hello. it's wednesday. it's 10 o'clock. i'm victoria derbyshire. relatives of knife crime victims are holding a demonstration in london today to call for more government action on knife crime. today to get an insight into why some teenagers carry knives. we hearfrom them. i had never, ever carried that knife out or pulled it out to hurt somebody, or hurt somebody innocent. i never pulled it out at all, you understand that? until i was caught with it. the only intension i had was, if i ever saw the person who threatened me, and they came to me again, i would use it to defend myself. i would not run up to him with it if i saw him with it.

also, we can exclusively reveal a family who escaped the grenfell tower fire almost two years ago have been told that they will no longer be prioritised for a permanent home under the original survivors programme and have instead been put on the council house waiting list. mahad egal says he's shocked, and describes kensington and chelsea's treatment of him as "shameful." and a woman who tried to raffle off her scottish castle but ended up handing out a cash prize instead has been told by the advertising watchdog she carried out the competition "unfairly". we will bring you the story. hello. welcome to the programme. we're live until 11 this morning. we'll bring you our exclusive story on the fact that one grenfell family has now been told to join the council house waiting list in order to get a permanent home. kensington and chelsea borough council say there is still a dedicated housing officer looking after grenfell victims . they had just called us in the last half an hour or so, and they

say mahad egal and his family have been put to the top of the general housing waiting list. but back in november 2017, the council said it was committed to rehousing all survivors within 12 months. tim forrest has tweeted this: and this from jp. and one more from bill. and this from chinonsoak.

we'll bring you the story ataround 10:20am. first, rebecca jones has the news. french president emmanuel macron says notre dame cathedral will be rebuilt "even more beautifully" and that he wants the work done in time for the paris 0lympics in 2024. but some architects warn his plans are too optimistic. firefighters have been praised for risking their lives to save notre dame cathedral, as it's revealed the historic building came within minutes of being completely destroyed. translation: and, yes, we will rebuild the notre dame cathedral and it will be more beautiful than before and it will be done in five yea rs. universities are being accused of using "gagging orders" to stop bullying, discrimination and sexual misconduct allegations becoming public. dozens of academics have told the bbc they were "harassed" out of theirjobs and made to sign non—disclosure agreements after making complaints.

figures show uk universities have spent at least £87 million on payoffs since 2017. the metropolitan police say they've now arrested nearly 300 people involved in climate change protests in london. the demonstrations have led to road closures, trafficjams and disruption to bus services, affecting more than 500,000 commuters. the new west end company, which represents traders in oxford street, regent street and bond street, claims the protests have cost the west end £12 million since monday. a surprise court ruling has revived the possibility of a £14 billion lawsuit against the credit card firm mastercard. the court of appeal in london has ruled the competition appeal tribunal must reconsider the class action against the firm which it threw out two years ago. the claim alleges 46 million people paid higher prices in shops than they should have due

to high card fees. mums—to—be should be routinely offered an ultrasound scan at 36 weeks to help stop risky breech deliveries — that's when a baby's bottom or feet emerge first. that's according to researchers at the university of cambridge, who say the extra scans would avoid 4,000 emergency caesareans and eight baby deaths a year in england. currently, midwives and doctors tend to rely on the shape and feel of the mother's bump to check. a woman has been rapped by the advertising watchdog for offering a scottish castle as a raffle prize, but giving the winner a cash prize instead. susan devere set up the contest after she failed to sell orchardton castle. however, cash giveaways were offered when ticket sales were too low. the advertising standards authority said the competition was not "administered fairly" —

a ruling disputed by mrs devere. and that is all from us for now. back to victoria. a group of mums, dads and family members who have lost loved ones to knife crime are coming together with teachers, youth and community groups to protest today about the government's handling of knife crime. #0perationshutdown wants to the government to take further urgent action and to meet with them to discuss the best ways to tackle the issue. ahead of today's protest lucy martindale, who is one of the lead campaigners behind the demonstration and who herself has lost ten members of her extended family to knife crime, went to speak to some teenagers who have carried knives in the past. two of them have a conviction for knife crime but say they don't carry knives anymore. we wanted their insight into why they picked up a blade in the first place. and just to say, if you have young children around on easter holidays, you may not want them to watch

the film which lasts just under eight minutes. my name is lucy martindale. i grew up in brixton in south london and i have lost so many friends i now work with the police and mps in order to help reduce knife crime. i also mentor young people to stop them from picking up and using a knife. i think we should be speaking to the young boys involved that carry knives themselves. josh was convicted of carrying a knife when he was 16. he's agreed to talk to me about it. what went through your mind? what made you pick up a knife? i'd say it's more for protection because when you're out on the roads it's different.

