Jane the Short Arse and Fi the Chunk of Calf
en
January 28, 2025
TLDR: Jane and Fi discus Jane's fridge flanges, jury duty, Alexa, pet grief, and Nectar cards, accompanied by guest Dame Alison Saunders who examines the justice system. 'Eight Months on Ghazzah Street' is the next book club pick.

In this engaging episode of Offair, hosts Jane and Fi tackle a variety of topics that range from personal anecdotes to serious discussions about the justice system in the UK. One standout segment features an insightful conversation with Dame Alison Saunders, a former Director of Public Prosecutions. Below, we break down the key themes and discussions from the episode.
Key Highlights
1. Personal Stories and Humorous Insights
- Everyday Anecdotes: Jane shares a humorous story about her dog and how she imagines a burglar would react to her absurd home life, providing levity and personal connection.
- Global Listener Engagement: The hosts discuss their international audience and share a funny misadventure in Europe that resonates with listeners who have similar experiences of travel mishaps.
- Technological Musings: The episode also ponders the ups and downs of modern technology, especially AI, with Jane expressing a desire to remain curious rather than resistant to change.
2. The Justice System Discussion
- Introduction of Dame Alison Saunders: The insightful conversation with Dame Alison highlights concerns regarding the efficacy of the justice system. She emphasizes the importance of jury trials and public confidence in legal proceedings.
- Role of Jury Trials: Dame Alison argues that juries provide a necessary cross-section of society, essential for the integrity of the judicial system. She supports the idea of jurors representing diverse backgrounds as a means of ensuring fair verdicts.
- Concerns about Bias: The discussion touches on the complications posed by social media and pre-trial publicity, questioning if jurors can maintain an impartial stance in high-profile cases.
- Judicial Support for Jurors: Jane and Fi ponder whether jurors can speak up if a case becomes too traumatic for them, revealing concerns about mental health support for jurors during especially difficult trials.
3. Coping with Loss and Grief
- Acknowledging Pet Grief: The hosts take a moment to address pet grief, resonating with listeners who may have experienced similar loss. They share personal stories of their pets' passing, emphasizing that grief from losing pets is just as valid as losing humans.
- Advice to Listeners: They encourage a listener to not underestimate emotional ties to pets and suggest that reaching out for another pet after a loss should consider the timing and mental readiness of the grieving person.
4. Community and Relationships
- Labels for Close Relationships: Fi and Jane explore the need for better terms to describe relationships that don’t fit traditional labels, especially those that reflect modern family dynamics and friendships.
- Listener Engagement: They invite listeners to consider and share thoughts on new labels for familial and platonic relationships, signifying the evolving nature of social connections in today’s society.
5. Book Club Announcement
- The episode concludes with the announcement of the book club’s next pick: "Eight Months on Ghazzah Street" by Hilary Mantel. This segment adds a literary touch and engages listeners to participate in shared reading experiences.
Valuable Takeaways
- Jury Duty Importance: The significance of jury trials and public participation in the legal system is crucial for maintaining societal trust in justice.
- Emotional Wellness: Acknowledging and validating grief, whether from pets or humans, enhances community support and understanding.
- Modern Relationships: The need for new terms to describe our complex relationships underlines the importance of evolving social connections in an ever-changing world.
- Engagement with Technology: Embracing technology with an open mind can positively influence day-to-day life, although it’s important to remain discerning about its impacts.
In summary, this episode of Offair covers a remarkable breadth of topics, blending humor with serious discussions, encouraging listeners to reflect on their attitudes toward technology, grief, and the justice system. Tune in to gain perspective on these current issues while enjoying the lighthearted banter between Jane and Fi.
Was this summary helpful?
If a burglar suddenly set to through an ajar door whilst I was diamond-grinding Nancy's claws on the sofa, they'd just turn round and leave. They'd be happy to leave all my stuff. They wouldn't want to get involved with that scene.
This episode of Offair is sponsored by Wild From Tears Travel. So, feet tell me, where's on your travel bucket list? Well, I would really like to go to much emptier places because I live in the heart of a beating city, so I think Mongolia.
Well, with wild frontiers travel, you'll see more with those who know the way. Want to go off the beaten track and away from all the tourist crowds? You got it. From wine tastings in Georgia to epic journeys along the Silk Road, wild frontiers provide unforgettable experiences in some of the most incredible places on Earth. What's more, with everything taken care of by the experts, you'll have the freedom to take it all in, and the freedom to never stop seeking.
So whether you want to travel solo or on one of their small group tours or with family or friends on a private tailor-made trip, you can visit wildfrontierstravel.com. What?
OK, great. Only my microphone is on. It's Tuesday, and this is Offair, and you're welcome to it. I can hear a lot of you. I can hear me now. That's much better. I was going to say welcome to all of our international listeners, James. We've had a very, very international email inbox. I had one from Belgium. I know. I mean, I haven't been to Belgium since I went to Belgium on my tour of Europe.
