that. Yeah, I mean, you know, look, students, many of us have been one before, you know, they're here to test what it is that they are thinking, you know, to evolve their thinking, to challenge each other, to challenge the system and the institution that they're in. That's all very normal. And that's what one would expect. And the hot topics at the moment, of course, centre around broad issues of free speech. And so this is a hot topic in most university campuses, you know, globally, and has been actually for a couple of years. So this is not something that I was not expecting. And of course, we had a particular person invited to come and give a

lecture. Again, as ever with these things, there's a lot more chatter in the media than necessary was going on. So I think it was represented to be more dramatic than actually was going on in the background here. Happy to sort of detail a bit more. But there was really never any question that she was not going to give her lecture. That was very clear right from the outset. But that's from your opinion and from the university's opinion. I mean, some students may have thought that they might have been able to derail it. Indeed, exactly. But the majority of students got it.

You know, the student union, you know, understand that they're signed up to the freedom, our freedom of speech policy. So there was no question about that. But there was, of course, a rightful opportunity for students to protest and express their displeasure. And indeed, you know, for some of them wanting it not to happen, but while still recognising that, you know, there's a very clear policy and people have

a right to give views. And I've been very public, as you know, you know, discussing these issues as it was evolving, that, you know, we have a freedom of speech policy, it's very clear that people will come and express views that will be tolerable to some and completely intolerable to others. But short of that line, it's very clear about things being sort of illegal. Then, you know, people have a right to come in and express their views and also to be challenged for their views. And that's the opportunity that presents. I think there's lots of learning to be done, which we're thinking about in terms of how we then better equip and train our students, you know, in this space. And I think that's not unique to here. I think that's just something that we're thinking about across the higher education system, hence the Freedom of Speech CER that's been appointed. Okay, well, let's talk about all those things. And I don't

actually think we've mentioned the name Dr. Kathleen Stock in our conversation there. But that is the person who was at the Oxford Union and sparked these protests from the LGBTQ plus communities and its allies. But the line that I saw that struck me was you said students must hear views they find distasteful. And do you think that the environment is different now that people, students are less open to hearing those views than perhaps decades previous? You know, I don't think so. I think actually, you know, we don't, you know, I'm a neuroscientist and a person that sort of understands evolution a bit and evolution of the brain. You know, we've not evolved that quickly. But things can be, can change culturally. They can change in a very short space of time,

even a matter of years. Absolutely. So what's just as sort of animals, even a matter of years. Oh, yeah, absolutely. So as sort of animals, you know, we've not evolved that quick, but society's evolved at such a pace. So here we've got this sort of now juxtaposition of, you know, we haven't evolved, you know, on an evolutionary biology sense that quick, but we're living in a really complex, global, complex society with all that ability for things to be communicated very rapidly,

for them to be commented on very rapidly and explode. And that is so different to my student days. So in two decades, if you look at the student experience of where there was always a willingness for students to accept things that were challenging and different and argue and debate, and you did it in the pub and you have big rows and et cetera. Now it's just really fueled because of the ease, I think, by which commentary can be made and then expanded upon. And of course, we talk a lot about echo chambers and social media. So I just think it's really harder. You know, I've got three kids. I just think it's a lot harder now for young people to have debates and discussions and refine their thinking and change their minds without being victimised or called out that you've

changed your mind, you used to help that one. Whereas I think back in the day, it was easy for you to do that. So the challenge I think for us as educators is, well, how do we, knowing that they're in this world where things are just more rapid to be commented on and they can be amplified very quickly and get quite toxic and quite inflammatory without really anybody recognising or expecting that to happen? How do we diffuse the situation? How do we help them develop skill sets to manage that? Whether that's on social media or whether that's sitting in the pub, this is going to happen. You're going to hear views, certainly when you're out in the workplace, that you'll be in agreement with

