0:00

You can get three months months for

0:02

just £15, plus a

0:04

free bottle of plus a free

0:06

if you go to .co .uk

0:08

you go to spectator.co. UK This offer

0:10

is UK This offer is to

0:12

availability. and subject to

0:15

availability. Hello

0:22

and and welcome to the edition

0:24

podcast from The The Spectator, each where each

0:26

week light a little light on

0:28

the thought process behind putting the

0:30

world's oldest weekly magazine to bed. Pendergast,

0:32

the I'm Laura Prendergast, The Spectator's

0:34

executive editor. Moore, William Moore. The

0:36

Features Editor. This week is a This week is

0:38

a special episode of the podcast

0:40

we're we're going to be looking

0:43

back on some of our favourite

0:45

pieces from the magazine the the last

0:47

year. to We're going to revisit

0:49

some of the conversations that we

0:51

had around them. them. So this best

0:53

of 2024 episode you will be hearing

0:55

from the likes of Dominic the likes

0:57

of Dominic Sandbrook, Mary biggest topics from Harmon on

1:00

the year's the politics of the from Starmer's

1:02

landslide majority to the

1:04

politics of the hotel

1:06

buffet. But let's start

1:08

with undoubtedly the let's start

1:10

with news the biggest news of

1:12

the year, Stammer's and the first labour in

1:14

14 years. years. In April we

1:17

spoke to Katie Balles and Harriet Hardman about

1:19

just what a supermajority could

1:21

mean for for Kia Starmer. It's certainly an

1:23

interesting one to revisit. The aim

1:25

of Katie's piece was to communicate

1:27

the internal problems that could

1:29

come could come a result of such

1:31

a sweeping victory and how Stammer

1:33

could go about managing a

1:36

historic cohort of back of backbenchers. One MP

1:38

who knows about adjusting. to life

1:40

life in a after a is Harriet is

1:42

the former leader of former leader of

1:44

a member of Tony and a member

1:46

of Tony Blair's first So here's their

1:48

conversation and let's hope and is

1:50

listening back. is the first

1:52

thing, the Katie referred to this,

1:54

know, to this, you know, that and his office

1:57

have got a thankless task trying

1:59

to trying to dampen. expectations because as

2:01

soon as we read the

2:03

opinion polls you know

2:05

we get giddy with enthusiasm

2:07

but we do have

2:09

to remember that you know

2:11

sometimes people's expectations can

2:13

be confounded you know we

2:15

we were expected to

2:17

win in 92 and we

2:19

weren't even a minority

2:21

government the Tories continued to

2:23

have a majority government

2:25

having been in since 1979

2:27

and again in 2010 we

2:30

were expected to be down

2:32

the pan and lose completely but

2:34

actually the conservatives didn't win

2:36

an overall majority so I think

2:38

that it is very difficult

2:40

to keep your feet on the

2:43

ground as a Labour person

2:45

with the polls being quite as

2:47

optimistic as they are but You

2:49

know, the leaders office are absolutely

2:51

right to say, you know, focus on

2:53

the job in hand. The

2:56

other thing that is kind

2:58

of slightly undermining their attempts to

3:00

dampen expectations is the by -elections.

3:02

which have been again. overwhelmingly

3:05

people saying to the Conservative

3:07

government by the way, time's up.

3:09

you know, if you think you've got

3:11

a mandate to govern, here we are

3:13

in this by -election and we're gonna

3:16

take our opportunity to tell you you

3:18

haven't. But I don't. agree with

3:20

the next point that

3:22

a big majority. is

3:24

a problem. A big majority is

3:26

much less of a problem

3:28

than a small majority and

3:31

That's even less of a problem than

3:33

being a minority government. Yeah, I mean,

3:35

to Harriet's point, mean, one of the

3:38

problems is, how do you suddenly train

3:40

up this huge cohort of MPs? So

3:42

they know what they're doing, so they

3:44

don't fall into some of the pitfalls

3:46

of Westminster, because if you speak to

3:48

some after the 2019 election, that was

3:50

a majority of 80. And I think

3:52

that the whips feel so partly because

3:55

of the pandemic, they ended up with

3:57

these very unruly MPs who all thought

3:59

they had their own social media. brands. Kirstenma's

4:01

office are also trying to learn lessons from

4:03

those from the Blair era about what they

4:05

did about having a big majority in getting

4:07

to know those MPs, what they got right,

4:09

what they got wrong. But they've been having

4:12

lots of, I mean in the in the

4:14

piece I call it effect, you know, a

4:16

Westminster finishing school, but it is summer away

4:18

days, summer way weekends even, but the large

4:20

focus is these online sessions they're doing almost

4:22

every week, where you'll have Morgan McSweeny or

4:25

Pac McFadden, the two working on the campaign,

4:27

just updating. the candidates over zoom and they'll

4:29

be saying these are our campaign messaging this

4:31

is why we're saying it and then you're

4:33

also having shadow ministers coming on and giving

4:35

various briefings, whether it's, you know, a post

4:37

budget briefing and you get someone like Darren

4:40

Jones, the shadow chief secretary, or Angela Reyna,

4:42

I think, when the point came that there

4:44

was not going to be a May election

4:46

because the dead had me missed, it was

4:48

more of a pet talk one, and they're

4:50

saying, you know, they bottle it but keep

4:52

going because we're going to do well, because

4:55

it's a very long wait if you're a

4:57

candidate to get to that election. And I

4:59

think some of these, you know, when it

5:01

comes to the training, you know, when it

5:03

comes to the training, you know, when it

5:05

comes to the training, you know, you know,

5:08

you know, when it comes to the training,

5:10

you know, you know, when it comes to

5:12

the training, you know, you know, Some of

5:14

it is also how do you do public

5:16

speaking, how do you stand up tall, and

5:18

all those aspects. So it is trying to

5:20

get to all the points where I think

5:23

they think there could be weaknesses. And I

5:25

think just just picking up on the super

5:27

majority issue, I mean, if Labour can win

5:29

a mega majority, it's clearly going to be

5:31

their preference on anything else. I just think

5:33

we have never seen one to the scale

5:36

of these MRP polls in this How does

5:38

the party act? But also I think it's

5:40

just in terms of, I think the Tories

5:42

and the other parties could start to feel

5:44

incredibly irrelevant to political debates and conversations. Can

5:46

I pick up some of the things that

5:48

Katie said because I think that now I

5:51

completely agree that there will not be a

5:53

conservative opposition. If the figures are like they

5:55

are, when we got in in in 1997,

5:57

there was literally virtually no opposition, they won't.

5:59

absolute crisis for years.

6:01

but there are still external realities

6:04

and for example on the

6:06

economy We have to

6:08

be very concerned that we don't,

6:10

and obviously we're not going to,

6:12

repeat the debacle of Liz Truss

6:14

and Quasi Quarteng of upsetting the

6:16

financial market. So you've got external

6:19

realities that you've got to be

6:21

concerned about. And also, and I

6:23

remember Tony Blair warning us this

6:25

when we got this massive majority

6:27

and we'd been told before 97,

6:30

don't be complacent. We didn't win

6:32

in 92, We might not win

6:34

this time. And it

6:36

being like, God, look at our

6:38

fantastic majority. And it was like. No,

6:41

no, no celebration now

6:43

because people will think we're

6:45

arrogant. So you immediately

6:47

go from your 30

6:49

seconds celebration of winning

6:51

to be very careful.

6:54

that people don't. think that

6:56

you are arrogant and want to take you

6:59

down a peg. And, Harriet, just finally,

7:01

one of the points that Katie makes is

7:03

at the point where Labour take over,

7:05

they will have a serious moment of power

7:07

and support, and that is the moment

7:09

to get things done. What do you think

7:11

Starmer should do first? What What would

7:13

you be advising him to focus on? I

7:16

mean, what you do is you

7:18

have a period where you can

7:20

set a different sort of tone.

7:22

You can change the culture by

7:24

doing things that previous government would

7:27

not have thought of doing. Like,

7:29

for example, changing workers' rights, improving

7:31

workers' rights, like like setting up

7:33

a national wealth fund, like establishing

7:35

great British energy, like doing cleaning

7:37

up of politics. So they'll do

7:39

things which start things going in

7:41

a different direction. Remember, one of

7:44

the first bills we bought into

7:46

Parliament was the national minimum wage, but

7:48

it wasn't implemented for two years. So

7:50

actually, you can change

7:53

the feel of things by

7:55

going off in a

7:57

different direction, but actually, the

7:59

practical changes. don't happen for a couple

8:01

of years down the line, but people will

8:03

know they're coming. Next, the change in number

8:06

10 is of course not the only notable

8:08

shake-up that we've seen in Westminster this year.