Or in Terrell. Very, very famous in Terrell. Jane went in training with a briefcase. Not a rutsack. She went to Brussels. She went to Zurich. And then I came home. She went to many taps, haven't I? We don't know why. Oh, nonsense, honestly.
I'm not a bad woman. Anyway, here we are. This time yesterday, neither of us had heard of deep-seek, and now we have. Now we are all over it. Oh, my God. Do you know what, Shane? The idea that the Chinese wouldn't look at things that were developed in the West, use their enormous brains and develop it cheaper and faster, and send it back to us. The idea that that wouldn't happen in any other area, given that it's happened in every other area of our lives, seems a little bit
arrogant of us? I think you might be onto something there. There's something about whether, I mean, you have to admire their timing. Have they done this deliberately, especially after that big, big, shimmery, shiny tech announcement in the States last week? And they must have been sitting there in Beijing, tituring away. You're right. So the one that went, we're investing $27 trillion in AI. Yeah. Yeah. Star something. And yeah, they were just laughing. Anyway.
This is not a story either of us pretend to be experts in, but I have never been more grateful for Chris Stoker Walker, who is our weekly correspondent on the radio show. Hear him, a quarter to four on a Wednesday on Times Radio in the afternoon. He's so clear and he makes it interesting. And actually, do you know what? Even if you don't find it interesting, can I just suggest you start finding it interesting? Oh, I find it fascinating.
I just genuinely, and I don't want to go into my older age with that kind of farm gate shut behind me. You know, everything about AI is bad. It wasn't like that in my day. It was much better when we didn't have this. It was much better. I just don't want to be that person because I just think our whole world will be operating with something under its skin, and there are good
So just so many good uses for it. If I'm looked after by an AI robot and it is nice to me and funny and reminds me of when to take my medication, make sure that I never miss an episode of Escape to the Sun, I will be grateful for that. It is better than nothing. Yes. Gosh, it is better than nothing. Yeah. So I don't want to be, I don't want to be all kind of away eyes terrible. I just don't think all of it is at all. I think it's run by some slightly old people.
Yes. Slightly odd. It's doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Right. But what do you feel about it? Because I think you are a more technophobic than I am. But also, you know, I've got that machine at home that now plays the radio for me. And you like it. And I don't dislike her at all. Although, I was talking the other day to a friend's mum.
at a birthday party actually and she was saying that for many, many years her life had passed without incident until she found in her ninth decade that she shares the name of that machine and since then life has become more complicated for her which you can imagine it would. It's a lovely name and it was rather unusual and people used to compliment her on having it and now it's just become
Not a burden, but a trial at times. Yeah. You could just get a different one, though, couldn't you? Because we don't have an Alexa. She doesn't shout Google. She doesn't have one, but she visits other homes where people have them, and then all havoc breaks loose.
But back to the more technophobic thing. Yeah. Do you actively challenge your mindset about technology? Because there just is so much more of it around in our daily lives than ever before. Yeah. You and I don't come from a place where our natural A plus B equals C is a digital equation. It's an analog thing all the time. So I think from my age upwards, mid 50s,
I think it can seem like every single thing that you do, you now have to understand a digital alternative, whereas people younger than us don't have that mindset. But it's just a fact, isn't it? It is. And I'm not one of these. I don't want to turn into one of these people who's nostalgic for a time when people add rickets. It's just ridiculous. And when people can get access to information,
Yeah. Well, as long as they're getting access to a decent standard of information, I suppose that's the worry. Which reminds me, our guest today is a former director of public prosecutions. We do like to offer a variety on this podcast and indeed on our radio show, because we're talking about jury trials. And we were talking about jury trials, really, because we were having conversations in the office last week about that awful case in Southport, which is, you know, it's just utterly unbearable.
But as it happened, that didn't go to trial in the end because the man responsible pleaded guilty, but had it gone to trial, what kind of a jury could have been assembled, who would have honestly not known a great deal about the case beforehand, or wouldn't have thought they knew all about it beforehand.
And you haven't been on a jury, have you? No, so I've passed it twice. I've been asked twice and both times I've been excused from it. The first time I was doing my journalist training course and genuinely, if I'd missed, it was only an eight-week training course, can you tell?
You know, the big week would have been such a big difference. If it had been a long trial, I would have missed my training. So they agreed that then. And then I just said, you know, I'm freelance and I can't afford it. I think I'd just gone back to work after having one of my kids and it genuinely would have been quite difficult to sort that out. So they've excused me. But you do get a letter saying, we're coming back for you.
You've just postponed it. But you've done an inquest, haven't you, but not a full trial? Yes, I did an inquest jury, but honestly, it was in 1983 and I was barely eligible. I think I was just 19. It was the University holidays. I wasn't exactly overburdened, so I was more than happy to go along. It was only for a day.
Oh, I see, gosh. That's it. Yeah. And I... Yes, I haven't actually ever met anybody who's been on an inquest. I mean, must happen. But since then, nothing. And I'm slightly of the view that... I mean, obviously, in my retirement, which don't worry, it's coming when it's got to be within the next 15 years, I'll be very available. The countdown clocks on.