and views that you will absolutely not be in agreement with and you'll find quite unpleasant. But I suppose it's also how people react to those. And there's a lot you've said there, which I find very rich for discussion. You talked about training students and you talked about where does that happen? But is it trying to train that if a view is distasteful, that ostracising or cancelling is not the answer? Yeah, I think it's to say that the very things that often you are trying to say, argue why you would want to not have that person come because you are opposed to their views on things. Well, one, there's a real opportunity to engage with that person and express why it is that you have those views and

challenge that person and have that debate and how to do that in a respectful and courteous manner. So that's how we affect changing views of people and society. And we evolve what our thinking is and what those norms are of what we expect and how we evolve issues around particularly, you know, equality, diversity, inclusion. Why do you think that appetite isn't there with certain students to engage, to debate, to take that person down for want of a better term? I think it is there. I just don't think... But there wasn't in this case. This was very much pushing back. No, just should not be allowed to speak.

Yeah, I think that's right. So I think it's there intrinsically. I don't think as i said students have changed dramatically since we were students but what's not there is the mechanism and the means or the confidence that you can do it without uh fear of you know persecution or isolation or being vilified in the media so again how can we create forums where people can have exactly that because i think they would like to have those debates and discussions, but can be done in a way that is going to be productive. And that's why we're thinking about other ways that we can almost sort of teach students. Look, this is what a debate looks like. Let's set up some debates. Let's set up some opportunities.

But also what boggles me, and I'm not a person who went to Oxford, but I would imagine that is the history that is within the walls there. And yet it now has to be taught like reinventing the wheel. Oh, yeah. No, no. Let me reassure you. It is in the walls there. It's totally in the DNA and it's, you know, ever present. You get incidents like this that flare up. And again, the media sort of present it in a much bigger way than actually. But the media, they are reporting in a much bigger way than actually but the media they are reporting what the students are telling them yeah some students obviously you've got some

students absolutely 100 30 000 students here who have plenty of opportunity for debate and the very fact that the union is there you know and lays on the debates and you've got lots of other lectures going on and of course as i say to, when you're learning and your subject area, we're teaching you how to understand your subject from this view, that view, the other view, a real 360 degree view.

And then what's your view? What I try to explain to them is all you need to do is transfer that out then into some of these other topics in the world. And that's all you need to do. Yes, which, you know,

conjures up this fascinating scenario for me, which because these students are being taught to debate and discuss, as you say, like one of those students should be able to take Kathleen Stock's view and be able to debate it. But I think with a minority, as I think you're alluding to there out of all the students, they would never do that. They will not put themselves in those shoes. They refuse to wear the shoes, even think about wearing the shoes. And they have a right to. Again, that's their right to not want to engage if that's their particular point on it. But in that debate itself, you had a range of different people in the room who were asking her questions. So it wasn't as if students didn't turn up from a range of views and engage you know with her at that evening so that tells you that does happen and students are there willing to engage in debate and there's a few that just chose absolutely not to and you you have you know your view as to

whether they should or not and and uh and that's fair enough too but they also have a right not to engage if they chose to at this point in time. Now, the question is... Oh, which is meaning they could change their mind in the future. Indeed, indeed. Exactly, exactly right. Exactly right. And part of it is, you know, you might always hold that view, but, you know, learning that if you're going to really persuade people to understand more where you're coming from, and if you want to really win an argument, you've got to have the argument, you've got to have the discussion, the debate. And what are the ways that we can, all of us, because I see the media very much as educators too. I think you're nodding at me as you say that. Go ahead.

We all have a role to play. Well, you are educators, right? So, you know, in a different sort of way, but you are. And so how do we do this better? All of us, you know, we're obviously a big platform because we've got the pipeline of people coming through. And it's really, to be honest, a very positive thing when events like this happen because it brings it to the forefront and it allows us to have again I hope a calm and mature conversation about right guys how do we do this better how are we going to take some of these issues forward and evolve our thinking and do it in a way that is again respectful and courteous and that's some of the things we're going to sort of showcase a few um you know debates where we bring people in and we'll show how do you have

