hello. it's thursday. it's 10 o'clock. i'm victoria derbyshire. good morning. the former head of the family courts exclusively tells this programme it would be foolish to ignore the profoundly troubling weight of anecdotal evidence about problems in the familyjustice system and independent research is desperately needed. because it is shrouded in secrecy, but it will do not know what awaits them if they end up in family court, them if they end up in family court, the first rule of anybody abusing anybody in silence and i personally feel the court system abused me way more than my ex ever did. we'll hear from one woman whose ex—partner was given unsupervised overnight access to their daughter, even after the mum was told she was at high risk

of being killed by him. the supervision of all offenders on probation in england and wales will be looked after by the government again after a series of failings since private companies took over. i think we should build on those reforms and move to a new system that still has involvement of the private and voluntary sector, really important involvement of the private and voluntary sector, but when it comes to the offender management function, i think a unified model will work better. and the ukip candidate who said he might rape the politicianjess phillips responds to our interview with the labour mp. why do you think you have had to keep that milkshakes thrown over you when you are campaigning? because you are radicalising people by lying about them. so you think there is a link between language and acts of violence? there is a link between telling lies about someone in the press, and you don't seem to have any duty of care about this at all, andi any duty of care about this at all, and i think they are trying to do.

so there is a link between rhetoric and acts of violence. yes, but you are not telling jokes. are you telling jokes? so there is a link between the rhetoric of your rape language and violence? no, because it was a joke. you have to look at the context. you sound like a hypocrite. when you attach somebody to your rape joke, that is hypocrite. when you attach somebody to your rapejoke, that is ok? hypocrite. when you attach somebody to your rape joke, that is ok? yes, but i am not inciting people. welcome to the programme. we are alive until 11 o'clock this morning. later we will talk about the company that owned several big fashion houses like gucci, saying it will no longer use models who are under 18 because it is conscious of

influencing younger generations. we will bring you that story later. if you are getting in touch, you are very welcome. we are going to concentrate more on the family courts today, so let us know your experiences. you can email us, and message us on experiences. you can email us, and message us on twitter. now a summary of the news so far to date with annita mcveigh. thank you. good morning. ministers are putting the supervision of all offenders in england and wales back in the public sector after a series of serious failings with the part—privatisation of probation services five years ago. the justice secretary, david gauke, says contracts with private companies which monitor low and medium risk offenders won't be renewed. the work will be done instead by the national probation service, which already manages those who pose the highest threat. the travel company thomas cook has reported losses of £1.5 billion for the first half of the year.

it said there was now little doubt that brexit had caused customers to delay their summer holiday plans. it's planning further cost saving measures in the rest of the year to offset tougher trading conditions and higher fuel expenses. a formerfamily high courtjudge has told this programme exclusively that it would be foolish to ignore the profoundly troubling weight of anecdotal evidence about problems in the familyjustice system. it comes after an investigation by this programme revealed that in the last five years, four children have been killed at the hands of a parent with a known history of domestic abuse who'd been granted access to their child by the family courts. we've had a huge response from viewers who have had experiences with the family courts and will bring you them later this hour. president donald trump has declared a national emergency to protect us computer networks from what he calls foreign adversaries. mr trump signed an executive order which effectively bars us companies from using foreign telecoms believed to pose national security risks. the order does not name any company,

but is believed to target chinese tech giant huawei. labour says it would install solar panels on nearly two million homes as part of a new energy policy. it's also given more detail on its plans to re—nationalise the national grid for electricity and gas. the national grid opposes the plans, saying it would slow the move to green energy. now this is the moment the lift carrying two skyscraper window cleaners in oklahoma city began spinning out of control. the window cleaners were working on the city's tallest building, the devon tower. it's not known how the basket became loose but the two people in it managed to grab a rope and secure it as they swung 50 floors above street level. windows were shattered, but thankfully no—one was hurt. absolutely terrifying to look at! that is a summary of the news. thank god they are ok. thank you. good

morning. today we're continuing our focus on the secret world of the family courts after such a huge response from you yesterday. the former head of the family courts has told us exclusively it would be foolish to ignore the profoundly troubling weight of anecdotal evidence about problems in the family justice system. yesterday an investigation by this programme revealed that in the last five years, four children have been killed at the hands of a parent with a known history of domestic abuse who'd been granted access to their child by the family courts. we've also spoken to dozens of parents who say their ex—partners have been granted unsupervised access to their children despite, they say, having serious criminal convictions. more than 120 mps are now calling for an urgent independent inquiry into the family courts system. yesterday, our investigation was cited in parliament by shadow policing minister louise haigh, as she pressed the prime minister to commission that inquiry. research by the victoria derbyshire

show has revealed that in the last five years, four children have been murdered following contact granted by the family courts to known abusers. this morning 120 mps have written to the justice secretary calling for an independent inquiry into the treatment of victims of domestic abuse and violence by the family courts. does the prime minister agree that there is something wrong with a system that forces contact between children and pa rents forces contact between children and parents that are known risks to that child? if she does agree, will take a lesson that independent inquiry today? the family court system should never be used to coerce or re—victimised those who have been abused, and a child's out there must be the paramount consideration but the court in any proceedings. —— welfare. i the court in any proceedings. —— welfare. lam pleased the court in any proceedings. —— welfare. i am pleased that new draft guidelines were published last week which provide greater clarity on issues around the family courts, such as increasing transparency. the ministry ofjustice has currently not seen evidence to suggest a