But actually, you can't do it over the age of, is it 70? Would you mind checking, Eve? I think it's over 70 that you become ineligible for jury service. But I've got a bit of a hankering to do it, if I'm honest. Does that mean actually that I'm not the right person to do it? But also, can you volunteer to be on a list? Can you say I'm actually quite available, you know, picnic? Oh, can you opt in? Yeah. I'm not sure that you can.
But also, we are fascinated by what you can and can't say from the jury rooms. So we know that you would be able to talk about what the court has heard, because that's what the reporting allowance is in court anyway, isn't it? Anything that the court has told or shown the public are allowed to know about if the jury is in the room.
But yes, but what are the rules about the jury room? If you anonymise yourself, if you anonymise the accused, if you anonymise victims, are you able to talk about it? And also, I mean, Jane and I was saying this earlier, the reality is that some people are gossips and really want to tell everybody detailed information, and some people aren't. And juries would be
six or one half a dozen of the other. So what have you told people and how do you feel? And also I'm very interested by the market might leave on some people. Think if you're very young or for whatever reason actually you just find it difficult to take on board
incredibly violent imagery and scenes and really dark details. I think that's most people. What are you meant to do with all of that stuff afterwards? Just for a fascinating topic. I do remember everybody. If anyone else can remember that ridiculous TV show, Judge John Deed. It's nothing like that. I never watched that. Is that Martin? Martin Shaw. I mean, he used to regularly leap over his into the courtroom and start investigating cases whilst he was simultaneously judging them. What a showoff.
It's just ridiculous if he is a man who thought he could do everything. What about Judge Judy? Judge Judy is different. That's completely accurate. Now, look, I think we probably both want to say a big warm audio hug to a listener called Belinda, who just wants to tell us that her cat died. Oh, yes. And I just wondered, let's just read this, because it will resonate. My cat died today. She was a rescue who I met during lockdown as a result of the cat protection leagues.
pioneering a virtual rehoming via WhatsApp. So I met her on a video call. She was delivered to my doorstep. I live alone and I just returned to full-time, face-to-face work after months of treatment for breast cancer when lockdown happened and all our lives went on hold.
I took it very personally, having already been locked in my house for the best part of seven months of treatment. My little cat was a bit cranky and broken, I suppose a bit like me, but I loved her and I think she loved me back. We rescued each other during that difficult time. She came to me with health issues. Today, these overtook her, so we had to say goodbye. I'm heartbroken. Is that too much? She was just a cat.
Oh, no, no, no. She wasn't, though, was she? No. Belinda, she was much more than that. She was your pet. She was a presence in your home. She was part of the fabric of the place. So, look, I know that cats are only cats. But in that moment, and during these couple of days and weeks, she'd be much more than that to you, and I'm really sorry.
See, I would take out just and only for most sentences. Well, I suppose, yeah. Because I think it comes from the same place, Jane, as other human grief. I think when you lose a creature that you love, it's tapping into exactly the same stuff. And we've talked about this before because you lost your temporary remember and name. Listen, Fi.
I've got pictures of her all over the house. Poor Mittens. Mittens. Sorry. It's only now... How could I put it? As I said before, it's only now that I've got Dora that I realised what a legendary Catholic was. But when you lost Mittens, you were very... Oh, it was awful. It was awful. Well, I honestly think back to the simple dignity of that animal in our last couple of days. So we won't accept your just a cat. You're absolutely entitled to feel
a very, very high level of grief. And especially if you saw something of yourself in a cat, that's such a bond. Oh, Belinde, you've had a rotten time. Yeah. And just acknowledge it. And don't be hard on yourself. And, I mean, obviously, it's too soon at the moment. But if I were you, I'd get on to the cat's protection league in the next couple of months when you feel a bit better about everything. How long do you think you have to leave it before you get another animal? I don't know. I think... Does it differ depending on the animal? I don't know. I left it a year between cats.
Yeah, I think that's probably a good enough time. You definitely, I think people are very quick to say, oh, you know, just get another one. But then I just think that you'd be a bit angry that they weren't your old one. I know that when, you know, when Nancy goes, actually, I sometimes think that might be it. There'll never be another Nancy.
Anyway, she's fine for now. Well, you've had a complimentary email about the device that you recommended. You got that one. So I love the title of this email apart from anything else, because I think it's called Grind Baby Grind. Yes, I was horrified by that and wondered what it was about. I didn't have any need to worry. Lynn says thank you for the recommendation of the nail grinder used for Nancy. I, too, have a Greyhound Sid. Do you see what's happened there?
I have a great hand. Cid and Nancy. Oh, yeah. They should get together. Or should they? Well, no, I think it wasn't a great combination. No, it really wasn't. Who loves it, can't believe how easy it is and how strangely calming it is for us both. So I agree, Lynne. I mean, it takes Nancy to a place that she didn't know existed once the nail grinder is grinding. And it is the oddest thing I do think if a burglar suddenly set to through, you know,
and a charred door whilst I was diamond-grinding Nancy's claws on the sofa. They'd just turn round and leave. They'd be happy to leave all my stuff. They wouldn't want to get involved with that scene.