blazing disagreements about things. But you can do it without. I think you're talking about the toxicity, which we see. Exactly. Whether it's, you know, whether it's online or whether it's in the room or whether it's at a protest, etc. But I'd be curious, you know, I think you're saying that you can see a future without that. Do you think within the gender debate in particular, perhaps, which is, I suppose, a hot button issue at the moment, among others, do you see a real way out where everybody will be respectful of gender and sexual identity and how people perceive that,

whether it's even when it's on different sides of the aisle? I really hope so. I mean, I'm an optimist. You are an optimist. And I also think you can take other issues. You know, 20 years ago, we were having, you know, the debates around the lack of representation of women, right, in the workplace. Well, that continues. And that's exactly right. We've still got much work to do. But, you know, you take Oxford, you know, 42% of our departments are headed by women. You know, just a little while ago, that was 12 percent. You know, and you had to have those debates and arguments and win the persuasion.

You know, we've got work still to do around other forms of diversity. But, you know, you don't evolve societies by going into your silos and not discussing and debating with each other. This is how we evolve our thinking, because it's not as if we've all arrived with predetermined ideas and templates, you know, I'm still evolving. I'm 56. I'm still evolving my thinking on issues. And so again, it's how do we create the fora to have those, those really good conversations where you can go and reflect and move forward because that's how you evolve, you know, as a society.

So I'm an optimist. I'm confident that with more discussion and openness and willing to learn from, again, lived experiences of people coming from the trans community and other communities, that we can better understand each other and then decide how we're going to evolve, you know, our societies to respect and put in place whatever it is we want to put in place and decide how we're going to manage it. You talk about the 42% there in the world of academia. You're only the second woman to be vice-chancellor at Oxford. They have yet to have a female chancellor. Is it still a man's world? That's a great question. Well, you know, the data speaks for itself. 42%, you know, of our departments are headed by women.

Colleges are headed by women. It's getting there. The pipeline is coming through. We have a Helen Harty chance at the moment, Chris Patton, who does fantastic things for us. And we have women chances elsewhere. We've got now women heading at Claudine Gay the other day. She's the new incoming president to Harvard. Debbie Prentice has come over from Princeton. She's heading up Cambridge. She's going to be absolutely fantastic. You know, we've got eight of our 24 VCs in Russell Group, which is the research intensive universities, women. Now, eight out of 24 isn't enough, but there's more coming through. So again, there is a sort of leadership turnover, if you like, at the moment.

And you're seeing now with the pipeline there of women who are sort of in my era. And so I think you will see things shifting. But you've got to keep a constant watch on it. So the one thing I have observed is it's very easy when there has been progress, and I throw out those numbers for the listeners to say, oh, great, it's done. The gender thing's done. And I often will have to say, oh, no, no, no, no. The gender issue is not done.

It is far from done. There is still these problems with the gender pay gap. There's still this lack of representation on boards, even in the private sector, et cetera. So you've got to, it's up to us all, again, to be very mindful of just what the facts are so we can be very data rich in reminding people. It's great to have these forum for me to be able to in this job. And that's what I love about the job is I've got a platform,

which is just terrific, to be able to champion where I see gaps, particularly around things that I care about, which is the representation of particularly women in these places and other areas that are less represented thanks so much to my guest professor irene tracy vice chancellor of oxford university some of you got in touch about her ideas uh this is muriel she says in response to cancel culture i think there needs to be a standard against which speakers can be measured. This might be a UN Human Rights Convention or more simply do and say unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Another that says discriminating against no platforming and bullying those who speak their views or question those held by others is a threat to democracy, society and humanity. Personally, I have felt fear around expressing my views or publicly supporting those I agree with because of the potential threat in doing that.

I'm processing and working with this in my life at the moment. Also, what I wanted to read in response to Victoria, somebody says, just listening to the lady talking about hidden cameras that she found. My wife rented an Airbnb a couple of years ago and found hidden cameras in the bathroom with footage of her in the shower. Reported to the police, but nothing was done. It must happen more often than we think. Now, I don't have a response

from Airbnb on that, of course, but that's just a comment coming in from a listener. 84844 if you want to get in touch. Now, on the programme this week, we are exploring what it's like to be a woman living in India today.