you're inside, you're all calm, you're safe. when you're outside, if you're carrying a knife and stuff, it's for protection. you don't know what's going to happen to you. my area is unsafe. so i know when i'm walking around i'm always looking behind me and stuff. i don't know what's going to happen. i'm not the only person that will have a knife. other people will be walking around with the same thing. and then you always get into fights, beef, stuff always happens. have you lost any friends to knife crime? have they been killed? off the top of my head, i can't think exactly, but i'd say about three or four that i've lost. it makes me feel like a bit... i don't know exactly what the word is, but it does make you a bit mad. it makes you feel a certain way. so when you see one of our close friends die, or people that you know or used to talk to dying, it makes you feel a certain way. not upset but... angry? angry, yeah. so you wouldn't say you or your friends are scared of the police? no, i'd say a lot more people are angry with the police cos they stop people all the time for no reason. yeah, not even that. in general, when police are about and stuff, it makes you feel a certain way cos

you're thinking i'm getting targeted all the time, cos police are always driving past me, stuff like that. kaya is a youth worker who has mentored over 100 young people. many of them carry knives. the type of young people that carry knives these days are scared. it doesn't matter what area they live in. it's down to fear. do you think that poverty is a cause of knife crime? it's definitely a big part of knife crime. poverty is definitely a big part of knife crime. electricity is never being topped up on time. the house is in darkness for hours sometimes before someone tops up the key. so a lot of these children, they are growing up and they are seeing their friends getting all of these new things. some of their friends are like, "i've done this. that's how i got that." and they're like, "oh, i could maybe try that then." before you know it, they are out

selling drugs with their friends. and the crime goes hand in hand with the violence. what do you think when you see media headlines describing these young men as thugs? are they thugs? some of them, yeah. i'm telling exactly how it is. some of them are. they eat, sleep, breathe gangster stuff. they love it. they want to be gangsters. but the only reason they are is they are lost. their mindset. if we change their mindset, you can change the type of person that they are. they'll no longer be thugs. the large percentage would be lost children who need some support and they don't want to be doing the things that they are doing. jay also got a conviction for carrying a knife. i wanted to know why he did it. i never really carried a knife until the other day when i got attacked and during the attack

i got stabbed. if the government introduce more police into the streets, do you think that will help reduce knife crime? if they are carrying a knife to gain a tactical advantage over others, they will have to weigh out whether their freedom or having this tactical advantage is worth it, and more times they would rather have their freedom than the advantage, but for people who carry knives to protect themselves, that's not really going to help them in any way because whether or not you catch them with a knife they are still at risk. they still feel that their life is threatened. the system should look at what causes the young people to carry knives, because in my situation, i didn't carry a knife until i felt threatened. if they dealt with the situation accordingly, i'd have never had to carry a knife. i'd never got caught with a knife. because they failed me, i feel like i had to take that role upon myself.

i'm not a thug. i'd never ever carry that knife or pull it out to rob somebody or to hurt somebody innocent. i never pulled it out at all until i was caught with it. the only intention i had was if i ever saw the person who threatened me and they came to me again i would use it to defend myself. i wouldn't run up to him with it him if i saw him with it, you understand? if i saw him and he went about his business, i'd have left it. despite what these young men have said, i can't help but wonder if anything ever justifies carrying a knife. one young man, who we are calling luke, is talking to me anonymously because he says he was groomed to sell drugs for gangs. how old was you when you first carried a knife? i was 16 and the elders sent me ot to sell crack and heroin. they gave me a knife to hold in case one of the addicts, the junkies, ever tried anything. so you'd say you carried a knife because you was forced to,

to go and sell drugs by older boys? yes, pretty much. when you was carrying that knife, would you have ever used that knife? you never know, like. people do crazy things under pressure. especially in those situations. somebody would have backed out a weapon on me and i'm pretty sure i would have. has anybody ever pulled out a knife on you? yeah, i've been robbed multiple times at knife—point. it really does something to you when you keep getting pushed around by different people and the more it happens, the more of a chance there is to retaliate back at one point. because all that stress is building up inside. luke said he started selling drugs because he had a difficult upbringing. he claims he had no other option. i come from a poorfamily. a very poor family. we never had hot water inside the house. no toilet. we used to bleep in the bucket outside. i was just recollecting from my head

all the stuff that had happened to me in previous days and how i used to get picked on and bullied because my clothing was different from these people and then i realised i am poor. that's the only reason why i went to sell drugs, to get money, so i could get myself some clothes, food and to help my mum out. everyone i know in the ghetto carries a weapon. we live in a wild west out here. they are hungry, they want shoes and they want fancy clothes. they will do whatever the hell they need to to get it off you. so when you are in those circumstances, you are going to let yourself be treated like a punk and just let everybody take stuff from you? so you'd say the streets of britain is now the wild west? pretty much, except with knives instead of guns. lets talk to lucy martindale from that film. amy morgan, whose16—year—old son tyler was fatally stabbed to death in leicester in 2015, and kay greene—stewart, whose 21—year—old son was fatally