public inquiry is necessary but i will ensure, i will ensure the new minister for justice will ensure, i will ensure the new minister forjustice meets the honourable lady to discuss the concerns honourable lady to discuss the concerns that she has raised. and we will try to get the new minister for justice on the programme. it is disappointing that the prime minister has not yet said yes to a public inquiry, but we will not be fazed. since the programme yesterday we have had a massive response. loads of emails and messages from you who have had experiences with the family courts. here are just a couple of those. he was convicted of harassment, battery and breeches, and after two yea rs battery and breeches, and after two years in the family courts, i was finally heard and our children were protected from him. and this dad: as a devoted and loving father it is devastating that the court process

can be abused in a way to alienate one parent. and this emailfrom a woman who felt we concentrated too much on the experience of women who alleged abuse yesterday and not on male victims. she says: at my partner's x is attempting to alienate his children against him. this is after a history where he had suffered from domestic abuse. physical assault, financial abuse, sexual abuse and 15 years of coercive control, which continued long after he left the family home. he has ptsd as a result of that abuse. the family court have a perpetrators programme for men that to this day they do not have a similar programme for women who are abusers. not only does this woman for her children, she is the resident parent and it is the victim, theirfather, who has had to continually fight through the courts to gaina continually fight through the courts to gain a court order which gives a meaningful contact with his children. when you broadcast a

programme which only focus on men being the abusers, i make no apologies for my fury. and one more, although there are so many i will try to feed them in for the programme: iam try to feed them in for the programme: i am a man try to feed them in for the programme: i am a man of indian origin and sufferer of domestic abuse and i spent years trying to get a ccess abuse and i spent years trying to get access to my child and my wife was ordered not to have unsupervised contact with my child, which he did not take up. this situation is not one which only affects women and if you are a man of colour, the treatment of stereotyping and prejudice from the authorities is absolutely unpredictable. let's talk to our reporter anna who spent months looking into this and months talking to you. see html. you have been talking to the former head of the family court that he has made some pretty strong comments. ijust wa nt to some pretty strong comments. ijust want to go back over this story and explain a bit. these are the courts that have the power to make

decisions about children's lives and they are a last resort for parents who split up and cannot agree what should happen to their children. as you say, we have heard from dozens of children who state that children are being sent to spend time alone with a parent with a known history of domestic abuse and even criminal convictions. some say that children are coming home with injuries but they are legally required to send that child for contact or they risk fines, community sentences, and in theory a prison sentence. it is worth saying that this is anecdotal evidence and we can only corroborate stories so far and that is because of strict reporting restrictions which mean we are often not allowed to see court documents and people are not allowed to tell us what has happened inside the court. that means it is really difficult to report on individual cases, that it is also really difficult to tell what is happening on a much bigger scale. sirjames mumby is the former

high courtjudge scale. sirjames mumby is the former high court judge and scale. sirjames mumby is the former high courtjudge and former head of the family courts and he stepped down last year. he told us in written comments that the questions we have raised suggest that things are farfrom as we have raised suggest that things are far from as they should be. what else has he told you? this is a key quote from him. it is profoundly troubling that there is this weight of anecdotal evidence.... crucially he says that research should be independent of the judiciary, of whitehall, of all pressure groups and third parties and it is vital that it is published whatever the conclusions. whenever there are allegations of domestic abuse in the family court, judges are supposed to investigate and hold are supposed to investigate and hold a fact—finding hearing, but we have heard, anecdotally again, numerous accou nts heard, anecdotally again, numerous accounts that suggest that is not

a lwa ys accounts that suggest that is not always being done. sirjames said: a proper research found that was the case, steps would need to be taken asa case, steps would need to be taken as a matter of urgency to remedy any identified deficiencies. the very real concerns that people are reporting to us, he said, i'm not going to go away and need to be addressed robustly, otherwise there is bound to be an adverse impact on the reputation of the family justice system and most damaging of all of people's faith in it. and going on to talking about supporting victims in the family courts. things like providing video links and separate waiting rooms were victims of abuse, away from the perpetrator. he said: family courts lag woefully and indeed shamefully behind the criminal courts and that is having a damaging impact. he goes on to say the courts are failing to adequately accommodate the voices of children because the government has suggested it would cost too much. he questions

the ongoing examination in the family courts of alleged victims of abuse by the alleged perpetrators and calls it scandalous. he says legal aid cuts have turned the court into practically a lawyer free zone, leaving the courts grievously overstretched. and coming on to training on domestic abuse, the judges and court officials, he said there should not be a complacent view of the possible need for better training. when it comes to domestic abuse? yes. telling the stories and experiences of parents and children going through the family courts is really not easy and because of the strict legal restrictions on what we can report, which are there to protect the privacy and safety of the child, but we as a programme are committed to trying to shine a light ona committed to trying to shine a light on a system that is so often shrouded in secrecy. we certainly are and we will get reaction to those comments from the guest in the

studio. first, iwould like those comments from the guest in the studio. first, i would like you to listen to katie's story. she said she was repeatedly raped by her ex who later stalked her and she was at high risk of homicide, being killed by herformer partner, in high risk of homicide, being killed by her former partner, in other words. he applied to the courts to get co nta ct words. he applied to the courts to get contact with his daughter and he succeeded. katie is not her real name and her words are spoken for her. she started by telling me about the abuse.