We're looking at it through the lens of the economy, health and also leisure. Last month, India became the most populated country in the world, overtaking China. So it now has a population of over 1.4 billion. On yesterday's programme,

we were hearing about the decreasing number of women in the workforce. And you can listen back to that item on BBC Sounds. Tomorrow, we'll be speaking to a skateboarding pioneer. But today we look at health. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the world. In India, the majority of breast cancer cases are diagnosed in the later stages.

Between 2019 and 2021, less than 1% of women had undergone screening. There is a team of blind and partially sighted women who are trying to change the screening process by training to become medical tactile examiners, or you'll hear them referred to as MTEs. It involves using their hands to help detect cancer at its earliest stage. And let's speak to Shalini Khanna, Director of the NAB, the National Association of the Blind, India Centre for Blind Women and Disability Studies. They provide the training. Also, Lina Chagla, who's President of the Association of Breast Surgery and a consultant surgeon heading the breast services at St. Helens and Knowsley NHS Trust here in the UK. You're both so welcome. Fascinating topic. Shalini, let me start with you. First, why is that figure so low, that 1% I mentioned about women going to breast

screenings? Hi, good afternoon to all your listeners. So in India, India has been a very traditional country for a very long time. And I guess the women are not very comfortable with their own bodies till now. Mammography has been the only most popular instrument of breast cancer screening till now. And worldwide, not just India, mammography is not the most comfortable screening tool also. So I guess, unawareness, less education,

and unavailability in the rural sector for mammography has led to this kind of a pickup. Of course, that equipment is expensive. But let's talk about this initiative of blind and partially sighted women doing breast examinations. Explain it. explain it okay so uh this is a manual checkup and uh actually developed by dr frank hoffman in germany about 15 years back now uh where a lot of young women started coming to him asking him for uh you know what is the most feasible way to get breast checked for younger women because mammography is also available only to 45 and above years of age women and it's coming to very young women also these days so that's when

he tried to check himself under the shower wondering why do women most women in the world don't check themselves as regularly as they should. And that's when he realized that when you start checking yourself, you need to close your eyes after some time to focus on the innermost layer of the skin to figure out if there is some abnormality. And the next thing that came to his mind was why not approach the blind women who are by default focused with closed eyes so that's when he started in a blind school in Germany and then about five years back they approached us because yes in India being the most populated country in the world we have the largest number of women suffering from breast cancer and the largest number of women who are blind.

So I guess he thought this was the best fit. And what about that, though, a woman doing that examination? And I know there's been success, I believe, with early stage breast cancer as well. Talk to me about the interaction perhaps between that person, the patient and the woman who would be carrying out that exam. Absolutely. So this checkup is for about 35 to 40 minutes where the MTE, the blind MTE touches every inch of this woman's upper body and performs a little pressure test. And with that three-level pressure test of the finger and the expert tactile sense that the blind women have developed

over a number of years, she's able to figure out five-millimeter size of a lump, which is very, very small. It's the back of your pen or pencil. That's the first stage of breast cancer. Whereas if the doctors or mammography is relied upon, the size of the lump that is figured out by the self-examination is only 25 to 35 millimeter, which is a pretty later stage. And that later stage is responsible for all the complexities later on when it comes to breast cancer. Let me bring in Lina here. What do you make of it, the MTEs that we've been hearing about from Shalini? Hi, good morning, everyone. Firstly, could I just congratulate Shalini and her team in India

because she's giving an opportunity to blind women to help other women, which is great. It's just such a heartwarming thing to do. As regards in the UK, obviously, we have no experience of this. You were asking about doing this as a screening test now obviously in the UK we have a very well run national breast screening program where every woman above the age of 50 is invited once every three years for a mammogram and this we've got data for years and it is proven that it does save lives so when you talk about a screening program it's about examining healthy women. It's making sure it is something that will

save lives. It's not just about detection. We need to prove that it will save lives. So very interesting MTE. I think it's great for a country like India where cost is important. You've got so many blind women and you can actually reach out to rural India where there is no mammography set up. So I think it's great in a country like India. I'm not entirely sure that it would ever take over as a screening tool for the rest of the world because, you know, you talked about lumps, but with screening, we're actually picking up what we call DCIS, which is cancer in situ. This is non-invasive cancer.