stabbed in east london in 2017. thank you all for coming on the programme. i want to ask you what you think of the responses of some of the men in that film about some of the men in that film about some of the men in that film about some of the reasons why they carry knives? you can see because it is they are scared. i believe genuinely if they are not carrying a knife but they do not feel safe stop they will tool themselves up to be safe. it is like stab or be stabbed. de think thatis like stab or be stabbed. de think that is a justification for carrying a knife? no, but you can see the fear in theirfaces. a knife? no, but you can see the fear in their faces. they are genuinely scared of being stabbed. what do you think? i do not think it isa

what do you think? i do not think it is a justification that young people are scared out there, especially this last young man speaking, who came from a poor family and what he experienced. i think there is a lot of young people that have gone through that type of deprivation in their lives. it is the environment and you have to change the mindset of them, even though they had been brought up in that environment, and they see what is going on around them. it is around choices and you have to change the mindset. it does not get a justification but it does give you an explanation in some respects. some people watching right 110w respects. some people watching right now will say, i was brought up in hardship, we didn't have much, i did not carry a knife. sometimes it is about choices but i believe it is about choices but i believe it is about the background and upbringing you come from. a lot of these people are infearand you come from. a lot of these people are in fear and also it is a trend

110w. are in fear and also it is a trend now. a lot of them are not in a gang, they live in a deprived community. if nine of your friends are carrying a knife and you are not, you are the odd one out. there are not, you are the odd one out. there a re lots of not, you are the odd one out. there are lots of different reasons for knife carrying. unless we speak to these young people we will never understand the real reasons. we need to hear from understand the real reasons. we need to hearfrom them. that understand the real reasons. we need to hear from them. that is why i thought it was so important to hear from them. like you have all lost but dead family members to knife crime. the people who took the lives of yourfamily crime. the people who took the lives of your family members and sons, could they have been men who were in fear of their own lives and that is why they were carrying a knife? in my case, i do not think so. the man he was found guilty for my son showed no remorse. he had a criminal background previously. ithink

showed no remorse. he had a criminal background previously. i think he is just a product of evil, if i am honest. i do hear the conversations of vulnerable young men. for me, this film, the last one speaking about what he has gone through, it is not an excuse but if he had the resources to change his mindset, and to make... as lucy said, if nine of your friends are carrying a knife and you are the odd one out, you have got to make that conscious choice. if you do not have that mindset and you had peer pressured... chances are if you carry a knife you will use a knife. — peer carry a knife you will use a knife. —— peer pressure. carry a knife you will use a knife. -- peer pressure. my son's perpetrator already had a caution for carrying a knife. i believe if he was regularly checked, either through stop and search, or there was an intervention with him, i

believe my son would still be alive today. it was literally 14 months later he took tyler's life. what you hope to achieve from today? we want to work together. the police and the government cannot tackle it alone. everyone would like to help. in order to do that we would like to sit down with the government, whether it be the home secretary, the mayor, the prime minister and just had a discussion to see what can be done and we would like a cobra as well. an emergency meeting. it is an emergency. everyday people are dying. like that we will know the mayor london, the home secretary, they had been involved in various meetings. the mayor of london demonstrated a violent crime

task force with dedicated police focusing on the most affected areas. the home secretary saying he wants to stop this, steering young people away from violence through an investment of money. there was a serious youth violence summit in downing street bringing people from a wide range of backgrounds. young people with experience of living in communities impacted by serious violence. enhanced stop and search powers for police and so it goes on. do you acknowledge they are doing quite a lot of things? notjust my opinion, i speak on behalf of many in the community. we feel as if they are holding these meetings to make people believe they are doing stuff. they are having meetings but what actions are coming out of the back of these meetings? we are promised so of these meetings? we are promised so many things and we do not see these promises. if i look so many things and we do not see these promises. ifi look at

so many things and we do not see these promises. if i look at their violent crimes task force, with police officers going to the worst affected areas, since that has lunch they have carried out 7000 weapon searches, they have seized many weapons and arrested 4000 people. that is action, isn't it? the police are doing theirvery that is action, isn't it? the police are doing their very best. police office rs have are doing their very best. police officers have told me off the record i have had meetings with, they are agreeing with what we are saying and doing because they are under so much pressure. publicly they cannot speak up pressure. publicly they cannot speak up and say these things for fear of losing theirjobs. things are being done but more can be done. what else can be done? more police. i was told the murder squad has been cut in half. some families i am working with, they don't feel their child's

murder investigation has been dealt with properly because the police are so with properly because the police are so busy dealing with new murders every day. it is not more police officers, it is more police hours. we asked for an interview with the government. they said increased funding for the police this year of around £1 billion. good. that is good. let's see it happen. it be nice to have a meeting with them because we all are bereaved families, mothers, lads, just concerned members of the community. —— dads. we would like to sit down and see what we can do to move forward. we will never stop it com pletely forward. we will never stop it completely but there are things we can do to help reduce the numbers. you want an opportunity to eyeball the home secretary. yes. the