he started pulling at her as well, trying to get her off me. you walked out, and at that point, he then began stalking you. yes, he did. every address, i wouldn't give any details or information out to anybody but he would eventually turn up anybody but he would eventually turn up and one particular time he actually broke into my house and appeared in my bedroom. 0h, actually broke into my house and appeared in my bedroom. oh, my god. that must have been terrifying. yes, it was. yes. he reported everything to the police. including the rapes. —— you reported everything. and what

is known as a multi agency risk assessment conference, which includes the police, social services and other professionals, i set you at being at high risk of homicide. yes, that is correct. high risk of being murdered by your act, yes, that is correct. high risk of being murdered by youract, in effect. your ex partner has a conviction for assaulting a police officer as well. he applied to the family court for a contact order. he wa nted family court for a contact order. he wanted to see your daughter, his daughter. he was given unsupervised overnight fortnightly contact. so every other weekend, he would see your little girl. how did you feel when that decision was made?|j thought i was going to lose her, that she would be a statistic. what do you mean? that she wouldn't survive. he won't harm her? yes, i knew he would harm her. i knew this andi knew he would harm her. i knew this and i knew his patterns. i knew what

he was capable of but nobody listened to me. just to be clear, you thought he would kill your daughter, might kill your daughter? possibly can. i mean, i knew that she would be harmed in some way and it wouldn't be a positive experience for her. i knew that he would continue to abuse and he would continue to abuse and he would continue to abuse and he would continue to harm me as well, wherever he could. and he did. how did the family courts come to a decision to allow unsupervised fortnightly contact with your daughter bearing in mind what you had reported to the police and bearing in mind that multi—agency risk assessment conference and bearing in mind the conviction for assaulting a police officer?” bearing in mind the conviction for assaulting a police officer? i think they felt he deserved to have a chance at being a father. what do you think of that? it is an absolutely disgusting decision to make. it is not fair or right or just to put women and children especially in harm's way, but that is what they do, routinely. how does

your daughter feel about the contact with her father and what has happened to her, do you say, as a result of the contact with him? as a result of the contact with him? as a result of the contact, there have been many issues. she is not happy to go. she doesn't want to go. she knows she is being emotionally abused at the minimum. what does that look like? generally things like undermining, with behaviour, especially violence towards me, would be encouraged. dishonesty is encouraged. he is basically abusing me through her and therefore abusing her with that. have you told the social worker is this? yes. and what isa social worker is this? yes. and what is a response? they will not touch it because it is in family court. they will not get involved so nobody is questioning the decision. nobody is questioning the decision. nobody is asking if this is right. they are just saying that someone else has dealt with this so we can't intervene. i don't feel that

children in general are listened to at all. if they say they don't want to go it is often dressed up as pa rental to go it is often dressed up as parental alienation. you are somehow having an influence on your daughter not to go and see the father? they will put it down to coaching. fathers tend to echo that. obviously the father is a' rights groups make noise about this stuff and it is generally accepted that the mother will alienate. that is not the case and usually mothers that do object to co nta ct and usually mothers that do object to contact have good reasons for not wanting it for their children. to contact have good reasons for not wanting it for their childrenlj wanting it for their children.” have interviewed the courts, and they say they put the interest of they say they put the interest of the child before anything else. what do you say to that? i say that is com pletely do you say to that? i say that is completely untrue. they actively ignore all of these issues because that gets in the way of a contact order, which is what they are there to ensure happens. does the silence

around family court proceedings and the fact that we as journalists are not allowed to give specific details that would identify you, your act, your child, and of course we would never want to do that, but does that silence and potential lack of transparency make it easier for alleged abusers? easier to have contact with children? absolutely. because it is shrouded in secrecy, people do not have a clue as a rule of what awaits them if they end up infamily of what awaits them if they end up in family court. and the festival of anybody abusing anybody in silence andi anybody abusing anybody in silence and i personally feel that the court system has abused me way more than my ex ever did. the family court system has abused you more than your ex ever did? absolutely. we haven't had a chance to talk about the specific details that came up and yourfamily court specific details that came up and your family court hearing when you're ex applied for contact with your daughter. if we talked about the details, we would be breaking the details, we would be breaking the law and we were to be in content

and so with you. yes. should that change? —— we would be in contempt and so would you. yes, that's a change. people should not be able to get away with abusive behaviour on any level. in a relationship or a professional setting. and finally what do you say to some of those watching who will say you have been making all of this up just because you are better and you don't want your ex to have contact with your daughter? there will always be people who say that she is better and hell has no fury like a woman scorned. it is not about that. it is about standing up to abuse. thank you for talking to us, katie. we appreciate your time. let's talk now to the victims‘ comissioner for london, claire waxman. lucy reed is a barrister

who represents both parents and children, and joining us is baroness mcintosh a conservative peer and former child access advocate. we don't have much time with you. how do you respond to the suggestion that there should be an investigation into this? your programme has clearly shone a light on issues to a wider audience. there isa on issues to a wider audience. there is a need to establish the evidence on record. i would argue that a public inquiry would take too long and the mechanism i would suggest, and the mechanism i would suggest, and we discussed this in the all—party parliamentary group on child contact centres yesterday, i believe the correct mechanism would believe the correct mechanism would be the select committee onjustice, if they were minded to do so. i think this isjust if they were minded to do so. i think this is just the sort of thing when they supervise and scrutinise the department of the courts that

they should look at. i think the all—party group would want that to be the preferred route, and i will speak to my colleague about this. and there would be the expectation that if that was not to happen, and all—party group like i was could do all—party group like i was could do a small inquiry but we wouldn't have the same powers evidence. the audience should be aware that at the moment this is an area dealing with very vulnerable children. the interest of the child must come first and the courts have put that first and the courts have put that first and the courts have put that first and foremost in these issues. but there are no common standards for child contact centres. i think thatis for child contact centres. i think that is something that we would like to see implemented. and the national association of child contact centres is the body to do so. having standards established for all child