So for laymen, it's probably described best as eggs of cancer. So cancer that hasn't hatched. So this is cancer that cannot walk. These are... Would this be, and this is totally my laywoman's terms, but, you know, I often hear about stage one or stage two, those cancer eggs you're talking about, would that be before that stage one? Yes, yes. So it would be what we call, eggs you're talking about, would that be before that stage one?

Yes. So it would be what we call, if you're talking about tumor size, we talk about T1, 2, 3, 4, this would be TIS. That's cancer in situ, which is at the egg stage, which once removed, it's because the beauty of catching it so early is they cannot spread. So they cannot go to the lymph nodes. It hasn't gone through the basement membrane. And almost about 20-25% of the cancers we pick up in the screening age group is DCIS, which nobody would be able to feel. So I don't think it would replace breast screening, but there could be a lot of other uses for MTE in the UK. For example, there are conditions like breast pain, which is not very commonly associated with cancer. In fact, only four in a thousand would have a cancer

compared to six to eight in a thousand in a screening population. And yet these people are worried, understandably, these people need to be reassured, they need to be examined, and they need not to have imaging according to the Royal College of Radiology guidelines. So they shouldn't be having mammograms, they shouldn't be having an ultrasound, and something like this would be really good for people like that.

And let me turn back to you again, Shalini, because back in India, my understanding as well is that there can be some embarrassment about, you know, getting undressed in certain clinical settings. And you believe with your team that some of that doesn't happen between the two women. Yeah, just incidentally, because the checking woman is blind. The embarrassment definitely goes away. It ensures your privacy, very interestingly, because she's not able to see you. She's not able to judge whether you are, you know, whatever you look like. So she just makes you comfortable with her chatting. So it's like while you chat on, we'll check you on. And the MTs are able to check every little centimetre of that woman's breast only when she's comfortable, because it's pressure we are talking about.

But yes, initially the reservation was about the women getting undressed. But slowly we have seen a huge increase in the number of women coming up to get checked because the checking women are blind and they're totally private. Shalini, just in our last 30 seconds, do you see Indian hospitals welcoming and doctors the results of what MTEs find? Absolutely. Now, after the COVID is over and the research study of India has been published in the European Journal of Medical Archives. We see a huge increase in the demand. In fact, right now we are sitting at the positive girls that we have.

A lot of hospitals and even Tata Cancer Institute, which is a very leading institute for cancer correction in India, is asking for more and more MTEs. We are hoping that this becomes a national program for preventive breast screening. It's so interesting. I want to thank both of you, Leena Chagla and also Shalini Khanna, who you are hearing there. And it is part of our series on India. We will be talking about skateboarding in India tomorrow, the woman who's inspiring girls across the country to take up the sport. Also, what are the odds, this is also tomorrow,

that you are going to succeed in life? Have you achieved everything you want? Oh my goodness. And is that ever available for most people in the first place? Well, Krupa Padi will be talking about social mobility with the economist and author,

Dr. Faiza Shaheen. But thanks very much for spending some of your time with Woman's Hour and we'll see you tomorrow. That's all for today's Woman's Hour. Join us again next time. At first he seemed perfect. Excuse me, do you need any help? Charming, thoughtful.

He made me feel as though I was the only person in the world. I've missed you so much. But slowly, without me even noticing, things changed. Please don't be angry with me. And I started to disappear. I don't recognise myself. Until... I had to make him stop!

So what does he want from me now? The Archers from BBC Radio 4. Subscribe now on BBC Sounds. 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.