metropolitan police need help from the community. i urge communities to help the police. they need more support. people who are working with the use getting funded for what they are doing, instead of voluntary. —— youths. we are doing it because we wa nt youths. we are doing it because we want change. we are in a good position to make change. i help to mentor young people. i hope we can build the relationship between the police and the young people. thank you. still to come... we speak to the owner of this scottish castle who's been rapped by the advertising standards authority for a raffle they say is unfair after the winner was given a cash prize of £65,000 instead

of the castle itself — worth £2.5 million. an award—winning astrophysicist who refused to sign a gagging order after she says she was sexually harrassed by a colleague at the university where she worked has told this programme that the whole experience has "defined her life". let's bring you this exclusive story. kensington and chelsea council have told a family who escaped the grenfell tower fire that they will have to go on the council house waiting list. mahad egal and jamie murray, and their two young children had previously rejected a permanent home as building materials triggered memories of the fire. earlier this week, the couple told this programme they faced removal from their temporary accomodation because kensington and chelsea council had said it was "no longer suitable." well, we can report today that the council have now done a u—turn and say the family can stay

in their temporary home. but they say the "acquisitions programme," set up to find survivors a permanent home, has now ended. in a statement to us they say this: "we are doing all we can to help households from grenfell tower into new permanent homes. we've bought 300 homes for 202 families, spending over £200m. 180 households are now in their new homes. some households may find the process of settling into their permanent home difficult so they are given dedicated help and supported long term after they've moved in. there are a very small number of households that have not yet accepted a permanent home and we are continuing to support them in choosing a suitable property. these households are automatically allocated a place at the top of our general housing register and remain part of the grenfell rehousing process. they add... we have a dedicated

grenfell service in place, co—designed with the survivors, to provide care and support to people as long as they need it." the council added that mahad and his family have been put to the top of the waiting list and there still a dedicated housing officer working with grenfell survivors who have not yet accepted a permanent home. let's talk to mahad egal about this latest move from the council. we're also joined now by morya samuels, from justice 4 grenfell, a campaigning group that advocates for bereaved famillies, evacuated residents, and survivors of the grenfell tower fire. i could see you shaking your head in disagreement at some of that i was saying from the council. why?m disagreement at some of that i was saying from the council. why? it is shameful what that council is doing, relinquishing their duty of care towards the survivors and the community. it is an incorrect statement when they say they are doing everything they can to support the survivors and the bereaved and

that supporting carers in place for as long as we need it. there seems to bea as long as we need it. there seems to be a clock on the time for the duty of care for the survivors and the bereaved as well as the community. it is an incorrect statement from the council. after appearing on our programme on monday, you received a legal letter from the council telling you that the so—called "acquisition programme" for housing grenfell survivors in permanent homes had now finished and you will have to join the council house waiting list. what do you think of that? shameful and shocking. it is wholly unfairon the shameful and shocking. it is wholly unfair on the other residents who had been on a waiting list for years and it is wholly unfair on them to be outbid by myself. you will now go to the top of the council house waiting list. it is too much of my conscience to bid against other residents. i believe they should

continue the acquisition programme. they have not consulted with us. this is the first time i had heard of it. they have not consulted with us as of it. they have not consulted with us as to there being a programme in place. the bit about you being at the top of the council house waiting list. they did not send that to you, they sent that to us. they say there are specialist to help you get a permanent home. they say there are specialist to help you get a permanent homelj they say there are specialist to help you get a permanent home. i do not believe it. those in our condition, if there were, they would have been more conscious about offering survivors from the tower a property that has similar plaited

material. —— cladded material. i have never come across a specialist. has the venus —— a list supporting officer? —— has there been a specialist supporting officer? no. what you think about the way these people appear to be treated by kensington and chelsea council? i think it is disgraceful. there is a growing concern that from the community with regard to survivors, and the rest of the community that had been impacted, that actually the council is going back to a business as usual approach. that is a very strong feeling we get. this case comes as 110 strong feeling we get. this case comes as no surprise. strong feeling we get. this case comes as no surprise. it shows an incredible lack of empathy. when you

say business as usual, what do you mean? we know the usual approach is to make people who are homeless sit oi'i to make people who are homeless sit on the housing list for years or move them to east london, peterborough, move them out of the borough. the council has not had a very constructive approach to its homeless. "when they say, and they have run up this morning to emphasise that the grand full —— the 6 re nfell tower emphasise that the grand full —— the gre nfell tower rehousing emphasise that the grand full —— the grenfell tower rehousing programme, people who are not yet in permanent accommodation will be given more support, what do you say to that? what do you mean by dedicated help and support? if you have no empathy for the particular situation of mahad, he has been treated as though they are being difficult. they are not being difficult. they are