Well, if that's what's making you feel safer in your own home, I'm glad. But you would go, what the actual... What's happening here? Bye! Large but clearly zoned out, extraordinarily satisfied greyhound.
and a woman anyway. Right. Look, life, let's weave our rich tapestry. If you've got any gadgets, you can recommend it. No, don't do that. No, not those kind. And if anyone can answer my question, why is my fridge now making a slightly annoying, groaning noise intermittently? Please let me know. I'm not prepared to Google it, because I fear the answer might be, you need to get a new fridge. I don't know. I think you might have a loose flange. Oh, really?
Do you want to do Jack's greetings from Denmark? No, you do it. OK. So, Jack, can you also get back in touch? Cos we did ask for our Danish correspondence to inform us about how Denmark would feel if President Trump 2.0 just took Greenland.
On the topic of sex education and sexuality, I'm a gay guy who had sex education in school in the mid to late noughties, and I don't remember the concept of same sex attraction or relationships ever being mentioned. And trust me, little me would definitely have remembered that. This is of course disappointing, but not all that surprising, given that homosexuality had only been fully decriminalised in 2001, and Section 28, which effectively banned teaching around homosexuality,
was only removed across the UK in 2003. I distinctly remember as a 10 or 11-year-old being ushered into gender-divided classrooms with the excitement of the sex talk fizzing around the assembled group of boys like a firework. The trusty old TV trolley was dragged into the room and a kindly female voiceover told our feverishly expectant ears that when a boy sees a girl that he likes, his penis grows, and this is a nice feeling.
Sorry, but... OK. This was helpfully demonstrated by a naked cartoon boy feeling the full-on effect of a passing pretty girl. Gosh, I mean, that's quite graphic, actually. We've definitely gone beyond carrots and condoms here. The TV trolley, though, that does bring back memories, doesn't it? Younger people won't understand the thrill of the TV trolley entering a classroom. They won't. But you might say you still see them in hospitals sometimes, or in offices where they haven't upgraded yet.
But look, this is, I mean, you've made a leap, Jack, because at least there are some feelings being talked about. So I think, you know, for most of us who are slightly older, the sex education talk, it was just so clinical. Oh, my God. And biological feelings. And it wasn't about emotions. And it wasn't, nobody mentioned the fact you might actually like a boy, and that might change, you know, how your body reacted, although admittedly we don't know whether or not female feelings.
were being talked about in the next door classroom. Jack goes on to say, now, what this animation added to our understanding, I don't know, little boys are usually all too aware of their own willies, but the idea that a boy might feel the same way about another boy was certainly never mentioned. And Jack goes on to say, I know that all this has changed for the better now, despite the perverted woke nonsense claims from a source of commentary twats in newspapers and on TV. I'm liking Jack's use of language here, Jane.
Modern PHSE lessons offer cover a broad range of topics from differing sexualities and gender identities to pornography, consent and even masturbation. When I was at school, the idea that a girl would masturbate was derided and joked about with shameful disgust, yet it turns out that everybody was at it and good on them.
I think Jack says, by the way, January's nearly over, thank F for that. My dry January got a little damp this evening, but I'm counting it as a success, nonetheless. Well done, you Jack. I think you've done well. So I think all of that is really interesting, but also, I mean, it's only back in the noughties, it's really not...
It's not very far away that, and to just have had absolutely no recognition of homosexuality is poor, but maybe that's just with the benefit of hindsight. We think that we're also much more advanced, but we weren't back then.
I mean, it would have been at the height of the other messaging that was going on, which was around AIDS and, you know, wearing condoms. So there were two very big things going on in the big wide world outside. So just odd for it not to have filtered into the classroom at all.
Interesting. I mean, I do let us know if you're gay or if you're not, whatever you are, when you first had your sexuality acknowledged in these lessons at school, because I'm with Fi, we didn't talk about any kind of feelings, it was just the fun tree biological. Nobody talked about being gay, I mean, all girls school with 600 girls in it, and nobody ever talked about being gay.
And it's just not going to be a truth that we're all heterosexual. No, I mean, yeah, exactly. And I don't think, well, masturbation, I think Katlyn Moran invented it for women, didn't she? She did, very much. It hadn't actually been thought of by anybody else. Richard is in Brussels.
And he says, dear Phian Jane, as a cisgender gay man, I have to start the email with sorry. Actually, I don't know whether strictly speaking. We do require sorry, do we from Richard? No. I like a sorry. OK, let's carry on with it. Just a couple of words about the health system here in Belgium. As an official of the European Commission, you see, all sorts of people listen to this show. I am sorry, podcast. I am not covered by any Belgian health insurance, so I pay everything up front, and then I claim it back.
However, I do use the same system as everyone else. So we all have an ID card with a chip on it and you give that to the doctor. As a result, all of your health records, prescriptions and everything else are linked to your ID card and you can get your prescription filled at the chemist just by giving them your card. It's very clever.