8:10

Fraser Nelson stepped down as editor of this

8:12

magazine in September, after 15 years in the

8:15

editor's chair and with 784 issues to his

8:17

name. Well, we sat down with him on

8:19

his final day in the office. to get

8:21

his reflections on his time here at 22

8:24

Old Queen Street. Well, Fraser, it's Wednesday afternoon,

8:26

the magazine has just gone to print, and

8:28

this is, and correct me if I wrote

8:30

Fraser, but this is your 784th issue of

8:33

the spectator. That's right. Very sad news for

8:35

a lot of readers, which is that is

8:37

also your final issue of the spectator as

8:39

editor. Can you start perhaps by telling us

8:42

how you feel at this moment? It's bit

8:44

your sweet, right. I mean, because I am

8:46

about to obviously leave. the people who've come

8:48

to matter more to me than anybody else

8:51

other than my family. And I'm in a

8:53

very reposition of being nervous long, but I

8:55

pretty much hired everybody I work with. And

8:57

when you look at the pledges of doing

9:00

this job, of course, it's a great honor

9:02

to edit the world's greatest magazine. But... To

9:04

me, it's an even bigger honor to be

9:07

able to work with the people I work

9:09

with, to be able to see them grow

9:11

and develop from what they were to what

9:13

they are. I mean, over 15 years, people's

9:16

careers can come on quite a lot. And

9:18

I have in this strange situation, where if

9:20

you want to list people's careers can come

9:22

on quite a lot. And I have in

9:25

this strange situation where if you want to

9:27

list people I admire, I admire, for more

9:29

than 10 years. broadly speaking, but I stayed

9:31

here for as long as is decently possible

9:34

because I've just found it so hard to

9:36

leave. I also figured that, you know, we're

9:38

seeing your will in my office and behind

9:40

me there's a whole row of political biographies

9:43

which I'm leaving behind. my successor, my hookove.

9:45

When you When you look

9:47

at these political one

9:49

of the great conundrums

9:52

of political life is of

9:54

long is too long?

9:56

long is Thatcher left after

9:58

a 10 year anniversary,

10:01

how much different that

10:03

would have been? that would

10:05

And it's a big

10:07

question question I've always

10:10

wondered about, how long

10:12

is too long? If

10:14

he never actually wants

10:16

to actually wants always something you passionately

10:19

want to stay for, which for me

10:21

there always is, for, then when is the

10:23

right time? the right time? And there isn't an right time,

10:25

time, but sometimes there's an obvious time. time,

10:27

and with a 100 100 million pound sale of a

10:29

spectator, it it seems to me to be

10:31

an obvious time. time. And the other thing thing

10:33

thinking today, Will, is that I'm going

10:35

through what very few editors go through. editors

10:37

work with a sword of Damocles above their

10:39

head, of and it falls one day. head

10:41

You might make a, there'll be a big

10:44

mistake, make bad you have to resign, big

10:46

be a battle that you will lose. resign, you

10:48

tend to, this that you have to Express there'll

10:50

for two weeks that went round saying,

10:52

you'll he's gone, game over. lose, there'll be a

10:54

editor he was given a list

10:56

of people he wasn't allowed to contact.

10:58

a They were like game, of his

11:00

closest friends as well. So it tends to be

11:02

tends to be quite the ending the ending

11:04

of editorships. and I'm And I'm genuinely

11:06

grateful to both Paul Marshall and allowing me

11:08

to go out on allowing me to go

11:10

out of my own terms. be able to

11:13

never expected to be able to say

11:15

goodbye properly and to be sitting a

11:17

doing a podcasts like this. Fears are casting

11:19

back to 2009, at which at which

11:21

point the spectator was valued at 20

11:23

million. It's now just been sold

11:25

for been million. for 100 Many people will

11:27

want to know. to know. well and myself and clearly

11:29

did. What is the secret to that? to that?

11:31

What has happened in those 15

11:34

years, do you think? There is

11:36

so much to write about I I

11:38

could write a book and perhaps should

11:40

about everything that we did. The

11:42

answers range from technical I

11:44

mean some of the things we did write mean,

11:47

some of the things we did have

11:49

accidental. We didn't have any to to

11:51

hire expensive people, so we recruited we

11:53

grew our own people. We had

11:55

a very unusual form of recruitment with

11:57

no with no TV. no names. we tend to.

12:00

trust people with early responsibility but I

12:02

would summarize it quite quickly because I

12:04

know as editor that if you look

12:06

at the 10 best things we've done

12:08

I know that I personally was responsible

12:10

for none of them but I was

12:12

responsible for hiring empowering and promoting the

12:14

right people so I think that I

12:16

could talk for an hour about this

12:19

but our industry is wrong in first

12:21

of all getting in consultants I think

12:23

journalists are the best people to form

12:25

the future of journalism. think journalists if

12:27

properly empowered and encouraged can be the

12:29

ones to innovate. This podcast that we're

12:31

having now, that was somebody's innovation. mean,

12:33

it was everything that we've done

12:35

was was up by a journalist in

12:37

their 20s. And And would,

12:40

if everybody is familiar with the

12:42

mission, think the editor's job is

12:44

to have brand to use that

12:46

a lot of term. The Visputator

12:48

is such a clear, such a

12:50

beautiful, such a heroic project that

12:52

as long as you know everybody

12:54

is what we're here for. for.

12:56

And they're encouraged to ask for

12:59

forgiveness, not permission, just go and

13:01

do things and worry about it

13:03

later, to have an experimental culture

13:05

where we can try stuff if

13:07

it works great, expand it, if

13:09

it doesn't, no problem, try some

13:11

more. But primarily it's a bit

13:13

on quality and a bit fundamentally

13:15

in the intelligence of readers that

13:17

people will pay for good writing

13:19

and that the proliferation of trash

13:21

online will perversely mean there's a

13:23

greater demand for what we do

13:25

here at The spectator. was fundamentally vote

13:27

of confidence in

13:29

the discretion and the

13:32

judgment and the tastes of a

13:34

readership and a readership which is twice

13:36

as large now as it was. And

13:38

on those readers, could you just

13:40

talk a little bit about some of

13:42

your favourite memories of your time

13:44

here with them? Meeting the readers has been

13:46

the best part of this job. We do

13:48

quite a lot of events and what's great about

13:50

the readers is that when you meet them

13:52

they are exactly as you wish they were. When

13:54

we have a party out there in the

13:57

back garden that we're sitting in my office looking

13:59

now. I remember once I

14:01

met a minor royal, Sophie Winckelman.

14:03

By the way, fantastic, intelligent woman.

14:05

Very good writer as well. She

14:07

is. And I also met a

14:09

scaffolder who worked in Birmingham, a

14:11

regular spectator subscriber. And there was

14:13

something about that combination because they

14:15

were the same sort of people.

14:17

They liked the same sort of

14:19

things. They liked original, spiky arguments.

14:21

I learned so much talking to

14:23

the readers over the years. But

14:25

more often, when you go and

14:27

leave a party like that, it

14:29

completely doubles your faith that you're

14:31

doing the right thing, that when

14:33

you're insisting an original, well -written copy

14:35

you're doing it because they genuinely

14:37

appreciate it. They will talk you

14:39

through the magazine, explain what they

14:41

like, talk about Melissa Kites, Traveils,

14:43

the sort of, you know. The

14:45

things which we might think don't

14:47

get the most clicks, our readers

14:49

tend to cherish the most and

14:51

fundamentally an editor works for

14:53

the readers. An editor doesn't work for the publisher. Can

14:55

we talk a little bit about Morton

14:58

Moreland? Because it was you, Fraser, who

15:00

brought Morton to the and Morton, as

15:02

readers will know, is now so synonymous

15:04

with the Spectator and his artwork every

15:06

week, just completely enlivens the issue. Could

15:08

you talk a little bit about your

15:10

relationship with him and how that's all

15:13

worked? I often think that my

15:15

editorship will be remembered for having

15:17

brought Morton Moreland on board. I

15:19

love the put cartoons, I collect

15:21

them, and I think it's a

15:23

fairly statement to say that Morton

15:25

Moreland is our greatest cartoonist and

15:27

skill ray. I think his, our

15:29

cartoonists can draw beautifully, our cartoonists

15:31

can capture a likeness, our cartoonists

15:33

can make a and be perceptive,

15:35

but almost nobody is all three.