survivors of a horrific fire and actually they are not just statistics. everybody cannot be treated in the same way. if mahad and his family are asking for something in particular, there is the harm in providing that? instead you are making him feel as if he is actually a burden on the council and thatis actually a burden on the council and that is disgraceful. anthony says that is disgraceful. anthony says that yes, they may be suffering from the effects of the fire but from what it says on the website, the council had done all they agrees to become to rehouse them. jay says that the scandal of grenfell tower goes on and on top they have made one u—turn since you came on the programme. on the mandate you said you were facing eviction from your temporary home —— on monday youth said. the council now so you can stay there. does it reassure you? not entirely, there is nothing established on paper. there is still

a position of uncertainty. we are in contact with our legal team to ensure that we are able to go out and take the kids out for fresh air... without making sure you can get back in? understood. i want to ask you about some comparisons that have been made on social media in the last 24 hours between the money raised from the notre dame fire and the money raised after grenfell tower. many making the point that billions have been raised to help with the rebuilding of the cathedral in paris injust 24 with the rebuilding of the cathedral in paris in just 24 out with the rebuilding of the cathedral in paris injust 24 out and with the rebuilding of the cathedral in paris in just 24 out and after rental fire dax mccarty grenfell tower christ. brian says, notre dame rated 650 million euros yet the g re nfell tower rated 650 million euros yet the grenfell tower by raised 26 million. a society cares more about historic buildings than people. what do you

say about those comparisons? firstly, we are very grateful that we had the support and generosity of the british public. we have always been very grateful and we will forever be in the debt of the british public‘s generosity. we are very thankful and we will never forget the help we received from the british public will stop however, in the case of the incident in paris, fortu nately the case of the incident in paris, fortunately no lives were lost, but u nfortu nately fortunately no lives were lost, but unfortunately in our building we lost 70 loved ones. —— 72. we still have no arrests and no lead on the incident. it is completely to different ends of the spectrum. —— two different ends. we were very lucky to have the british public.

what do you say about these comparisons? many are saying, do we ca re comparisons? many are saying, do we care more about historic buildings and people. some are saying that notre dame cathedral is recognised as an international monument and donations are international. there isa donations are international. there is a level of truth in that. it was built in the 13005, it is an hi5torical building. it goes back to before france as a nation was formed. it goes back to international link5 formed. it goes back to international links to the arabic tradition5, it is about the craftsmen, the craft that has got into the building. on the other hand, it is an absolutely fair point, where ordinary people, working people, not hugely expensive work5 working people, not hugely expensive works of art and buildings have lost their lives, and there is such a 5low their lives, and there is such a

slow response, the response 5hould, however, because of the implication of local authority and government come the response 5hould of local authority and government come the response should have come fa5ter from the government. the5e are private people put in that money if that is what they choose to do. however, what we are critical of i5 the slowness of government and local authority to respond to the needs of thi5 authority to respond to the needs of this community. thank you both for coming in. we will continue to report on your case. thank you for coming on the programme. we are going to talk about the woman who tried to raffle off her castle and has been criticised by the advertising standards authority. the castle is worth between 1.5 and £2 million. this is the 17—bedroom orchardton castle in kirkcudbrightshire, built in the 1880s and owned by susan devere. after attempts to find a buyer for the property failed, mrs devere

decided to launch a raffle to win the estate. but there weren't enough tickets sold and the prize became cash giveaways of £65,000, £7,000 and £5,000, which were handed out lastjune. now the advertising standards authority has ruled that the raffle was "adminstered unfairly" because they say the prize was changed. i'm joined now by susan devere. thank you for coming on. this criticism from the advertising standards authority, that the raffle you administered was unfair, how do you administered was unfair, how do you respond? it wasn't unfair. we did absolutely everything we could to make it as fair and transparent as possible. we ran the most transparent competition we could run. but the advertising standards authority says that is not true because, in the end, you gave out cash prizes rather than giving out the castle to the winner. yes, and from the beginning on the website it

says, right from the beginning, that if enough entries did not come in thenit if enough entries did not come in then it would be a cash prize and we gave an example of what the cash prizes would be. in the many interviews and newspapers i did at that time, i set every time that if we don't get enough entries it has to bea we don't get enough entries it has to be a cash crisis but it would be all the money that was coming in. we raised over 19,000 for the charities and we gave the rest of the money away. right. but people who entered had entered in the hope of winning a castle. yes, but they know from our terms and conditions that if we could not give it away they would wina could not give it away they would win a cash prize if they won. i have had over 50 e—mails this morning of support for me both of the asa ruling and the fact that they were not going after our competition but seem to be going after all house competitions and trying to put a stop to them. what was the motivation for launching the competition? many of the people that came to buy the castle did not have