That's quite advanced there, Jane. Yeah, well, that's the Belgians for you. But with that and their chocolate, they are winning at life. You can also send your prescription to a chemist via one of the government's apps. I can see any doctor I want and I book online. So today I saw a doctor for my annual medical checkup and said and paid at €55. He said I should see a cardiologist, so I went to the Doctor Anytime app.
found a cardiologist close to my office and booked an appointment for the day and time I wanted. You see, there's no point being allowed out when you can have something called a doctor anytime app. Yes, so this is why we all need to embrace our technology and we need to really clap-wares treating every time that he announces a new piece of AI or whatever.
Well, he does say, Richard, that his parents were staying with him last week and his mom fell over and thought she'd broken her arm. And they all spent eight hours in the A&E of a private hospital. And when she was discharged, we got a bill for 110 euros. So, but even so, she was seen. But I love, I mean, that whole business of just your ID card and the chip and that's, that does sound very slick.
Yeah. And if Nectar can do it, then hopefully the NHS can... Nectar. But it's true, isn't it? You can connect your Nectar card to all kinds of things, Jane. It's like the world is sometimes operated by my Nectar card. Really? What do you get with your Nectar? Well, it's always asking me when I... If I buy something from Argos, I can connect myself. And obviously in Sainsbury's I'm connecting myself. If I book flights with a certain...
airline connected, just connected all over the place by an actor. But you know what I really like and this is happening in this country is the squeezing of that link in the medical hierarchy and chain. So you're not going to have to wait for your GP to write a letter of referral to a consultant. You can do it yourself. Yep. You know, to then get seen or the consultant sees you and then you get to go to radiology or whatever.
I think that narrowing is probably going to help an awful lot of people and just speed up the process. And then when the consultant is writing back, this broadcaster of a certain age, and always weird things, they say, this whiz-and-old baggage, they do that, isn't it? It's a adorable broadcaster. Nobody's ever said that. Well, I'm sure they have.
Stop it. Once more with feeling a talk. Catherine is 32 and is in Northumberland. She says she's never watched Feara, but you talk about it so much it makes me wonder if maybe I should. You should start at the beginning and thoroughly into it. Yeah, you will. She just wanted to say how refreshing it was that was her view to hear an interview with somebody from the Church of England.
who actually seems to believe in God and demonstrates the love of Jesus. I thought Rose Hudson Wilkin was an example of kindness, grace and compassion. So often I find that vickers and bishops portray a whimsical, gimmicky type of Christianity, but never actually talk about the gospel and how it can be a force for good. Well, Catherine, thank you. I mean, we don't do a lot of religion on the podcast or the radio show, but we're both interested in talking to people who are, what would you, exemplars of their faith?
Does that make sense? Oh, yes. And people who really have faith in you and conduct themselves accordingly. Yeah. And so it kind of radiates out to them. And, you know, they're often the warmest people you'll ever meet. And obviously Rose has that about her.
It's such a good point to make, because sometimes, I mean, if you only view the religious leaders of this country through the prism of the news, it's very bad. It's terrible. Well, that's not a club I'm going to join. Gemma says, I'm catching up with your lovely pod, so maybe somebody has brought this up already, and actually a couple of correspondence had to, but we hadn't responded to them.
I really have to ask about the discussion about getting your teenagers to do their own washing. Whenever I hear people say this, I just always wonder how it actually works in a household. Does everyone just do lots of little loads on their own? This seems really inefficient. I struggle to get a full light load at the best of times. It would be interesting to know if people think this is worthwhile. Let's deal with that immediately on the spot, Gemma. I'm being a little bit forgiving of whether or not we are energy efficient on our washes.
whilst my teenagers grapple with learning about synthetics versus cottons and economy washes and all of that type of stuff. Can I just make a confession? Yeah, I just use the same thing on my washing machine. It was just about, say, there were about 15 different wash cycles on mine, and I've instructed the kids to use two of them.
Yeah, exactly. One is for whites. One of them is for non-whites. And then they press the quick button. I don't think any wash needs to go on for three hours, 37 minutes, Jane. Well, no, no. But the quick wash, in my experience, on my machine, can leave you with a very damp pile of washing. It's very difficult to try. Good Lord, I think all of your flanges need a bit of looking at it. There shouldn't be any difference, should there?
Well, I've noticed a different extraordinary, maybe a handy person could be in touch with us to sort that out. So, Gemma, it's not really the same standard of washing that we're going in on. So, you know, sometimes there isn't a full load of washing, but I think just in those early stages, you know, we've got the stabilisers on.
And then we'll take the stabilisers off. Until they can go delicate. They can go woolens and silk. But at the moment, no. Synthetics, cotton, quick. Press the button off we get. I mean, realistically, you're light years away from delicate and heavy-soiling, aren't you?
But, you know, enjoy. You'll get there. Thank you. Gemma goes on to say, this is a really interesting thing. We're asking for new topics to shove into the podcast. And actually lots of people want to talk about retirement, so we will do that. People just want me to retire. It's not that...