15:39

And the same with sort of Noel

15:41

Coward, you know, comedian, musician, playwright,

15:43

but hardly anybody combines these things. And

15:45

I think Morton, every single week,

15:47

my judgment as to whether the issue

15:49

was good or not was on

15:51

the cover. You either get it in

15:53

less than a second, or you

15:55

don't. And And it's incredible work for

15:57

Morton to study a politician's manner. to

16:00

study current affairs. But you can

16:02

draw more from our artwork than

16:04

you can from that four -page article.

16:06

Like in the, in the editorial

16:08

office, for example, we've got every Moreland

16:10

for the last four years. We

16:12

literally paper the wall with it.

16:14

And when you walk in there,

16:16

you can see, illustrated the history of

16:19

our times. And I think art

16:21

can do what words just simply

16:23

can't. And in the hands of the

16:25

right artists. And

16:27

I think it's just, I think just,

16:29

you know, Moreland has been just

16:31

endowed with incredible gifts. And I'm just

16:33

so happy we were able to, that

16:35

our times were able to overlap. Frida,

16:37

thank you very much for joining

16:39

us. And thank you for everything. Well,

16:41

thank you guys for everything. Next,

16:47

do historians talk down to

16:49

children? In June, Mary Wakefield dedicated

16:51

her column to this very

16:53

question. She wrote about her experience

16:55

trying to find engaging and

16:57

challenging history books for her eight

16:59

-year -old and compared the dumbed -down

17:01

one -dimensional version of history portrayed

17:03

in modern children's books with

17:05

the classic Lady Bird books of

17:07

the 1960s. Mary joined our

17:09

podcast to discuss with the author

17:11

of the Adventures in Time

17:13

children's book series and host of

17:16

the Rest is History podcast,

17:18

Dominic Sandbrook. I think, I

17:20

mean, actually I agree with Mary by and large.

17:22

Obviously, I don't agree that history publishing for children

17:24

has never been in a worse shape because it's

17:26

the history of children myself. I've

17:29

kind of got to say that. when

17:31

I started doing my own books, which

17:33

is in 2020, a series called Adventures

17:35

in Time, I was motivated by exactly

17:37

the same things that Mary is pointing

17:39

out. So my son was then, what

17:41

was he about, eight in 2020 and

17:43

I wanted, he was doing evacuees as

17:45

his big project at school. They were

17:47

doing it that term. And

17:50

there was a lot of stuff about

17:52

kind of the kids. So again, it's

17:54

pitched at their level. It's brought down

17:56

to a children's level, which I think

17:58

is maybe fine. a in, but then I but

18:01

then I thought they never actually do

18:03

the of the war. I mean, I mean, have

18:05

no idea what is happening. And I

18:07

wanted to buy him a book. him a And

18:09

just as Mary says, I couldn't find

18:11

anything that wasn't sort that wasn't little girl

18:13

who could girl of that approach

18:15

approach to telling in the past in

18:18

the past or too cutesy boring. too

18:20

So a kind of of usborn with

18:22

lots of pictures of and very

18:24

small amounts of text. And

18:26

I thought I thought... What he wants, what

18:28

I would love love my platonic of a

18:30

history book for children. but for children

18:32

is story? story will

18:34

suck the child. into the story.

18:36

and of And of course, the child

18:39

the child in terms they will

18:41

understand, but not completely to

18:43

them. And as Mary says, Mary says, it's

18:45

not, there's a lot of there's a lot

18:47

of darkness. have Children have no

18:49

problem with that as long as it's

18:52

properly packaged for them in an an

18:54

exciting story with characters. A Yeah,

18:56

a child can read Hobbit or the the

18:58

Harry Potter books whatever it might

19:00

be. be. So there's no reason why

19:02

they couldn't read a similar kind

19:04

of book about Alexander or Julius. Cleopatra or

19:07

or whatever it might be. thought you made such

19:09

a good point just then. I hadn't

19:11

thought of it thought of it that, you Potter and

19:13

in fiction. fiction we... we see that children

19:15

can understand understand and redemption and

19:17

darkness and that characters can

19:19

be kind of good and evil.

19:21

good And yet in history, it's

19:23

this very flat approach. know,

19:25

bad guys are bad know the bad

19:27

are good. it's good difference, isn't

19:30

it? Yeah, it is. think

19:32

it? Yeah it is I are so

19:34

anxious about history now. about

19:36

history now yeah it's so it's so

19:38

kind of freighted with all sort of

19:40

of think I think, quite

19:42

silly and overwrought political obsessions that we

19:45

shy away we of darkness I think is what

19:47

away from sort of darkness, I think, I think

19:49

what it is. Alexander I I mean, you mentioned, I

19:51

think you brought up Alexander, I was delighted

19:53

you brought up Alexander an it gave me an

19:55

opportunity to plug my own book on Alexander the

19:57

Great. Which is fabulous. Which is fabulous. For you. Thank you and...

20:00

And see, in case, case, when when you

20:02

tell that story for a for a child,

20:04

obviously... You You can start with

20:06

Alexandra as a boy, a growing up, up he

20:08

his horse, horse, his father's will at the

20:11

second, all of that kind of stuff. But

20:13

obviously there are points in that story points

20:15

behaves in quite unsettling ways. Yes, exactly.

20:17

So, you know, throwing spears at his

20:19

friends, throwing massacring people, all the rest

20:21

of it. I think a child has

20:23

no problem with that because they are

20:26

conscious with their own little world in their own little

20:28

world they often behave badly behave badly So

20:30

I don't think I don't that you, of, of... you

20:32

know, those those books of of inspiring girls

20:34

from history where everything

20:36

is incredibly Children, in my in

20:38

my experience, actually despise those books.

20:40

their parents who force them to read

20:42

them? And I think it would make them,

20:44

it makes them anxious because... all this is this

20:47

is attempting to appeal to children and

20:49

making these figures from the past the

20:51

past childish but it actually makes makes them this

20:54

obsession with trying to represent them,

20:56

because children know they're complicated, morally

20:58

know they're and they don't see

21:00

that in history. and they don't see in

21:02

in history have made me anxious as a child,

21:04

you know. Yes, I totally agree with

21:06

that. think agree with that I think are

21:09

just as comfortable

21:11

with moral complexity indeed

21:13

indeed intellectual complexity. as

21:16

adults adults are. you Clearly, you cannot

21:18

present things in quite the same way.

21:20

But you But you know, I wrote

21:22

a book about Six Wives, the Hem of the of

21:24

the in which I which I had to

21:26

deal with all the different personalities

21:28

of the wives, plus the intellectual climate of

21:30

of the Yeah, that's quite a quite a hard

21:32

thing to out how out how you're going

21:34

to make that. that explicable.

21:37

a nine -year -old, let's say, but

21:39

it's it's If you can explain

21:41

it to a explain it you can explain it

21:43

to a nine -year -old. You just choose it

21:45

different terms You the

21:47

way you do it. different

21:49

terms I think way you do

21:51

history the approach in history now is

21:53

mean, it's obviously very judgmental. It's

21:55

very moralistic. It's moralistic,

21:58

it's afraid of... darkness,

22:00

think. Yeah. and it's afraid of, you know,

22:02

the obsession with sort of of triggering

22:04

people and and whatnot that are in

22:07

are in danger of giving

22:09

children just a painfully a painfully of the

22:11

view of the past. books, So my

22:13

books, when I first started sending in

22:15

the kind of manuscripts, there

22:17

were some people at the the publishers

22:19

who were like, really in a children's

22:21

book? And I said, have you ever met

22:23

a child? you ever mean, that the children this this is the

22:26

one thing from this book, this is the

22:28

only thing they will remember they will the bloke you

22:30

had his head the blow put on a is said

22:32

whatever it off in terms of the illustrations,

22:34

know, these illustrations that you grew

22:36

up with and Charles grew up with,

22:38

and these remember now that up with up

22:40

with and are sophisticated. with and I remember now

22:42

you know, with two are As I

22:44

picked it up, and I dark

22:46

the arrow going into the arrow going into

22:49

you know the Battle of Hastings. the

22:51

battle of Hastings and You know, you know it

22:53

absolutely brought the whole whole battle home to

22:55

me and stayed with me into my adult

22:57

years. I'm I'm looking now at a

22:59

ladybird of the Stone Age and there's

23:01

this mammoth rearing up over these Stone

23:03

Age people. and you you suddenly feel how

23:05

terrifying it must be. be Whereas if you've

23:07

got a massive cartoon mammoth with googly

23:09

eyes, with you don't get any feeling

23:11

for the horror of the in that being in

23:13

that in absolutely. I think absolutely I

23:15

think there's a slight cartoonish element to the way

23:17

the way in which history

23:19

is presented. isn't it, that I think

23:21

a think a lot of children actually find

23:23

actually find I always think a lot of

23:25

children, certainly me, when I was, let's say,

23:27

children, certainly me, I loved about history.