the money to buy it, and to turn it into what they wanted to do, whether a bed—and—brea kfast hotel or something, but they had the money to buy it but then they would be struggling. i thought that if we could give it to someone, they could use the money they had to be able to do something with it and i was prepared to help them do that. i was taking a lot less than it was worth. i thought there would be enough interest to be able to do it, it never occurred to me that there would be enough entries. it's not something you do as an enjoyment process. how much did the ticket sales raise in the end? 107,000. and what is the castle worth? 1.2 —— 1.5-2,000,000? yes. how what is the castle worth? 1.2 —— 1.5—2,000,000? yes. how much did you make? we didn't make anything, i don't quite get that question. we paid out 77,000 in prizes, 19,000 to charity and there was about 10,000 that went to websites, advertising,

legal costs. we don't make competitions out of competitions, they are there to do something and if they can't do that, they have to give a cash prize. you can't keep the money. i think that is one of the money. i think that is one of the problems. there is not enough known about these competitions so people go into them think they can run itand people go into them think they can run it and make money but you can't do that. you have to run it a certain way. are you going to appeal against this ruling? do you not need to because you have handed out the prizes? not only am i going to appeal against it, because it does not make any sense. the e—mails i have had from them could limit themselves every time they sent me one they said a complaint was made —— contradict themselves. we are not even sure if a complaint was made because in another e—mail they sent they are going after house competitions. one person complained the raffle had been administered u nfa i rly the raffle had been administered unfairly because the price had been changed to a cash amount. and where is that person? do they exist question but i don't think so because i have had nothing but support. if that person exists...

are you saying the advertising standards authority has made up a complainant? they are not prepared to produce them, to give any names. they don't need to. the individual might not wish to have the publicity. you sound like you are on the site of the asa and i have to say, you know, they have gone after a lot of people. they don't go after the adverts when you have hundreds of thousands of complaints, the ones where there is one complaint. white and they'd not doing a job where there are thousands of complaints are people being ripped off by large companies? i'm not on any one's site. i'm just asking questions that they might sensibly raise i suppose. what are you going to do with the castle now? at the moment we are making into a location setting and bed—and—brea kfast so it making into a location setting and bed—and—breakfast so it has an income so that if i decide to run the competition again, it would be

able to give someone an income and ifido it able to give someone an income and if i do it when it again, i will do it with a sponsor, i would not take a risk that it would not get enough. how would that work? a sponsor would cover the prize so that if the prize money was not met, they would pay for the castle and i would still be able to give it away. thank you very much for talking to us and for coming on the programme. figures obtained by the bbc show that uk universities have spent around £87 million on pay—offs to staff and students that include gagging orders since 2017. ndas, or non—disclosure agreements, can be used to stop people discussing the terms of their settlement or any element of their case. they were originally designed to prevent staff from taking secrets from one employer to another. but now universities are being accused of using ndas to keep allegations of bullying,

discrimination and sexual misconduct secret. campaigners are calling on the use of ndas to be stopped in these cases. this music professor, anahid kassabian, says she was "bullied out" of herjob at the university of liverpool. she is breaching her nda in the hope that other people in similar

let's have a look at some of the wording in a gagging order. the employee will, going forward, keep the terms and existence of this agreement and the circumstances giving rise to its making strictly confidential and the employee will not disclose these matters to any third party. the employee will not, going forward, make or cause to be made derogatory or critical comments or statements about her employment or treatment by the company. the employee will not make or cause to be made any statement or comment to the press or other media. earlier, i spoke to georgina calvert—lee who is a barrister that deals with cases involving work place bullying and discrimination. she often comes across

non—disclosure agreements. and to dr emma chapman, who is an astrophysicist. university college london paid her £70,000 in a settlement after she sued over claims she was sexually harassed by a colleague. georgina represented emma in her case. i asked emma how she managed to get that pay—out, despite refusing to sign an nda. i think that with settlement agreements, people assume that universities will not give compensation unless you are silent about it and at the moment that is true and that is the problem with them. when you remove that silence, you are also occluding a moral obligation on universities to behave correctly. in my case —— you are including. in my case i suffered financial losses as a result of bringing a claim of sexual harassment against a colleague, i suffered financial losses, i suffered financial losses, i

suffered legal costs as well, and i think the university did recognise that and so when i did ask for a confidentiality waiver they recognise the financial losses i incurred. i believe when you remove the silence you replace it with this nice moral obligation on behalf of institutions. you had to ask for a confidentiality waiver, ie permission to speak out effectively. absolutely, when we first went they did attempt to get me to sign an nda. we held strong at it we want to be confidentiality waiver. you accused a colleague of sexually harassing you. what sort of things we re harassing you. what sort of things were happening to you? everything from requests for hugs to discussions about my personal life and sex life and vice versa. i was privy to the details of that without wanting to know. over the years it became increasingly almost like a blackmail. unfortunately, it did