centres to operate within is important. and i would like to see grandparents in baltimore, particularly with the issues discussed today. —— grandparents involved more. we have had lots of m essa g es involved more. we have had lots of messages from grandparents whose children are going through these battles at the moment. and in terms of child contact centres, explain what they are and what happens in them. that why you say that common standards, good practice across them all, is not uniform. it is an area which is not regulated in this way. there arejudicial which is not regulated in this way. there are judicial guidelines set down by thejudiciary there are judicial guidelines set down by the judiciary and practitioners, but a child contact centres operate for the most part excellently and they are provided by barnardos, the catholic society, and many others, and we want to see that continue and we want to see more volu nteers continue and we want to see more

volunteers are stepping forward to offer their services. that would be a great help. but at the moment it is not regulated and there are no common standards and we feel that is a weakness that must be addressed in the system. i will let you go. thank you for your patience. claire, the victims‘ commissionerfor you for your patience. claire, the victims‘ commissioner for london, and lucy, a barrister who represents pa rents and lucy, a barrister who represents parents and children and chair of the transparency project. claire, how traumatic can the family courts people are victims of domestic abuse from the people you have spoken to? i speak to victims of very serious crime. the abuse, stalking, rape, and going into the family courts which dramatises them and their child and puts them at great risk of harm. why do you say that? because i have spoken to hundreds of victims over the years you have been put into the family court processes. the drama and understanding the offences against and has always been

dismissed. i have looked specifically at a range of people who have convictions and they are supposed to be protected by restraining orders but we see in family court is the restraining orders being dismissed by family court judges, orders being dismissed by family courtjudges, saying we must continue to get contact. the risks that have been identified through the criminal courts, that police have identified, they seem to be dismissed when we get to family courts so there is no join up at the moment and that is putting victims at great risk. why would that documentary evidence of convictions that has come through a criminal court be dismissed in family court? i have to say that my experience of doing this sort of work over 15 or 16 years is that although of course in that length of time i have seen cases where i think that things are not being dealt with as they should be, generally speaking, particularly where there are convictions, the convictions are taken into account. does that mean that access isn't

given? it depends on the circumstances of the individual case. sometimes people will come to the family courts and there will be convictions that are historical, not connected to the other parent in the case. they may be teenage convictions for taking a car without consent or something. and nobody would think that would be relevant to access to a child. let's stick to this. at the beginning of every family court case now for the last several years, there's convictions are obtained and checked and an initial triage is undertaken by cafcas to see if any convictions are releva nt cafcas to see if any convictions are relevant and to see if there are any other convictions that are not which the family court might need to look at. that is on a fact-finding mission is meant to go on but anecdotally we have had the judge mission is meant to go on but anecdotally we have had thejudge is not always carrying that out.” think they are happening more often than they used to happen. they are

supposed to happen every time there are allegations of domestic abuse. every time there is a disputed allegation of domestic abuse where that will be potentially relevant to the decision made. in most cases where there is a disputed allegation, that will be relevant. sometimes there is a conviction so you don't need to have a rehearing if there is a conviction. sometimes there will be some level of admission from the person accused of abuse. it might not be complete but it might be enough to avoid the parties having to be re—traumatised by having the hearing. sometimes there is a dispute and it will be releva nt there is a dispute and it will be relevant and then there should be a fact—finding hearing and it is not right that has not consistently happen. ona right that has not consistently happen. on a practicaland right that has not consistently happen. on a practical and emotional level it takes up a huge amount of court resource and it is an unpleasant experience even when it is done as well as it can be for people to go through that trial process again and nobody wants that to happen unless it is really necessary. but i think there is a better understanding now that in

many cases it needs to be handled more sensitively and it does need to happen. legal aid to be only briefly touched on that yesterday. sometimes pa rents a re touched on that yesterday. sometimes parents are representing themselves because they don‘t qualify for legal aid because the thenjustice secretary cut the budget for that backin secretary cut the budget for that back in 2012. he is in the news for something else today, chris grayling. it also means potential abusers, alleged abusers are able to cross examine their ex partner. that is what i hear regularly, so there are issues, as we know, from cuts to legal aid and therefore victims and abusers are coming into direct contact victims are being cross i‘ve witnessed myself cases where i come back to where there is no grey area to protect the individual victim and they have been cross—examined by their abuse in they have been cross—examined by theirabuse ina they have been cross—examined by their abuse in a family core which is essentially breaching a

restraining order and that is what is being allowed to happen in a family court, so that puts great risk and harm to the victim and we‘ve focused a lot on serious case reviews and of course children have been killed in the last five years and that is tragic that we need to look at domestic homicide reviews because when you look at them there area number of because when you look at them there are a number of them that are citing family courts and talking about stalking and coercive control, which is not well identified, those are serious risk behaviours in domestic homicide reviews and there has been contact with social services and they have pushed ahead for contact and ignored the vulnerability around the risks and it‘s ended in murder. cani the risks and it‘s ended in murder. can i ask you about the comments to us can i ask you about the comments to us today. the judge would like to see academic research and says it is desperately needed to accurately pinpoint the scale of the problem. you heard the baroness saying one of the select committee could look at it because the prime minister said yesterday she didn‘t think there was enough evidence for an enquiry.