23:30

say, eight, what I was the drama. history the

23:32

glamour, the of the stakes are so

23:34

high, are so high, it's that classic kind

23:36

of Game of Thrones, you win

23:38

or you die kind of thing. kind

23:40

of that. kids love that. And if you turn

23:42

it all into horrible histories. histories. Now

23:44

obviously horrible has been very popular, so

23:47

I'm not going to just not going to

23:49

just completely this horrible is it? It's cartoons,

23:51

is but it's not but a

23:53

giant toddler a giant toddler you know. no, no, no I

23:55

I think so. So horrible the is the

23:57

one criticism I would have of it it is that

23:59

that an awful lot. The assumption,

24:01

the guiding assumption, think, in I

24:03

histories in that children have an

24:06

inexhaustible appetite for toilets appetite

24:08

to do with toilet and anything to

24:10

do with think the one thing And

24:12

I think the me as a parent

24:14

with horrible histories as a parent story.

24:17

tell them the was tell them sweep

24:19

of the story sweep

24:21

of the story of merely

24:24

kind of facts about

24:26

about drains. Mostly it's bodily films. Yeah,

24:28

bodily it. There's an awful lot,

24:30

I mean, there's a whole section

24:32

in Waterston, there's one shelf on history

24:34

and a whole section devoted to

24:37

like There's one shelf, one history and of the things

24:39

I find quite strange looking to, um,

24:41

at poo, um, and history books not. One of psychology

24:43

of the characters is very modern.

24:45

You don't get a sense that these

24:47

are people that live in a

24:49

different world. They're almost modern characters that

24:51

have been transported back into a of

24:54

of historical setting. Yeah. Yeah, I think

24:56

the otherness of the past is so

24:58

important. And actually, And this is not

25:00

just a problem for not just a Children's

25:02

literature here is just a symptom

25:04

of a wider issue, here which is

25:06

that I think we a wider by the,

25:08

I the difference between the past and

25:10

today. So in other words, the I

25:12

think today. So in historians I think academic historians

25:14

now either very judgmental about the past the

25:17

they turn a past into merely

25:19

into a mirror into a a reflection of

25:21

the present and their own values.

25:23

And if they don't see their own

25:25

values in the past, they say, they

25:27

gosh, that's terrible. Those people are

25:29

absolutely unspeakable and so on and so

25:31

forth. To me, on and sure To me, and

25:33

I'm sure, would will probably agree with would probably

25:35

The thrill of the past past that it

25:38

is different and that people that people have...

25:40

mad ideas that are not yours and after

25:42

reading for a little while you to think

25:44

you you know, years old you start to think

25:46

and you think think, and you know what do it's

25:48

my ideas and our ideas that are mad

25:50

are actually alexander who is sane or whatever

25:52

it might be and he couldn't have done

25:54

what he did done what he did know, being brutal.

25:56

brutal. Yeah, exactly, exactly. And what I don't

25:58

are the other I noticed which... I wanted to ask

26:01

you about you about was, you said, the level of

26:03

activism in children's history, history in

26:05

history shelves. shelves. And it's not that

26:07

they're asked to think about complex

26:09

issues, they're actually told. issues. They're actually

26:11

take. side to came across this book

26:14

called this book called Stolen think quite close

26:16

to your books, close which is about

26:18

which is about empire And in the back,

26:20

that. there's a chapter called there's a chapter

26:22

called Prepare And it says, it says... One

26:25

thing people might say to

26:27

you these these conversations is, but

26:29

Britain slavery. You You could

26:31

reply, and it suggests to sort of,

26:33

of, you know, 12 year olds,

26:35

and you say, that true, that was

26:37

a good thing, but Haiti abolished it

26:39

long before us. And there's a

26:41

whole set of these things where you're basically

26:43

telling a child. only one right

26:45

only one right way to think about things

26:47

that could be complex in the past,

26:49

and giving them pre -prepared answers, so that that

26:51

kind of shocked me. Yeah, I I say,

26:53

to say, Mary, I abhor

26:56

that kind of approach. it makes it

26:58

so unexciting. I think I think what it

27:00

does. preaches to the child and to the child. to

27:02

the and it preaches to the reader and

27:04

that is one thing I've always tried

27:06

to do is to I

27:08

mean, actually, I think you should do this,

27:10

whether you're writing for people who are, you

27:12

know, in short trousers who people who are 40

27:14

years old, I think. who are You have to

27:16

allow in any work of history. to allow in

27:18

any work of for the reader.