enter a second phase. when i return to work after returning to leave with postnatal depression, that was almost used as an excuse to increase the level of harassment. instead of the level of harassment. instead of the collector safeguarding procedures being followed, instead it was used even more is blackmail dash back at the correct procedures. it was, you're more upset, let's talk about that. what impact did it have on you? it has defined my life for probably, what are we talking? nine years it has defined my life. i have had three children and i can mark each of them by what was happening during either the first one, the actual harassment that was occurring, the second, deciding to report it and the retaliation i received and the mishandling of the case, and the third one in actually trying to reform the system and the struggle that has been. it has defined my life in the way that i

see the world. when i made a complaint to the university, it did not once occurred to me thatjustice would not be done or that they would not understand and be on my side and instead... i had absolute faith in them, it never occurred to me it would take 21 months just to see a resolution, that i would receive malicious voicemails but nothing would be done about it, that i would have no right to discuss and upheld outcome just to protect my career when i was being slandered behind my back. that is why i went for the confidentiality waiver because nobody else was going to protect me soi nobody else was going to protect me so i had to protect myself. you had three children in this period. did what was going on at work impact on your time with your babies? absolutely. my first child, because of the harassment that was ongoing, and there was a similarly traumatic period of that harassment which took many years of recovery, it meant

that i actually lost my memories of the lot of the first year of her life because of the trauma. with the second one, because of the retaliation i was receiving during the process, i was afraid within my own house so we put security cameras up own house so we put security cameras up allaround own house so we put security cameras up all around the house after receiving those malicious voicemails. the third one, again, just the struggle of trying to get the story out there so this does not keep happening to woman after woman after woman and that is what frustrated me in this process, it was heavily mishandled, but it was not unusual. this was all within their policy remit and that is wrong. in relation to your case, a ucl spokesperson told us, we will no longer use confidentiality clauses with settlement with individuals who have received —— of sexual

harassment or bullying as a matter of course we hope they send a clear message we will not tolerate sexual misconduct, harassment or bullying. i want to bring in georgina who presented you. what do you make of doctor chapman's case? presented you. what do you make of doctor chapman's ca5e?|j presented you. what do you make of doctor chapman's case? i think emma i5 doctor chapman's case? i think emma is extremely brave in taking that 5tand because somebody had to do it and it brought about this change in policy at ucl and would hope univer5itie5 policy at ucl and would hope universities across the board would do that. univer5itie5 or employers, they are employers as well but they have a due to dash make a duty of ca re have a due to dash make a duty of care for students, if they keep imposing nda5, it allows them to avoid addre55ing imposing nda5, it allows them to avoid addressing the problem. why do they keep imposing them, in your view? i think they do it as a matter of habit. it is easier, it is easier if they can get on with their day job and not have to investigate 5exual job and not have to investigate sexual misconduct and pretend it'5 not happening but that's untenable.

then you get into the nitty—gritty of having to come to conclusions about allegation5 of having to come to conclusions about allegations and again, that is hard. if someone can avoid that they will often try to. they will therefore u5e will often try to. they will therefore use an nda not with someone like emma, with a complainant, but with the person accused of misconduct and that is also very bad for everyone involved. if that person 5ign5 an nda, it sort ofan if that person 5ign5 an nda, it sort of an offence and has the same effect of hiding the underlying misconduct, no one looks into it and that person is free possibly to move toa that person is free possibly to move to a new in5titution that person is free possibly to move to a new institution or even 5tay within the same in5titution to a new institution or even 5tay within the same institution and continue with that same misconduct. it has a chilling effect on other people that are subject to that misconduct because they may not know that someone has made a complaint, but they know that no one has ever succeeded in bringing a complaint that has somehow been openly dealt with. a lot of these people accused

of harassment are well known in their departments. there is usually some sense that someone has made a complaint and even if it is why management had not dealt with it. complaint and even if it is why management had not dealt with itm allegations do not get out, as a result of an nda, it is not reputation early damaging for the institution and the employer. in the case of the music profess that we played a clip of earlier, what happens if you sign an nda, a gagging clause, but breach it and speak out? it is terrifying for the person involved and it takes a huge amount of courage. formally, they would be in breach of contract. meaning what in practical terms? that their university or the institution that imposes it could ta ke institution that imposes it could take them to court separately on the basis of we have this agreement, which has to be kept silent for any purpose apart from going to court to e nforce purpose apart from going to court to enforce it so they could go to court and claimed breach of contract and then claw back the settlement money they paid out. as any employer ever done that? i don't know of a

university that has done that. there are questions about whether it would actually be enforceable and you would have to look at the particular agreement to see if there was consideration and money given for the actual clause. this is what universities uk tell us. universities use ndas for many purposes including the protection of commercially sensitive information relating to university research. however, we also expect the senior leaders to make it clear that the use of confidentiality clauses to prevent victims from speaking out will not be tolerated. all staff and stu d e nts will not be tolerated. all staff and students are entitled to a safe experience at university and all universities have a duty to ensure this outcome. should they be banned, ndas? i think there is a very limited scope for them where they are of benefit, requested by the person making the complaint, the individual, and there are good reasons to put an appendix to the nda. i don't think emma agrees with this but i can see there are