I think people are just... I think a lot of people are really enjoying their retirement, so they want to... they want to tell you and through you, through the prism of James Susan Garvey, other people. BA, please don't miss that. That retirement can be a happy place. So we'll set sail on that this week or next week, but a quick one from Gemma. My best friend and I had our babies very close together, and they've grown up pretty much as siblings with each girl close to the other mother also.
And her new topic is people's thoughts on names and labels for people you are close to, but not related to. So Gemma goes on to say, when we're out together and I have to introduce the setup, I always feel a bit put out. My friend's daughter seems a bit poor to describe someone I've been close to since the day she was born and who I love and care deeply about.
And two, if my friend and I were otherwise inclined, would be my god-daughter. I've nicknamed her my non-negotiable between my friend and I, and I quite like this, but it seems a shame not to acknowledge it more. I'd like to know what you both think. Well, I think it's a cracking topic to throw out there. And I think you're right. I think we haven't got enough names and labels for different types of relationships and friendships.
Yes, there was something I read this morning about old Scottish nicknames on, I think, the Isle of Skye dying out. Apparently, I think, forgive me if I've got this wrong and I've picked the wrong island, but it would be a place where there were lots of family names that were shared because the population was relatively small. So as a way of distinguishing between folk, it was better to call somebody John the Redhead or, you know, Doris with the squint.
No offence. You know what I mean? Yeah. That doesn't really help. I'm just lobbing that into the conversation. Oh, OK. But they didn't have any kind of specialist words for relationships that were neither just this is my daughter or this is my friend. They just had nicknames that seemed at times slightly verge on the crawl and were always linked to physical appearance. Oh, for example, I'd be Jane the short-ass if it was me.
But back to that. People do have God children still, don't they? Yes. And that's clearly, well, pretty clearly well understood, isn't it, as a concept? But yes, you're right, because there will be people who are very much a part of your life who may be living your street but are far, far more than a neighbour. But you can just call them a friend, so that's OK, isn't it?
Yeah. But what about someone who's almost a part of your family as in this situation, but to whom you are not related? Yeah. And also, I think we don't have enough terms for, because there are so many versions of a blended family. Now, I'm not sure that you always want to describe somebody as your stepmother or stepfather, stepson, stepbrother. I think they're... And I'd be interested, because I'm sure people have come up with much better expressions than that.
Apart from anything else, putting step in front of something is a widening of a gap in a family, not a narrowing as one. It has so many connotations, none of them are good. I'm sure that people have found better ways of describing those, what can be incredibly fulfilling, close, loving relationships. So bring it on.
In information us? Yes, please do. Now, Eva's getting... She's signalled, so authoritative. I'm giving her a side eye now. She sat up in her chair, and that's because I'm about to record an interview about economics. So, can't you? You're not need a bit more of a run-up?
Now over the last week or so for obvious reasons really when you think about the stories that have been dominating the headlines we've been talking just in the office really about juries and about who's been on a jury whether we think jury trials have a future in the age of social media because juries are meant to make their minds up based entirely.
on what comes before them in that courtroom. They are not supposed to search for more information about the case unfolding. However, is that realistic? And loads of countries in the world manage perfectly well without jury trials. We thought we'd ask someone who knows all about this, a former director of public prosecutions, Dame Allison Saunders. Dame Allison, good afternoon to you.
Afternoon. Can you tell us, I believe you are a firm fan of the jury trial. Why? Why am I a firm fan? I think it's because I've seen it in
practice over a number of years. So, I mean, my career is over the last sort of, well, probably 40 years now, far too long. But I've seen juries in action. I've seen them ask questions, which indicate that they're thinking about the case. They've understood the issues in the case.
they want to know and are asking really pertinent questions that go to their decision. And I've seen them come back with verdicts where once you have heard the evidence, and that's what they do, they listen to the evidence, they see the evidence being tested before them, and they come back with verdicts that make you think, okay, they've really listened to this, they've understood the issues, and they have dealt with the case appropriately. I think they also, if you look at why we have juries,
There's a big public confidence issue, I think, having juries rather than just judges who decide on and verdicts. And in those jurisdictions where they tend not to have juries, it's
It's in jurisdictions where they have inquisitorial systems and we have an Accusatorial system. So I think it's even more important in an Accusatorial system where you have the defence and the prosecution presenting their cases and the jury has to decide between them. It's really important to have those independent members of the public who are able to sort of
come to a conclusion having looks at all of that and heard the evidence and heard it being tested. OK, I would imagine that juries are intended to be a representative cross-section of the local population. Are they? Because lots of people get out of jury service, some for good reasons, caring responsibilities because they're freelance, but some just game the system a little bit. What do you think?