27:21

the reader... to make make up their own mind

27:23

and not feel that you are lecturing them

27:25

and pushing them into, them into, you know, you are saying there

27:27

is only one way way I mean, I mean, the idea

27:29

that there's only one way to think about

27:31

the past, think me the a historian me as a historian, is

27:33

total anathema. I think the idea that you would

27:35

say to a child, this is is what you

27:38

must think and this is what you must

27:40

say. say, to me To me, that is

27:42

abhorrent, actually. I think what you should do

27:44

is you say, say, a take a subject like

27:46

the the British Empire. It's It's actually a great

27:48

subject. I I mean, it has, it's a a

27:50

perfect subject for children because it

27:52

has so much drama, so many

27:54

great characters on different sides of the

27:56

equation as it were. as it were, and so

27:58

much complexity. as... that you can you

28:01

can me, I would to me, I would

28:03

say, tell it all out stories, of great

28:05

stories. badly, the British behaving badly, the British

28:07

behaving brilliantly, the whole thing, say to the and

28:09

then say to the child, you to see

28:11

You know, it is for you to see

28:13

what you see in this story own, you to

28:15

make up your own. education me is the

28:17

essence of education what It's not telling to think, but

28:20

what to think, but encouraging them to think

28:22

for themselves. you say, that as you said, that is

28:24

what they find exciting. That's what will bring

28:26

them back to history, not having

28:28

to learn a set of of prescribed

28:30

answers. Yes, absolutely. Next,

28:32

we hosted a pretty fiery debate

28:35

we hosted a pretty fiery

28:37

debate between our columnist Van Tulikin,

28:39

Christopher Van professor at Professor UCL

28:41

and author of the best

28:43

-selling book, Ultra People. People. was back

28:45

was back in May when

28:48

Matthew wrote his column on

28:50

the myths around ultra -processed

28:52

foods. foods. These are foods which

28:54

are engineered to be hyper

28:56

-palatable and typically include many

28:58

preservatives, many preservatives, sweeteners, artificial sweetness, so

29:01

on. Such so are considered to

29:03

be detrimental to what to be but

29:05

to says but Matthew be worried. And here

29:07

is how that debate played out. debate

29:10

played out. all these additives are bad

29:12

for our health. Some of

29:14

them may be. some of them may

29:16

be, of food that doesn't

29:18

have these additives is also

29:20

classified as as processed or

29:23

ultra-processed, I don't think any

29:25

general rules can be drawn. can

29:27

What I'm arguing, and I'm

29:29

arguing it from the basis

29:31

of an enormous Harvard the basis

29:33

of an enormous the lives of

29:35

more than of people over 30

29:38

years years, found only, I

29:40

think, a a 4% connection, connection, as

29:42

it were, four of likelihood

29:44

of death if you ate

29:46

a lot of you, at foods of

29:49

you ate the least number

29:51

of ultra processed foods, I

29:53

but concluded, I think, perhaps

29:55

more interestingly than that result, that

29:58

the the class of a... classification system

30:00

that we have, the it's

30:02

called NOVA classification system, just isn't

30:04

useful for these purposes. It

30:06

classifies some things that have no

30:08

effect on mortality as being

30:11

ultra and some things that do

30:13

have an effect on mortality

30:15

as not being ultra. So I

30:17

think that science has got

30:19

itself up a bit of a

30:21

cul -de -sac with the whole

30:23

concept of ultra -processed foods. Chris,

30:25

I imagine you disagree with Matthew's

30:27

assessment, though. I'd love to

30:29

get opinion on his argument. Well I really

30:31

enjoyed Matthew's piece and I think a

30:34

lot of the points he made about this

30:36

study are a well worth

30:38

discussing. The difficulty is

30:40

that this piece of evidence, this study sits

30:42

in a context. of

30:45

the evidence around ultra -processed food as

30:47

a category, a much wider context

30:49

of the evidence around nutrition. I

30:51

think what Matthew's highlighted here is

30:53

this vexed problem of how we

30:55

study food, which is a complex

30:57

substance not easy

30:59

to characterise. People don't just eat

31:02

single nutrients. And whatever study

31:04

we try and design is extremely

31:06

imperfect this is particularly true

31:08

to when we get down to

31:10

studying individual types of food. So bread

31:12

is the... The example that's probably

31:15

most contentious with ultra food, lots of

31:17

the studies, not just this one. have

31:19

done these subgroup analyses. you follow a

31:21

very large number of people for many

31:24

years and you you find a health

31:26

harm from eating excessive amounts of ultra

31:28

processed food or high amounts of ultra

31:30

processed food and the question is then

31:32

well which so the tempting thing is

31:34

to do this subgroup analysis and ask

31:36

about about bread and it's a complicated

31:38

thing to do because within

31:41

the studies. you find

31:43

that the comparator groups aren't

31:45

equal. So is your question

31:47

about bread, for example, is

31:49

ultra -processed white bread better or

31:51

worse for any one of

31:53

a long list of negative

31:55

health outcomes, including early mortality,

31:57

than say white sourdough bread?

31:59

Or... Are we comparing whole grain

32:01

with white ultra -processed? Or

32:04

are we processed or are ultra

32:06

-processed bread with any

32:08

non And what you bread. is

32:10

in the you find is in the

32:12

studies it's really hard to down

32:14

people down because you don't have

32:16

enough people eating different enough diets

32:18

to do that. And then there

32:20

are other there are other with what we we

32:22

call multi -colinearity of data, so

32:24

the way that the statistics are

32:26

tangled. are tangled. So done a piece of

32:28

work with colleagues at the Pan

32:30

American Health Health we're looking

32:32

at how lots of these studies

32:34

subgroup analysis and whether we

32:36

really think we really think stand up. they

32:39

But all that But all that said, I agree

32:41

with Matthew that are, within ultra

32:43

-processed foods, there is almost certainly

32:45

a variety of health and

32:47

there are probably ones that

32:49

have have... relatively minor effects

32:51

on health on health on what you're

32:53

looking at. at. And there are

32:55

other ultra -processed foods with big

32:57

health harms. harms and the you know are

32:59

also non -ultra -processed foods that are

33:02

very harmful, harmful. So say that.

33:04

Yeah, but to say could be a

33:06

reason for that, for that, It

33:08

could be that the whole concept

33:10

of ultra -processed as a category

33:12

of food is ephemeral, invented a

33:14

fiction, that science has invented a

33:16

category, ultra -processed food, the and

33:18

decided there must be a thing

33:20

in the world that And to

33:22

the category and then we start

33:24

looking at the things that have

33:26

been placed in the category find

33:28

we find that some of them

33:30

have harmful and some of them don't

33:33

have harmful harmful What we ought

33:35

to do is go back to

33:37

the root of the thing and

33:39

ask the thing such a thing as thing

33:41

as food food has a direct connection

33:43

either with ill health, obesity or

33:45

morbidity. I begin to think sometimes

33:47

sometimes makes mistakes. once You know we

33:49

once thought that people who were

33:52

ill possessed by by you and

33:54

I you discuss till the

33:56

cows come home cows come home. different categories

33:59

that different demons fall into? Some know,

34:01

some do do this, this, some

34:03

do that. but what about this

34:05

category? What about that? Instead

34:07

of asking ourselves, asking ourselves, do

34:09

demons exist? exist? I think I think

34:11

a really important point really important point that

34:13

gets to the core of philosophy of

34:15

science, so the definition was

34:17

developed a to prove a hypothesis

34:19

but to test a hypothesis. the

34:21

And the problem was of discovery

34:23

of lots of paradoxes and

34:25

inconsistencies in the way the way... and

34:27

the ways we'd previously been describing

34:30

harmful food. food. So our our previous

34:32

way of describing it was simply

34:34

in terms of its nutritional

34:36

composition. And what the teams in

34:38

Brazil found is that households

34:40

that were purchasing large amounts of

34:42

oil, salt and sugar oil, healthier

34:44

than households that weren't buying

34:47

these things these things And following the

34:49

North American Free Trade Agreement,

34:51

there'd been this very large influx

34:53

of a variety of of different

34:55

industrially processed foods. foods. And so

34:57

the question was, was, we delineate this

34:59

category? Can we draw a boundary

35:01

around it it see if we

35:03

can use it like any scientific

35:06

category to make consistent predictions and

35:08

to test the idea that the much

35:10

as the nutrient profile, it is

35:12

these new foods. so new foods. it

35:14

comes to, comes know, all of

35:16

science is about creating. creating... But some

35:18

of them start as arbitrary, and

35:20

then we build models to test whether

35:22

the category is valid. Is the

35:25

evidence consistent? Is it predictive? And in

35:27

the case of of food, I think

35:29

we find that this is a

35:31

really useful category that gives us lots

35:33

of evidence. We We do these population

35:35

studies, so you've talked about one. one.

35:37

In fact, we now have 32 analyses

35:39

of this kind of this kind of

35:41

study, which is to say,

35:43

analyses of of analyses. we have around

35:46

80 different prospective cohort studies,

35:48

which are the studies we use

35:50

to link smoking to cancer,

35:52

linking ultra -processed foods to negative

35:54

health outcomes. Now, that's not enough

35:56

to say, enough to say, UPF

35:58

causes negative health. that comes. We

36:00

We have a set of criteria called

36:02

the Bradford Bradford Hill criteria, I mean there

36:04

are other criteria are other can use. you can use.

36:06

The used to go, how sure are

36:08

we that this is a causal relationship? So

36:10

smokers buy buy a lot of matches, is

36:12

is it the matches or is is it

36:14

the cigarettes? And in the the case of ultra

36:16

-processed food food, what's really really striking is

36:19

the plausibility of this. So we have

36:21

experimental evidence I can go into. I can

36:23

go But But of the of is to

36:25

say, is to say... If you you take food

36:27

made by PLCs, where the people at the where

36:29

the people at the companies in

36:31

the labs developing the food, and

36:33

I've spoken to them and they've

36:35

spoken on the record in lots

36:37

of other forums, the where they

36:39

say of other are engineering food for

36:41

the specific purpose of making money, making

36:43

money, we're drive excess

36:45

consumption. consumption, and using the

36:47

cheapest ingredients. When the scientists

36:49

say this, is it plausible that

36:52

that that of food, the foods in

36:54

that category, would drive excess

36:56

consumption, so So plausibility is is

36:58

an important part part of

37:00

or Chris, who produces food, food,

37:02

the food to be

37:04

palatable. Everybody who produces and

37:06

sells food and people to

37:08

eat it. And to eat it.

37:10

And throw in the phrase

37:12

phrase? transnational? doesn't matter whether

37:14

they're transnational or national. or

37:16

You say, I think You

37:18

see, I a dangerous setting

37:20

up, setting sort of devilish

37:22

thing, you know, know, the transnational

37:26

food of ultra-processed food, so that we can all that we

37:28

can all say well it isn't

37:30

really our fault that we're not very

37:32

well. Maybe we just eat too much

37:34

of everything. So that's another thing

37:36

you point out in the article and

37:38

you're absolutely right. you're obesity is

37:40

directly related to calorie consumption. one

37:42

of the effects we're sure of the

37:44

effects we sure about food whether

37:47

we call this food call it any food

37:49

or we call it is the other categories,

37:51

to drive excessive is to drive excessive consumption.

37:53

So right about that. about that. The the the

37:55

reason I say transnational, I should probably

37:57

say PLC. say I did, I did an analysis.

38:00

a lot lot of my research is with with

38:02

economists, not not with nutritional scientists or

38:04

with clinicians. we did an And we did

38:06

an analysis of the biggest food -producing

38:08

companies make make most of their products

38:10

were -processed. And we asked a simple

38:12

question. When they make money, do

38:14

they spend it on the things they claim to

38:16

spend it on? spend it on? So health,

38:18

improving the health of the product

38:20

portfolio in terms of nutrition, labour child labor

38:22

wages, bringing women into the workforce,

38:24

plastic cleanup, carbon emissions, these are the

38:26

claims they make. they make. And we

38:28

did an exploratory analysis and we can

38:30

show that can show that large companies spend

38:32

their money on share share and dividends.