that‘s kind of the point, we don‘t know what the evidence is because there hasn‘t been the research. know what the evidence is because there hasn't been the researchm isa there hasn't been the researchm is a catch—22. there hasn't been the researchm is a catch-22. what would you support? there is definitely a need for independent research but it needs to happen. i would be happy if there was a form of enquiry whether it isa there was a form of enquiry whether it is a select committee or otherwise because there are different reports from different quarters of what is going on. my experience is one aspect but i see a particular type of case and i see the ones where barristers are instructed, and the majority of cases anymore means lots of people are doing it in person and in terms of claire describes cross—examination of victims by alleged perpetrators. not alleged. they are alleged at the time of a fact—finding hearing. i‘m talking about convictions and criminal courts, so i‘ve seen them. about convictions and criminal courts, so i've seen them. there is no alleged about it. if a court is

hearing evidence and cross—examination is happening it‘s because those allegations have not yet been proven. that is going to be banned. it will be in the domestic abuse bill so that cross—examination won‘t happen. abuse bill so that cross—examination won't happen. it's going to be banned but we‘ve been told that for a number of years. my experience in the cases i‘ve been involved in in the cases i‘ve been involved in in the last couple of years is that judges are doing everything they can to avoid doing it finding some way or other so they don‘t have the tools at their ex disposal but there are reports from other courts that this is still happening and i‘m wondering if people are being represented byjunior lawyers because there is a problem when legal aid is available with the rates of pay or where people are not represented but there is a wider problem as well and it‘s notjust about cross—examination when someone is in the whitman —— witness box. in a criminal case, someone who is a victim of abuse is a witness and they are properly only in court while they are giving evidence. in a family case, a mother and a father,

say, they are party to proceedings and there throughout and are expected to sit through everything, both parties evidence and any submissions made to the judge. when somebody is not represented whether it isa somebody is not represented whether it is a victim or perpetrator, they are potentially unsupported through the whole court process and a number of hearings over many months, so the particularly difficult issue of cross—examination in the witness box isa cross—examination in the witness box is a small part of the stress placed on people who are not represented. understood. i will reads some messages. my daughter was sexually abused by her father during messages. my daughter was sexually abused by herfather during court ordered unsupervised contact, despite him having a series of criminal convictions of violence towards meanies previous partners and was allowed overnight contact. my and was allowed overnight contact. my daughter and me are safe now but what we experience will haunt us for the rest of our lives. this e—mailer says my clients are mainly mothers but also fathers on what i‘ve come

to realise, it seems, is that it is usually the abusive parent who wins in the family court. the differences that the men are usually more physically frightening where the women tend to be more subtle in their abuse. most people who have been abused will tell you it was the emotional abuse was worse than the physical, that is one viewpoint. another tweet says this is going on for ages and the assumption is that contact with the abusive parent is better than no contact. i beg to differ. again, anecdotal evidence and clearly research needs to be done and may be the campaign starts now. i hope so. the prime minister is saying the domestic abuse bill is a priority her and there is a commitment to tackle domestic abuse, but by not commissioning the independent enquiry i think she is undermining her commitment, so i think she really has to take heed and listen. the ministry ofjustice does have the evidence and i‘ve given it to them personally over the yea rs given it to them personally over the years and i know others have two.

thank you both are coming on the programme. really appreciate it. and if you‘ve been affected by issues in this discussion, there is a range of organisations and websites that can offer you advice and support. you can find them listed on the bbc‘s actionline website at bbc.co.uk/actionline last week, we revealed the police were investigating whether a ukip candidate in the forthcoming european elections committed an offence when he said this about the labour mpjess phillips in a video now taken down by youtube ‘there‘s been an awful lot of talk about whether i would or would not even rape jess phillips. i‘ve been in a lot of trouble for my hard—line stance of not even raping her. i suppose with enough pressure i might cave. but let‘s be honest, nobody‘s got that much beer.‘ the labour mp told us about the impact that had on her. i‘ve been putting a brave face on it and pretending it was all fine and that i could cope. it sort of dawned on me that for four years,

essentially, this man has made a career out of harassing me and i felt harassed. i felt, career out of harassing me and i felt harassed. ifelt, how can somebody say that they would rape me if forced? and then be a legitimate candidate in election? the video was made by carl benjamin who‘s standing as a ukip candidate for the south west in next week‘s european parliament elections. we asked him onto our programme to respond to the interview jess philips gave us. ahead of those elections, you might remember earlier this week we invited all the parties fielding candidates — the conservatives, ukip, labour, the lib dems, the brexit party, snp, plaid cymru, change uk and the green party onto the show to discuss their policies, which they did. this interview with mr benjamin is not about ukip policies. thank you for talking to us. we invited you won after we interviewed the labour mp jess phillips invited you won after we interviewed the labour mpjess phillips last week. —— yuan. i want to ask you why did you decide to choose rape when talking about jess did you decide to choose rape when talking aboutjess phillips? did you decide to choose rape when talking about jess phillips?” did you decide to choose rape when talking about jess phillips? i am

interesting in what you‘re deliberately misrepresenting what happened. have you seen the video in question? of course. how would you describe the video? you have been lying about me and i‘ve been attacked in the street because of your lies. i have never lied about you. and you are here today... a lie by omission is still a lie and in your last segment about with jess phillips you did not mention this was a comedy video. talk is through that thought process. why rate? it isa that thought process. why rate? it is a joke at your expense. you could have chosen a number of things. is a joke at your expense. you could have chosen a number of thingsm is a joke at your expense. you could have chosen a number of things. if i can describe the video it was a four minute video of comedy. you chose to use minute video of comedy. you chose to use the word rape. i want to know why. it is part of a long letter joke about the way the media is bullying jess phillips with jokes i made that she never saw. but why rape though? i'vejust made that she never saw. but why rape though? i've just explained it, it‘s a joke about you, not her. rape though? i've just explained it, it's a joke about you, not her. why did you choose that subject?