I think it's quite difficult to gain the system. I'm sure some people might try, but it is quite difficult to gain it because it's all randomly selected. It's done by computers centrally. And you have to come up with some pretty good reasons. And I've seen judges in cases where, particularly where there's been a long trial that's gone on for more than a month or so, where jurors have come up with really good reasons for not being able to do it. They are
teachers, for example, in particularly, you know, special needs teachers who can't be replaced, for example, or people who run their own businesses. But I've also seen judges say no to people and say no, it's your civic duty, you've got to make arrangements, you've got to sit on the jury. So I think it's actually really hard to game the system. You can't just write a note and say, I don't fancy being a jury member, or I can't do it because I've got a holiday or whatever.
Most of the time you're called, you've got to go to court, and if you're called for a particular trial, it will be up to the judge whether he or she allows you to not take part in the trial. Right. Now, what happened in Southport is still very much in all our minds, I think. In the end, the man responsible pleaded guilty, so the trial didn't happen. But would it honestly have been possible for a jury to approach that terrible case?
with a completely open mind. I think this is a really sort of difficult issue and I think it's one that probably becomes more acute because of the way in which we get our news, because of the way in which things are put up on the internet and stay there to some extent. So I remember doing some trials where there had been a massive amount of publicity, lots of speculation,
But the trial had been sort of a couple of years later or a year or so later. And there were arguments around whether it was an abusive process because of the amount of speculation and press coverage of it right at the very beginning. And in those cases, the judges have traditionally said, well, there's been a period of time. It's been sort of 12 months or more. Juries will forget all about what happened there. And they're here to listen to the evidence before them. I think that's more difficult as we have
you know the internet and everything seems to stay there forever and it's difficult sometimes to sort of work out what's true what's not so true but i do think it can be dealt with by judges being very which they are very astute to adverse publicity or things on the internet and giving those warnings to jurors
And indeed, there have been cases where jurors have been caught out doing unauthorized research, which as you rightly said, they're not supposed to do. And either going off the jury or indeed in extreme cases, being penalised themselves, because technically it's a contempt of court or they may commit an criminal offence themselves. So if those warnings are given to jurors, I know it is tempting and lots of people will be tempted to look.
on the internet for things, but I think there are ways that you can protect the integrity of the trial by doing that.
If the case had gone ahead and so much evidence had been revealed in court, some of the stuff that we have subsequently learned about, is there ever a case out of some where a juror is entitled to say, I'm finding this incredibly difficult, I'm not sure that my clarity of thought is going to be able to withstand the kind of evidence that I'm being asked to consider?
I mean, jurors do have, they have a jury sort of usher who sort of assigned to look after them. And they're encouraged certainly there if there are any sort of concerns to raise them with the judge. And that will be done in private, it won't be done in the sort of full public layer of the court. So all they can send a note to the judge and say, I have to say, I've never come across it and I've dealt with some really
awful trials where the evidence has been particularly difficult and I certainly know of at least one trial that I did where afterwards the jury were sort of offered counselling to sort of help them because of the nature of the evidence that they'd heard. But I've never yet come across a juror who said
you know I'm finding this really difficult I can't sort of sort of get that clarity of thought and of course that's partly what the jury deliberations are about because once you're sort of into the process of sort of deliberating they will be in their room just them and we'll be able to talk about it and so
That's part of the jury deliberation is to sort of discuss the case, discuss the evidence. Some people will have very different views of it at the beginning, and it's about coming to a conclusion as a jury. Hopefully 12 members, so you have that sort of unanimous verdict, but it could be a majority one.
But that I think in itself probably helps the clarity of thought. Does that surprise you, Alison? Because obviously you've chosen to do what you do and the people who are involved with the legal process have made that choice about their careers. But if you're a juror called up for your civic duty and actually you do end up witnessing such a dark side of life, I don't know, are you entitled to kind of go to what? That's just too much for me.
Well, I think it's a, I do think it is, and I do believe it's a civic, you know, we all want to have a society where the rule of law is key, where we can feel safe, we can feel secure. And it matters to all of us that
we have a functioning criminal justice system and I think if it's a civic duty that we should, there are very few things that we oblige citizens to do. But I think if a civic duty is that you take part as a sort of member of a jury and you listen to a case and you come to a conclusion with your
other jurors, so it's never just one person on their own, then I think that is fair enough. And I think there's lots of support and help that jurors can get during the process, which I think will really sort of make it as easy as possible. And of course, the majority of the cases are not like the Southport case. You know, that's the reassuring thing is that
You know, the majority of cases that people will get called up to do for jury duty is might be sort of theft or fraud or assaults. And the one thing going back to the point about not having clarity, the point there is that it's encumbered upon the court and the prosecutor and the defense advocates to make it clear what the case is about.
Because if you can't make the case clear, how is anyone going to understand it? How do members of the public understand it? How does the defendant understand it? So that's been a real sort of shift, I think, over the last at least 20 odd years, is that trials have got shorter and everyone has developed a better way of making clear what the criminality, alleged criminality is and what the evidence is.
The job of Director of Public Prosecutions, I think most people would agree, was probably a hiding to nothing. And the CPS has had a lot of criticism lately in the wake of what happened in Southport. And what do you make of the suggestion that you or the CPS, actually, because I know you're no longer involved, but the CPS created what some people have called an information vacuum after what happened in a way facilitating the environment that led to those riots. What do you think about that?