38:34

And this is for a good

38:37

reason. The reason good reason. The reason important. It's

38:39

because they're obliged to institutional investors.

38:41

I'm not making a moral comment on

38:43

this. not making is not an anti -capitalist

38:45

statement. an It's an argument that the

38:47

food system that the using

38:49

a set of incentives a set of drive

38:51

products that are deliberately engineered so that

38:53

it's hard to stop eating them.

38:55

Now, it may not be hard for

38:57

you, but we know that the

38:59

food environment drives excessive consumption. And I

39:02

And I that isn't controversial. And the other

39:04

thing is is palletability. an excessive consumption. so foods

39:06

So that get that get around our they're

39:08

they're completely different things. So you

39:10

can make very palatable food that people

39:12

like. That's not what food companies

39:14

are enormously interested in. What they're interested

39:17

in is how much interested often you

39:19

buy it. and how often you really

39:21

important to understand those indicators when

39:23

it comes to food design

39:25

and development. and If I may, Chris,

39:28

I'd like to know what you of the

39:30

argument by Cambridge genetics professor Jaws that

39:32

it's all very well to talk

39:34

about cutting out processed foods foods can

39:36

you can afford to pay

39:39

much more for a loaf of

39:41

but actually But actually there's a

39:43

risk when it comes to classifying

39:45

and demonizing food, which processed things

39:47

more difficult it does make things more

39:49

I totally, totally, totally totally

39:51

is a friend. Jiles

39:54

agree on. we on many things. many

39:56

things so let's... take of two steps back

39:58

and go, and go, think we all agree

40:00

there is a problem. Quarter of

40:02

life expected, a quarter of all

40:04

our lives in the UK are spent

40:06

with disabling illness. We have the

40:08

highest rates of child obesity almost anywhere

40:10

in the world, certainly in any

40:12

comparable country. Our children aren't just the

40:14

heaviest in the world. They're stunted

40:16

at the age of five or six.

40:18

They're shorter than children in Bulgaria.

40:20

This is not due to migration. It's

40:23

not genetic differences. This is due

40:25

to primarily to diet. There are some

40:27

other influences. So we have a

40:29

terrible, terrible emergency and crisis. If you're

40:31

interested in social justice, it's a problem

40:33

if you have a moral argument,

40:35

it's a problem. But economically, this is

40:37

insanity. obesity the, obesity alone, let

40:39

alone all the other diet -related disease

40:41

costs hundred billion a year. No, nobody

40:43

disagrees on this. Say again. Nobody

40:45

disagrees that obesity is a bad thing.

40:47

So agree we have a terrible

40:49

crisis. When it comes to saying, is

40:51

the definition of ultra -processed food a

40:53

useful category that's well evidenced? Matthew,

40:55

you point out many of the flaws

40:57

and you do it very well

40:59

you're not wrong about all of the

41:01

flaws that you point out. I

41:03

agree with you. However, let's look

41:05

at the definition we currently use

41:07

for legislation around marketing of junk

41:10

food. It's HFSS, It's the off -com

41:12

definition. Now The

41:14

HFSS definition you might think describes products

41:16

that are just high in fat

41:18

or salt or sugar. or

41:20

a mixture of the three. In

41:22

fact, it's a very complicated calculation

41:24

that you make. You can have

41:26

products that have excessive amounts of

41:28

all of those, but because of

41:30

other ingredients, they don't make the

41:32

threshold. And there are whole categories

41:34

of food that HFSS doesn't apply

41:36

to, like bread, for example. So

41:39

it's a complex definition like UPF and

41:41

there is no study that I know

41:43

of linking that definition which we all are

41:45

sort of satisfied with in legislation. no

41:48

study linking it to negative

41:50

health outcomes. Conversely, we have

41:52

these 80 perspective studies and

41:54

then over 1 ,000 experimental

41:56

studies studying. qualities and properties, unique

41:58

or exclusive. to ultra processed

42:01

food. So you're right to critique

42:03

UPF, but I'd like to see

42:05

and you join a long

42:07

list of industry commentators doing this,

42:09

not that you're industry funded, but there

42:11

is a literature that echoes what

42:13

you're saying. So for example, we've done

42:15

an analysis of the pushback in

42:17

the academic literature on UPF, 90 %

42:19

of the papers have someone who's funded

42:21

by industry. What we don't hear

42:23

from those voices, whether it's the British

42:26

Nutrition Foundation funded by the food

42:28

industry or the science media center or

42:30

any of those academics, none of

42:32

them are critiquing the far worst definitions

42:34

of harmful food that we currently

42:36

have. in legislation. So I think that's

42:38

another really, really important bit of

42:40

context. The final thing to say

42:42

is UPF is a research tool.

42:45

It works really well. It is with

42:47

stood testing, in my opinion, How

42:49

do you mean satisfies the Bradford Hill

42:52

criteria, but it's not How do

42:54

you mean it works really well? You've

42:56

just explained why it doesn't work,

42:58

why why lots of foods that are

43:00

in it are harmless and lots

43:02

of foods that aren't in it are

43:04

harmful. and the whole. No, no,

43:07

no, no. works, It it has a

43:09

blurred boundary. So it doesn't work

43:11

for policy. As a research tool, it's

43:13

told us some really important things. But

43:15

when Giles says, you can't ban

43:17

ultra processed food or demonise it,

43:20

I 100 % agree and you

43:22

made the same point. So we

43:24

know no one credible. is

43:26

talking about taxing UPF or putting labels

43:28

on UPF or ban... There was an

43:30

article in The Guardian, Simon Jenkins said,

43:32

we must ban UPF. I, you know,

43:34

stridently came out and said, we absolutely

43:37

must not do that. It would be

43:39

terribly harmful for disadvantaged people. So policy

43:41

is a different matter. when it

43:44

comes to policy, no one has

43:46

to believe me on processed food

43:48

to agree on regulatory tools. So

43:50

we can talk about warning labels,

43:52

progressive taxation. We can talk about

43:54

marketing restrictions, all of it using

43:56

fat, salt and sugar. And that's

43:58

what I very vocally advocate

44:00

for. So UPF is a research

44:02

tool, it's not a policy tool.

44:04

Tell me this, Chris. Italy and

44:07

the United Kingdom have two of

44:09

the highest rates of obesity in

44:12

Europe. I think Britain is

44:14

the highest. Britain has the highest

44:16

consumption of ultra processed food

44:18

in Europe. Italy has one of

44:20

the lowest consumptions of ultra

44:22

processed food in Europe. How do

44:24

you answer that? So Italy

44:27

has a far lower rate of

44:29

obesity in children. and adults

44:31

than the kingdom I

44:33

mean less than half.

44:35

Italian children are catching

44:37

us up. So in the UK at the

44:40

age of 10, how we define childhood

44:42

obesity is discussed

44:44

by certain people as being

44:46

controversial. It's very well settled. 25

44:48

% of the UK obesity at

44:50

the same age in Italy

44:52

is about 10%. So it's much,

44:54

much lower. So your commentary

44:56

on this Harvard paper was really

44:58

sophisticated. I'm not trying to

45:00

say this to be arch. for

45:02

someone who's not an epidemiologist.

45:05

So it sits outside of

45:07

context and and you're not working

45:09

with the methodology, so you don't understand,

45:11

if I may say, the nuances of

45:13

the critique or the statistical tools, but

45:15

you are understanding the big picture. So

45:17

when we look at countries

45:19

like Italy. For a start, you've got the

45:21

stats wrong, so Italy has a much

45:23

lower obesity prevalence. But let's say it was

45:25

the same. We could look at Germany

45:27

and we could say, well, Germany has a

45:29

lower obesity rate, but actually they have

45:31

a very high ultra processed food consumption rate.