degradation that that involves. jess phillips brings this up all the time. do you know the context of the original tweet that she did not see, you guys put that in herface, you know that? what kind of individual makes light of sexual violence and attaches a woman‘s name to it? someone who is telling a joke. this is the point i‘m making, you are misrepresenting what has happened. an individual that might end up, if elected, representing victims of rape in the south—west region of the country. yes, and i spoke to a victim of rape recently and in one of the street interviews i did she thanked me for being able to take the power back from such a terrible experience by owning it herself and making jokes about the subject so it does not control her. this is a thing i am concerned about. jess phillips said this was some kind of coercive control. not by me. she hasn‘t seen the video and did not even see the original treat. jess phillips says it is harassment. she

feels harassed by what you have said. she didn't see anything i said. she didn't see anything i said. it is journalists like you put that in front of her face. you are the one coercively controlling by making sure she can‘t get away from it. i‘ve never sent any of that to jess phillips. this is tabloid journalism that you have found to put in herface and outrage her. youtube have ta ken put in herface and outrage her. youtube have taken down your video and west midlands police are investigating to see if an offence has taken place. could i ask you a really personal question? sure. have you been raped. i have been sexually assaulted. do you usually ask people if they have been raped? do you find that an appropriate question?” appreciate it‘s a sensitive question. i had no idea.” appreciate it‘s a sensitive question. i had no idea. idon't think you would ask a woman if she had been raped. i have, several times. really? in this context? the reason i am asking the question, honestly, is to see if you

understand the impact that your rape discourse has on victims of sexual crimes? do you understand the impact of those who have been the victim of sexual violence question mark i don‘t think you have been speaking to victims. i‘m not speaking for them i‘m telling you what they said. ican them i‘m telling you what they said. i can tell you what victims have said to me. let me read you what survivors have told us. there is no one narrative here. are you interesting in hearing what they said? no, because you're not interested in what i‘m saying. said? no, because you're not interested in what i'm saying. these are direct quotes from people who have watched your video or read your comments. honestly, this makes my stomach churn. how does he find this acceptable? comments like this might not seem a lot to a bloke like him, but to me, jokes about what i went through feel like a bullet. that is from a 31—year—old male survivor of sexual violence in northampton. from a 31—year—old male survivor of sexualviolence in northampton. and from a mid—20s female survivor, she

thanked me for making jokes about it. how do you respond to that?” will say you have been lied to. you are not listening to me. this is misrepresenting what happened. how do you respond to what he said? the way you report the comments is farcical. i will read you another one. the lack of empathy from somebody seeking public office is sickening. rape is not funny. there are two sides to every question. i am empathising with the other side. may i finish, please. as a survivor, iam angry, may i finish, please. as a survivor, i am angry, because it‘s comments like this that would have prevented me telling anybody what happened to me telling anybody what happened to me andi me telling anybody what happened to me and i probably wouldn‘t have been here today without that help. that is from a female survivor, aged 28 from london. you don't care about the survivor that talked to me. you only care about the survivors that bolster your narrative. though survivors on my side of the issue, you ignore completely. you pretend they don‘t exist. you ignore completely. you pretend they don't exist. you said you had

spoken to person? one person. they are all survivors of rape. of sexual assault, yes. rape crisis... . let me say. this is what they say. you are not getting to the core of the issue. this is a surface level interrogation. rape crisis a experience of rape and sexual abuse are more common than people realise. material that normalises or trivialises or attempts to get laughs out of sexual violence can be humiliating and upsetting all survivors. so—called rape jokes humiliating and upsetting all survivors. so—called rapejokes are not just insensitive, survivors. so—called rapejokes are notjust insensitive, hurtful survivors. so—called rapejokes are not just insensitive, hurtful and disrespectful, they are damaging. do you understand that? i'm aware of the politically correct narrative around this but there‘s another narrative that we could call the non—politically correct one that i support. i think it‘s a lot more empowering not to be controlled by jokes. i think laughing... empowering not to be controlled by jokes. i think laughing. . ” empowering not to be controlled by jokes. ithink laughing... iam interested. you are interrupting me now, come on. i am interested that

you won‘t accept but survivors of rape and sexual violence find what you have done to be incredibly hurtful. and you won't accept that survivors of sexual violence find it empowering. you spoken to one person. i've spoken to lots of people, that is why i‘m speaking to you now. why have you had keepers and milkshakes thrown at you? because you are radicalising people by lying about me. you are saying there‘s a link between language and a cts there‘s a link between language and acts on violence? there a link between telling things about someone in the press and the things that they are trying to do. so there is no link between language and rhetoric and acts of violence question what yes, but you‘re not telling jokes. are you telling jokes? so is there a link between your rape language and acts of violence? no, because i was telling a joke and it was contextually a joke. this is what you have the decontextualised it to make sense. you sound like a hypocrite.” decontextualised it to make sense. you sound like a hypocrite. i don't

care, it‘s a joke. you sound like a hypocrite. i don't care, it's ajoke. when you sound like a hypocrite. i don't care, it's a joke. when you are a target you blame the words on newspapers or the media, but when you target someone by attaching their name to your rape jokes, that‘s ok. their name to your rape jokes, that's ok. but i'm not inciting people. you are inciting people. every single person i‘ve spoken to about the things that you have said about the things that you have said about me don‘t understand any of it. people who are alleging things about me, ican people who are alleging things about me, i can sit and explain to them the context and they say, that‘s not very important, is it? you are normalising this kind of language. i‘m normalising comedy because comedy is under attack in this country. i can mention other comedians who are investigated for jokes. we have gone down a very dark path. as orwell says, printed on the front of this building, if liberty is to mean anything at all, it must be the right to tell people that which they do not want to hear. this is the bbc. does the bbc stand by that or not? here are some comments from your social media pages after