arguments for an outright ban. but i don't go that far personally. do you think they should be banned? yes, i think they should be banned? yes, i think they should be banned in cases of sexual misconduct. where they are being used to silence victims and prevent reform. because we cannot quantify the problem and we cannot solve the problem without people being able to speak out. i fully recognise that they have their place m, recognise that they have their place in, for example, intellectual property. mutually agreed redundancy packages. when you have a victim who is actually just asking packages. when you have a victim who is actuallyjust asking for reasonable recompense, for example an extension to that student contract, legal fees, an extension to that student contract, legalfees, student fees refund, the compensation is not being given, it is being hidden as a legal consultation fees and they are being bought off and i don't think thatis being bought off and i don't think that is a proper use of them at all. thank you very much for coming in. some breaking news now —

the priory healthcare group is to be amy el—keria died in their care at a mental health facility in sussex. the sentencing judge said it was obvious any penalty i impose can never reflect the loss suffered by amy's family. amy's mother said that she hoped that lessons would be learnt from this tragedy. the primary health care group is to be fined £300,000 after a 14—year—old girldied in theircare fined £300,000 after a 14—year—old girl died in their care at a mental health facility in sussex. if you're a mum—to—be, you would normally get your last ultrasound scan at around 20 weeks. well, now you could be routinely offered one much later, at 36 weeks,

to help spot risky breech deliveries, when a baby's bottom or feet will emerge first. researchers believe the scans would avoid 4,000 emergency caesareans and eight baby deaths a year in england. at the moment, midwives and doctors rely on the shape and feel of the bump to tell whether the baby is breech. professor gordon smith from cambridge university is the lead author of that report and he is in cambridge now. hello. how big a problem can reach births be? it can be a very major problem, it affects around 3—4% of births and while the majority of breech births are complicated there are increased risks of competition related to the process of delivery, things like that baby's head or compression of the umbilical cord and these complications are recognised and breech is identified asa recognised and breech is identified as a situation of high risk. so a

scan much later would help mums to be and medical staff? yes. routinely, women are examined close to term to see if the baby is thought to be presenting headfirst or bottom first and if the baby is found to be presenting bottom first the mother is of a procedure to try to turn the baby and in many situations where that is u nsuccessful situations where that is unsuccessful the woman would opt for a planned cesarean section. there is the option of attempting a normal delivery of a breech but that is generally reserved for special circumstances depending on the mother having very low risk characteristics. the problem really is that the methods for clinical examination only detect about 50% of breaches so the thing a scan would offer would be the capacity to detect all breaches and offer these safety based interventions to all women rather thanjust

safety based interventions to all women rather than just those who are detected by examination. thank you very much for coming on the programme, professor gordon smith. thank you for your comments on our reporting on the grenfell rehousing situation will stop this is from william saying, what is your programme trying to achieve with this obsessive and compulsive reporting? people are getting fed up with the blame game and conversation culture. get some objectivity in your journalism. it's culture. get some objectivity in yourjournalism. it's getting like thejeremy yourjournalism. it's getting like the jeremy kyle yourjournalism. it's getting like thejeremy kyle show yourjournalism. it's getting like the jeremy kyle show and yourjournalism. it's getting like thejeremy kyle show and i expect better from mrs derbyshire. thejeremy kyle show and i expect betterfrom mrs derbyshire. thank you for that. thank you for a good day. that morning, some poor visibility for some this morning, some mist and fog around first thing —— good morning. we have plenty of try and fine weather and some sunshine, temperatures picking up as well. through today we will see plenty of

good spells of sunshine, some patchy cloud, the small chance of one or two showers in parts of east anglia, the midlands, southern parts of northern england. temperatures edging upa northern england. temperatures edging up a bit on yesterday, a maximum of around 20 celsius but a bit cooler on the north sea coast. this evening and overnight, any showers will tend to fade, some clear spells and we will start to see a bit more cloud feeding in from the east with that potential for some mist and hill fog. temperatures not falling too far overnight. overnight lows of 4—9d. that takes us to the easter weekend, plenty of dry and fine weather to begin with with temperatures peaking on saturday at 25 degrees in a few places. the chance of something a bit more unsettled later in the north and west. goodbye.

you're watching bbc newsroom live. it's11am and these are the main headlines. french president emmanuel macron says notre—dame cathedral will be rebuilt "even more beautifully" following a massive fire on monday. translation: yes, we will rebuild the notre dame cathedral and it will be more beautiful than before and it will be done in five years. this is the scene live at notre—dame, as the french cabinet meets to discuss the rebuilding of the cathedral. a judge has ruled that healthcare group the priory should be fined £300,000 following the death of 14—year—old amy el—keria at a mental health facility in sussex in 2012. uk universities are accused of using gagging orders to stop