45:33

So obesity is complex in the sense

45:36

that it lags behind it

45:38

lags behind dietary patterns. So you can't

45:40

take a sort of slice through the

45:42

data. The last time anyone looked at

45:44

national diet and nutrition survey data in

45:46

Italy was 2013. So all of the

45:48

nutrition stats are out of date, whereas

45:50

we have quite up to date. obesity

45:52

stats. So So sort of looking

45:54

at countries these gross patterns,

45:56

that's where we really do start

45:58

to muddle up it. effect. know, one

46:00

of the of the things that the

46:03

epidemiology teams at Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Yale,

46:05

my Princeton, at UCL, Oxford, things at UCL, one

46:07

of the things we do is to

46:09

make sure we make careful adjustments. You

46:12

point out that that can't be perfectly

46:14

done and you're absolutely right. But what

46:16

we mustn't do is way kind an amateur

46:18

way kind of these are some stats some stats

46:20

in Italy I'm not sure about, and

46:22

these are some stats in the the

46:24

how do you explain that then? know,

46:27

we do that very very let me quote

46:29

me Harvard study itself, and not

46:31

amateurs, dietary quality was observed

46:33

to have a more

46:35

predominant influence on mortality

46:37

outcomes than than food

46:39

consumption. In other words,

46:41

other it isn't a matter

46:43

of how much ultra -processed food

46:45

you eat, it's a matter

46:47

of how much more nutritious

46:50

food you eat apart from

46:52

ultra-processed food. Absolutely. So I would say two things to

46:54

that. say two things to that.

46:56

First of all, that is one

46:58

study that sits among, of its know, which

47:00

of its kind, different of which

47:02

show from others of which also from

47:04

Harvard show effects. different effects. But

47:06

I necessarily disagree with that

47:08

conclusion. There is a real problem. what

47:11

the food industry? scientists are

47:13

doing at the moment is trying to

47:15

say, is the argument is around, and I

47:17

think this is what you're hinting at,

47:19

is is the problem with ultra at, food

47:21

the processing, or is the problem food the

47:24

salt, and sugar? or is So let's use

47:26

an example salt and sugar? So me a an

47:28

at home. where you bake for use at

47:30

home and you the same amounts of

47:32

salt, fat and sugar sugar. as in my

47:34

ultra -processed lasagna that I've bought from,

47:36

you know, big supermarket. Even

47:39

if those two things are the

47:41

same, because of the other properties

47:43

of the ultra -processed food, which

47:45

are very well which are the texture the

47:47

texture effects and profiles driving excess consumption, I

47:50

will, in general, populations will

47:52

eat much more of the

47:54

the ultra-processed food. So even the nutrient profile

47:56

is the same, the you eat more

47:58

of the harmful nutrients. in the

48:00

ultra -processed food. And the nutrient

48:02

ratios and levels are part of

48:04

the industrial processing, you know?

48:06

You don't just add an unlimited

48:09

amount of salt. You balance

48:11

salt and sour and sugar and

48:13

fat and acid in ways

48:15

that drive not just palatability, but

48:17

consumption. We also actually happen

48:19

to know, so again, work I'm

48:21

doing modeling work my team

48:23

at UCL is doing with the

48:25

Pan American Health Organization who've

48:27

brought in regulations in Mexico. What

48:30

we can show is that 95 %

48:32

of ultra -processed in the UK

48:34

has excessive amounts of fat, salt,

48:36

and sugar, according to our own

48:38

dietary guidelines. So to a great

48:40

extent, it would be almost impossible

48:42

to imagine that ultraprocess food wasn't

48:44

harmful in a way. The category

48:46

has brilliantly described food that agrees with

48:49

the nutritional science. But the double

48:51

jeopardy is because you eat so much

48:53

of it, you end up consuming

48:55

even more of the nutrients of concern.

49:00

You Next, on the podcast, we

49:02

like to showcase a variety of

49:04

articles from the magazine, from the

49:06

front half to the life pages

49:08

to books and arts. And one

49:10

of the most intriguing books of

49:12

the year was Joan Smith's, Unfortunately,

49:14

She Was a Nymphomaniac, a new

49:16

history of Rome's imperial Women, an

49:18

eye -catching title which is as

49:21

thought -provoking as it is provocative, said

49:23

Daisy Dunn in October. Many popular

49:25

historians are singled out for criticism

49:27

for how they women from ancient

49:29

Rome, including Professor Dame Mary Beard.

49:31

So in the interest of granting

49:33

a right of reply, we invited

49:35

Mary onto the podcast to discuss

49:37

the merit in judging history by

49:39

today's standards. Mary, thank you very

49:41

much for joining me today. To start with,

49:43

I would love to get your brief

49:45

thoughts on what you made of the book.

49:47

Well, it does start with a

49:49

great anecdote that she's in

49:51

a museum in Rome and she

49:54

overhears a guide talking about

49:56

the Emperor Augustus' daughter Julia and

49:58

saying... unfortunately she was a

50:00

nymphomaniac and that's a great launch

50:02

to the book because you've

50:04

got this picture of Joan Smith

50:06

in the museum turning on

50:08

the guide and saying you know

50:10

hang on a minute mate

50:13

you know it's a bit more

50:15

complicated than that and I've

50:17

got huge sympathy

50:19

for this kind of

50:22

wake -up call. to

50:24

ask us, not just professional

50:26

classicists, but you know who

50:28

you know has enjoys

50:31

reading about. watching movies

50:33

about the ancient world.

50:35

you know it's saying, have

50:37

you actually noticed what

50:39

these stories do? Have you

50:42

noticed how many times

50:44

women are written off because

50:46

they are sex sex -crazed,

50:48

nymphomaniac poisonous right and

50:51

And, you know, this isn't

50:53

just one or two

50:55

examples. This is part of

50:57

a tradition that I think

50:59

you know we rather taken

51:02

over of how you understand

51:04

elite women, particularly elite women

51:06

in the early Roman Empire.

51:08

and I think she's very

51:10

good at saying, look this

51:13

isn't just the ancient authors

51:15

saying this. What she's good

51:17

at is saying, just look

51:19

how complicit modern writers have

51:21

been in that image no

51:23

And there is, you know

51:26

I have witnessed this and

51:28

know, I suppose I should occasionally

51:30

plead guilty to having committed

51:32

it myself. There is a bit

51:35

of a nudge -nudge wink -wink

51:37

tendency when we come to talk

51:39

about people like Messalina or

51:41

Agrippina, these prominent women in the

51:43

first Julio dynasty at Rome.

51:45

and I think Smith is great

51:47

saying, hey, just look, just

51:50

be careful. I think there's problems

51:52

with the book, but I

51:54

all the same think that this

51:56

kind of salvo is often

51:59

just what we need. even if we

52:01

don't agree with it all. with it

52:03

do you think that sort

52:05

of attitude towards women history has

52:07

come from? Is it a

52:09

case of too many historians taking

52:11

the contemporary the -written sources

52:13

at face value? at Or

52:15

is it more of a

52:17

case of, of a as time

52:19

passes somehow it becomes harder

52:21

perhaps to have empathy or

52:23

sympathy empathy or sympathy for... women who are so

52:25

long dead, if you see what

52:27

I mean. Like, what it just feels

52:30

less, it just the suffering they may have

52:32

gone through feels they may relevant. feels think,

52:34

I think it's a combination

52:36

of the two, but I also

52:38

think that the way that the way

52:40

you ultimately make some

52:42

progress with understanding this

52:45

this is perhaps not quite

52:47

as as what Smith what Smith

52:49

does. Smith wants to tell

52:51

us, look. it's a deeply misogynist

52:53

tradition, which shows shows women

52:55

in the light that they

52:57

get shown in ancient sources. And

52:59

I And I think that's

53:01

true. I think I think the

53:03

way men get presented in

53:05

ancient sources is just as

53:07

complicated, actually. And I

53:09

think that there is a

53:12

real problem here is a real problem

53:14

at looking at way the women get

53:16

written get written the problem of

53:18

saying, of saying... Look, how do we

53:20

ever get to the truth? the truth?

53:22

Now, how do we do we

53:24

know whether Messalina challenged the

53:27

prostitutes of Rome to

53:29

a of Rome see how many

53:31

men you could sleep

53:33

with in a night? you could

53:35

sleep within a are our

53:37

criteria our criteria for... for

53:39

judging what is true. she takes

53:41

me to takes me to I a

53:44

bit, I think possibly fairly, you

53:46

know, when she says what says

53:48

says that this is some kind

53:50

of combination of of fact exaggeration and

53:52

utter invention. Now I think

53:54

think actually if you you had Smith with

53:56

you I'd stand by that because

53:58

I think that that what you have

54:01

in these stories

54:03

is what is now

54:05

an absolutely inextricable

54:07

combination of of

54:09

invention and possible fact,

54:11

whatever. And for whatever. that

54:13

for me, I think

54:15

a bit falls a

54:17

bit into a trap

54:19

here, because I

54:21

think she thinks that

54:23

she can sort

54:25

this out a bit,

54:27

she cherry picks possibly rightly to to

54:30

present a new image of these

54:32

women. I think this is a is to

54:34

hiding to nothing. it's I

54:36

think it's very very, very useful

54:38

to us to see and

54:40

be made to see of kind

54:42

of misogynist discourse this is.