your video. ronnie says, well, she wa nts your video. ronnie says, well, she wants action. i'm not accountable for what other people have said. i will only be accountable for what other people have said. would you like to hear the things people have said to me because of your programme? well, she wants action, i had a chat with a brewery and they will find the beer. i‘ve ordered a paper bag, i think you will need it and you will have to buckle down and think of england. honest question, mate, would you rapejess phillips? i don‘t believe that these are real. they are. prove it to me. why are you making up comments to other people are apparently saying questionjace people are apparently saying question jace wants action people are apparently saying questionjace wants action now. people are apparently saying question jace wants action now. rape reaction, i want comedy to come back to this country, i am i want comedy to come back to this country, iam normalising jokes i want comedy to come back to this country, i am normalising jokes will stop the bbc is doing everything it can to kill it. your deputy leader says rape destroys the lives of men

and women who suffer it. it is not in my concept of free speech. you have condemned every comedian in the country. this is your deputy leader. i would like to see those take responsibility that comes with free speech and admit that they were wrong. i don't think telling jokes is wrong and i don‘t think it should be criminalised. i‘m being investigated over a joke, an outtake of comedy blooper reels that you are lying about. other comedians in my position, they are being hounded by the media to drum up hysteria and the media to drum up hysteria and the police investigated. why is ukip tanking in the polls ahead of the elections? how are the polls doing question what did they predict brexit or donald trump? i have seen a very good response. at the last election ukip got 2a seats, but they are currently polling at about 3% and the brexit party is polling on average 30%. what would represent success for ukip in the euro elections? for me, and i won't speak

for ukip as a whole, but being able to table the issues around free speech as the most important thing. iama speech as the most important thing. i am a free speech activists. we are losing our ability to makejokes in this country because of puritanical moral standards. so in terms of success , moral standards. so in terms of success, is it getting one mep? five? we don‘t know what we will get because polls are often inaccurate. what would success represent? the european excess “— what would success represent? the european excess —— elections, eve ryo ne european excess —— elections, everyone talking about farage and his polling, so if he could have achieved as an mep, he would have done it 20 years ago. this is smoke and mirrors. the brexit party will not last. they cannot put out a ma nifesto not last. they cannot put out a manifesto that satisfies george galloway and ann widdecombe. there are 81,000 signatures on a petition for calling for a lifetime ban for those who promote the language of rape or violence like you. like you.

no, like you. i don‘t promote that. you are the ones decontextualised in this. imagine the hurt feelings of anyone dictating who can or can‘t stand for election. if that is the case, then jess phillips stand for election. if that is the case, thenjess phillips has no legitimate —— legitimacy being an mp because of what she did to philip davies and my hurt feelings. you don‘t want to talk about that though, do you? you are talking to the backbench business committee where she laughed about men‘s issues in the discussion. that is not funny. that is inaccurate. you have lied about a lot of things today, so i don‘t take your word for it. lied about a lot of things today, so i don't take your word for it. tell the audience what happened. let me tell the audience what happened. the backbench business committee meeting in the house of commons where philip davies says women is how international women‘s day and in the comments they have women and equality questions every month, which they don‘t have four men, and he went on to say the opportunity for men to raise issues that are important to them are very limited

at which point you hearjess phillips laughing and philip davies says, to give you a flavour of the things that men care about on international men‘s day, and he pauses and says, international men‘s day, and he auses and sa s i‘m international men‘s day, and he pauses and says, i‘m not entirely sure why it is so humorous and then he lists various mail issues including life expectancy and male suicide. and he addressesjess phillips laughing before listing the issues. later she says you will have to excuse me for laughing but the idea that men don‘t have the opportunity to ask questions in this place is a laughable thing. as the only woman on this committee, it seems like every day is international men‘s day. seems like every day is international men's day. that is her feminist bias. she blocked it, that is why it wasn‘t talked about. so her saying a man can talk about it a nyway her saying a man can talk about it anyway once, not with her blocking it. she wants 50% representation in parliament and that‘s an unreasonable demand. philip davies doesn‘t get to choose that, so when doesn‘t get to choose that, so when do we have a debate on male suicide, the number one killer of men under 45 and my uncle committed suicide. when do we have the debate. thank

you for talking to us. we have covered it a number of times on this programme. thanks for your comments. claire says that the carl benjamin interview has made me cry. he sounds just like my rape is making people believe it‘s all a joke and that women are hysterical. carl says, how can you and allow an individual to stand for parliament after using the word rape and saying it is a joke. it is disgusting. john says, victoria, you are one thick woman, imagine having a conversation with you when you cannot understand context. carl benjamin is not wrong in not apologising for his joke, context. carl benjamin is not wrong in not apologising for hisjoke, and he knows the apology will not be accepted on thejoke he knows the apology will not be accepted on the joke will be used against it by political opponents which include the supposedly impartial bbc. royston says, i love you for confronting the creature thatis you for confronting the creature that is carl benjamin. i am a male survivor of years of violent rape. thank you, victoria. peter on facebook, i will never vote for ukip

again. carl benjamin talking to us in an interview recorded just before we came on air. by the way he gave an answer in the interview that he pointed out several comedians had madejokes about pointed out several comedians had made jokes about sexual assault, which is true in some cases and we took that short bit out because we could not find evidence that all of the people he named have done that. if you want to get in touch to talk about the interview or the family courts and many of you still are, we will read more at the end of the programme. six years ago, a conservative mp called chris grayling was the justice secretary and he was in charge of stopping people coming out of prison from re—offending. his flagship policy was to part—privatise the probation service — and so allow parts of it be run by private companies. but after a series of failings the government now says it was a mistake. and is taking it over again. this what mr grayling said in 2014.