I think it is really hard and I can see where the sort of criticism comes from, but I think it's, you know, as the prosecutor, you have to make sure that the trial is fair. And the worst thing that could possibly happen is that you say anything as a prosecutor, which causes a trial to be derailed. And at that early investigative stage, it's really difficult to know possibly what might derail the trial or to know what's true.
And what wouldn't derail the trial? So you err on the side of caution because you want to be fair to everyone in the case. That's the victims, the families, the public and the defendants. So I think it is really difficult to know exactly what you can say. And this has been one of the tensions that I think has grown particularly with social media because social media is so immediate.
and things are out there before you can even sort of think about it almost and certainly before investigators and prosecutors have had time to sort of analyze things and decide whether or not this is something that's going to be an important part of the trial or not or is going to be a disputed part of the trial or not. So I do think this is going to be something that will occur again and is something that certainly, you know, it
the CPS now or I'm sure be thinking about and thinking how they can deal with this. Yeah and when we attempt as a society to combat extremism I mean this is so difficult now the idea that there should be a focus on quotes concerning behaviours rather than ideologies that we may at least be
somewhat dimly aware of, but at least we're aware of the ideologies. How on earth do we go about this? This is trying to nail jelly to a wall, isn't it? So I think the sort of, you know, the response that the government made today to that report I think is probably the most sensible one. And it is really difficult. I mean, it's difficult enough as it is and you don't want to go into a sort of thought police environment. So it is about behaviours
And about where they go. So, and, you know, sometimes behaviors are just inexplicable. You know, nobody can understand it. Nobody understands why people do things sometimes.
Thank you very much. I think we'll probably leave it there because it seems like a good point to leave it. But interesting stuff. Thank you very much indeed for your time. Sometimes, Alison is right. Surely it is just inexplicable. We'll never understand. Dame Alison Saunders, who was the Director of Public Prosecutions. And do let us know what you think. The email address is janeofy at times.radio.
And we'll also take all of your thoughts about what you're doing in retirement. We're always keen to hear about other National Health Services. And that's it from Jane the Shortass and lead the chunk of cough. Goodbye.
Congratulations, you've staggered somehow to the end of another Off-Air with Jane and Fi. Thank you. If you'd like to hear us do this live, and we do do it live, every day, Monday to Thursday, two till four, on Times Radio. The jeopardy is off the scale. And if you listen to this, you'll understand exactly why that's the case. So you can get the radio online, on DAB, or on the free Times Radio app.
Offer is produced by Eve Salisbury and the executive producer is Rosie Cutler.
Was this transcript helpful?
Recent Episodes
Welcome to the middle-aged women's world!

Off Air... with Jane and Fi
This episode goes everywhere—from low-grade spuddage and go-to bras to holiday riff-raff, frivolous TV, and rainbow lasagnes. Enjoy! Plus, the voice of Come Dine with Me, Dave Lamb, joins us to celebrate 20 years of the show. There won’t be a podcast episode tomorrow as Jane and Fi are off for their Barbican show. The next book club pick has been announced! 'Eight Months on Ghazzah Street' is by Hilary Mantel. If you want to contact the show to ask a question and get involved in the conversation then please email us: janeandfi@times.radioFollow us on Instagram! @janeandfiPodcast Producer: Eve SalusburyExecutive Producer: Rosie Cutler Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
February 03, 2025
Happy and (probably) lovely people (with Kate Mosse)

Off Air... with Jane and Fi
Jane and Fi discuss leg warmers, Fame, cleaning-porn, tiny feet; author Kate Mosse talks about 20 years of her best seller 'Labyrinth' and upcoming tour; next book club pick is 'Eight Months on Ghazzah Street' by Hilary Mantel.
January 30, 2025
Tax-dodging alpacas (with Nisha Katona)

Off Air... with Jane and Fi
Jane and Fi discuss socks for Americans, fallen women with fallen arches, family experiences, and Nisha Katona’s new cooking show on their maritime podcast. Also announced is their next book club pick 'Eight Months on Ghazzah Street' by Hilary Mantel.
January 29, 2025
Can I interest you in a sample of my melon balls? (with Tom Parker-Bowles and Henry Jeffreys)

Off Air... with Jane and Fi
'Jame' shares executive orders and discussion on fantasy fiction, bodily parts, cold meats, food history, wine, and the next book club pick 'Eight Months on Ghazzah Street'. Listeners can email in to join the conversation.
January 27, 2025

Ask this episodeAI Anything

Hi! You're chatting with Off Air... with Jane and Fi AI.
I can answer your questions from this episode and play episode clips relevant to your question.
You can ask a direct question or get started with below questions -
What was the main topic of the podcast episode?
Summarise the key points discussed in the episode?
Were there any notable quotes or insights from the speakers?
Which popular books were mentioned in this episode?
Were there any points particularly controversial or thought-provoking discussed in the episode?
Were any current events or trending topics addressed in the episode?
Sign In to save message history