violent crimes, sex crimes, nearly 60% reoffend within a few months of leaving prison and that‘s the problem with trying to solve. we have a situation where people are walking out of the prison gates without any support at all and that is going to now change. but since then, figures from the national audit office show a 47 per cent increase in offenders being recalled to prison, and a potential bill to tax—payers of almost half a billion pounds. later today in the house of commons the present justice secretary, david gauke, will make a statement. this is what he told the bbc this morning. when it comes to offender management i recognise the system is not working as we wanted and we have looked at the evidence and the reports of the chief inspector of probation and concluded that the best way forward, given that the contracts are coming to an end and then we need new contracts anyway, but the best thing, in my view, is to bring offender management into one organisation, the national probation service.

let‘s talk to roger mann, who says he‘s turned his life round after shoplifting to fund a drug habit. he went through the probation system when changes were first introduced by chris grayling. and tania bassett is from napo — the trade union for probation staff. how chaotic was your probation?” would turn up to appointments and the work wouldn‘t be there, or there was a different worker or they wouldn‘t even be expecting me in some cases. were they able to stop you reoffending? no, not really. you‘re not treated as an individual, it‘s very scripted and they don‘t look at your problems as an individual. and do you think that lead you back into a life of crime? definitely. i got to the point where i thought what is the point of going to probation? it doesn‘t do anything

for me. what would have been better for me. what would have been better for you. what should have been different? well, i was asking for rehabilitation for my drug problem andi rehabilitation for my drug problem and i was saying to my officers that i needed to go to rehab and they we re i needed to go to rehab and they were saying that they could not do that for me. they couldn‘t offer that for me. they couldn‘t offer that kind of support. a police officer got me into rehab and in contact with the timpson foundation, that sort of helped me find employment and turned my life around. which is so good to hear. let me bring intaglio. your reaction to the fact that the government is doing a u—turn on this and is taking over the system again when it comes to supervision of some offenders? we welcome the news absolutely. we've been waiting six years for the announcement to come through since its conception and we have warned the government that this was never

going to work and the model wasn't going to work and the model wasn't going to work and the model wasn't going to work and it was irredeemably flawed and it was from the outset always going to be a failure, so we welcome the news. it's great for our members and grateful communities. what we want to see is the minister to go further and for this to be brought back 100% into public ownership. but there are some private companies, third sector companies, doing good work when it comes to the rehabilitation of offenders. in terms of the community rehabilitation companies until very re ce ntly rehabilitation companies until very recently every single one had had a damning report from the inspection. i believe there has been a positing —— positive one for hampshire and the isle of wight but it's the first one in six years that is given something good about the private sector and in terms of the third sector, yes, they are best placed to provide a very local services that meet individual needs, but they have been pushed out of probation by

chris grayling's transforming rehabilitation. the whole programme has resulted in less third sector organisations being involved than before the privatisation, so that objective has completely failed. roger, how do you react to the news today that the government is taking this over again? i'm not surprised, to be honest with you. it was in a shambles, it was in a mess and it needed sorting out. and there are people in my position who are screaming out for the help and it‘s not there, unfortunately. do you think that is true? people on shorter term sentences are coming out and they do want to be supervised and get the help from probation to make sure there isn‘t the revolving door of back into jail. absolutely. and i think what these reforms have done is speed the revolving door up. we've seen a huge increase in recall is back to prison which is not helpful for clients or probation workers and dame glenys

stacey said when she gave evidence on tuesday that short term sentences are a particular type of cohort of clients that require specialist intervention. they need both hands being held, so to speak, because they tend to have the most unstable live tiles and more chaos. so what the reforms did was not enough to meet their needs —— lifestyles. thank you very much. tanya and roger, thank you for coming on the programme. thank you for all of your messages, particularly about the family courts. we will read them all, don‘t worry. bbc newsroom live is next. have a good day. good morning. today will be a cooler day compared to the last few days and there will be a bit more cloud developing into the afternoon but this morning many of us have had some clear blue skies and this was the scene in the city of london first thing this morning but the cloud will increase here in london

as it will across parts of east anglia, the midlands and central and southern areas, and there is a bit ofa southern areas, and there is a bit of a higher cloud towards western areas making the sunshine hazy and despite the cloud and temperatures being lower than yesterday. a bit fresher further south and east, being lower than yesterday. a bit fresherfurther south and east, and fresherfurther south and east, and fresher temperatures between 14 and 17 degrees but still a fairly pleasa nt 17 degrees but still a fairly pleasant day. through the night we continue with a lot of clout and it brings showery outbreaks of rain across central and southern areas and clearer spells in the north and west with overnight temperatures between four and 9 degrees. during friday, more cloud and there will be some showery outbreaks of rain, mainly across southern areas and showers into scotland. temperatures down again, about 14 to 17 celsius. goodbye for now.

you‘re watching bbc newsroom live — it‘s 11am, and these are the main stories this morning. the government announces a major shake—up of the probation service — the supervision of thousands of offenders is to be largely renationalised after past failings. we should build on those reforms and move to a new system that still has involvement of the private and voluntary sector, a really important role for the private and voluntary sector. but when it comes to this offender management function, i think a unified model will work better. theresa may faces senior conservative mps shortly as pressure mounts for the prime minister to agree a timetable for her departure from downing street. president trump declares a national emergency — banning american companies using telecoms from what he calls "foreign adversaries".