54:44

But But I think the

54:46

next step step to say, well,

54:48

what's true then or what's

54:50

not true. or The next

54:52

step is to say, next on

54:54

why on earth these stories told?

54:56

Why did these stories seem

54:58

so believable? Why Why they get

55:00

transmitted. And why have

55:02

we taken them onto? Now, to

55:04

some extent you to some

55:06

extent, you could say,

55:08

well, because misogynist tradition stretching

55:11

from ancient Rome or further

55:13

back to us. I But I

55:15

think you're seeing something much more

55:17

complicated here. you're seeing seeing

55:19

often in stories about women, What

55:21

what they're trying to

55:23

do is they're judging do is

55:25

they're judging the are

55:27

being judged by

55:29

the by of their

55:32

wives. their daughters or

55:34

sisters or whatever. And

55:36

I think I think there it's, there

55:38

is which is. which is, I

55:40

think in some ways ways,

55:42

more alarming than Smith it. She

55:45

makes it pretty simple misogyny,

55:47

and I think. You

55:49

know, there's a point

55:51

in that. But we're seeing

55:53

a world in which

55:55

women are being deployed deployed to

55:57

to explain why things

55:59

happen. to explain why

56:01

men actors they do

56:03

and to judge the

56:05

imperial quality of their

56:07

husbands. A bad emperor

56:09

is one who can't

56:12

control his wife. In

56:14

order to make an

56:16

emperor bad, you hint

56:18

or more that he's

56:20

got a wife who

56:22

is sleeping around town.

56:24

You also then bring

56:26

in the idea of

56:28

what do we do about succession?

56:30

Here we've got for the

56:32

first time in Rome, we have

56:35

some form of biological, it's

56:37

more, a bit more complicated than

56:39

that, but it's some form

56:41

of biological. succession from father

56:43

to son. Those

56:45

regimes always have a problem with women.

56:47

They always have a problem because they're

56:49

always wanting to say, how do you

56:51

know it's his son? And

56:54

so. Patriarchy

56:56

itself, never mind

56:58

its misogynistic strands,

57:01

patriarchy itself is

57:03

generating this kind of store.

57:06

It's also, and we know

57:08

this from our own politicians

57:10

women in a patriarchal culture

57:12

are very useful for explaining

57:14

why men mess up. you

57:16

know? we don't know what

57:18

happens behind the walls of

57:20

the palace. We don't know

57:22

what happens really behind the

57:25

walls of number 10 Downing

57:27

Street. And when you think

57:29

back to how Carrie Johnson

57:31

got blamed for things, you

57:33

know, the wallpaper being only

57:35

the most trivial in the

57:37

Johnson Premiership, well, you're seeing

57:39

us at that game too.

57:42

Flip back to Rome. Why

57:44

does Tiberius, Olivia's son? take

57:46

the throne after Augustus

57:48

has died? Well, that's because

57:50

Olivia was getting him on

57:53

the throne, it's because

57:55

was scheming. So are

57:57

kind of absolutely fantastic explaining.

58:00

for explaining why men

58:02

make a mess of things. a mess of things.

58:04

often said said now of history is

58:06

caught up in divisive so -called

58:08

cultural wars over the past few

58:10

years. mean, do you ever, do

58:12

you worry about that as an

58:14

academic as an divisiveness in the study

58:17

of history? the worry a bit.

58:19

I mean I think what's great

58:21

about history is you can have about

58:23

argument have an it being without it You

58:25

know, Rome was a very long

58:27

time ago. time ago. we decide we

58:30

think about think about not going to

58:32

kill anybody. to kill anybody. And I

58:34

really I think think John

58:36

great writer writer and I with

58:38

there are all kinds of things

58:40

but I'd love to have a of

58:42

things but hope it didn't a chat down

58:44

to a sort of it didn't to

58:46

the down to a I think that

58:48

said fight to the death. I think do see

58:50

and I do think is see and I do

58:52

think is worrying is one

58:54

strand of fairly

58:57

conservative historical commenting, which

59:00

says you shouldn't make

59:02

judgements here. here. No, when know, when

59:04

it's the past, you should not make judgments.

59:07

You should judge the ancient

59:09

world by its own standards. Smith

59:11

flagrantly does flagrantly does not do

59:13

that, and I'm absolutely with

59:15

her on that. I think I

59:17

think that what is interesting

59:20

about history and what is

59:22

the complicated challenge of it

59:24

is that you have to

59:26

be sort of to be sort of

59:28

have to say, You have need to

59:30

know. to know. Why on their their

59:32

own terms these people did it,

59:35

but I can't lose my

59:37

own moral compass. Now we Now we

59:39

can't say, know, I do you

59:41

know, I don't worry too much

59:43

about gladiatorial spectacle, it because it

59:45

was fine for the Romans. And

59:47

someone's got to say, say, sorry guys,

59:49

they were killing. people. In cold blood,

59:51

in hot blood, in front a

59:54

crowd of 50 And you know, it know,

59:56

it is not the historian's

59:58

job to say say, that's okay. because

1:00:00

that's what the Romans

1:00:02

did. the Romans did. So I

1:00:04

mean, I think history is

1:00:06

is extremely complicated in its

1:00:08

moral networks I think to

1:00:11

some extent I don't

1:00:13

always go the way Smith

1:00:15

would go way she's go.

1:00:17

keen to compare some aspects

1:00:19

of Roman culture to

1:00:21

modern or modern modern item, and

1:00:23

she tells us that the

1:00:25

the hook killer in the

1:00:27

United States started out

1:00:30

with a matricidal attack before

1:00:32

he did attack

1:00:34

awful things he did all

1:00:36

the other know things she's got

1:00:38

a point there, but I think

1:00:40

that's, she's know, I point there, but I think

1:00:43

not quite sure that

1:00:45

sure that shootings help

1:00:47

us help us understand might

1:00:50

convince me that they

1:00:52

did. me that they did, but

1:00:54

I think you've got

1:00:57

competing, competing pressures here.

1:00:59

here. One is to to

1:01:01

understand what the ancient the ancient

1:01:03

world like like and how different

1:01:05

it was. was, to to

1:01:08

understand how it might

1:01:10

be and and enriched by

1:01:12

us thinking about our own

1:01:14

issues about femicide, but But

1:01:16

also remembering that that we do have

1:01:18

a, we have an important

1:01:21

role as historians in making

1:01:23

judgment. you say that

1:01:25

you you, you know, you what happened

1:01:27

in the Colosseum is

1:01:29

dreadful, it doesn't mean that

1:01:31

you stop studying the

1:01:33

Romans. mean that you stop

1:01:36

at some point Romans,

1:01:38

but on. at some point

1:01:40

do I think about this? what do

1:01:42

I think about this? And simply to say,

1:01:44

you know, it very often often

1:01:46

I'm still gonna call to call Twitter. It'll

1:01:49

see see it very often. Mary Beard,

1:01:51

for for example, they often give

1:01:53

go at I'm sure they'll go

1:01:55

at Smith. go at Mary Beard's a

1:01:57

terrible historian because she uses criteria.

1:02:00

to judge the ancient world. Well, sure

1:02:03

I do, but I'm

1:02:05

also trying to see. how

1:02:08

that might have made sense or

1:02:10

not made sense to people in

1:02:12

antiquity. And you know, a friend

1:02:14

of mine once said, and I've

1:02:16

used this analogy this image before,

1:02:18

that there is something very odd

1:02:21

about looking at the far distant

1:02:23

past. mean, and it is as

1:02:25

if you're kind of going along

1:02:27

on a tightrope. right? And

1:02:29

the ancient past is below you

1:02:31

and you're of peering from one

1:02:33

side to another. And on one

1:02:35

side of the tightrope, they're doing

1:02:37

things you perfectly well understand. They

1:02:40

are falling in love, they're

1:02:42

going to the loo, they're

1:02:44

making furniture and I'm afraid

1:02:47

fighting wars. On the other

1:02:49

side, they're completely mad. You

1:02:52

can't understand what

1:02:54

they're at. what doing and

1:02:57

that side of the tightrope, it

1:02:59

looks as if the past is

1:03:01

so different that you could never

1:03:03

really understand it. And I think

1:03:05

it's you know, I think people

1:03:07

should be doing a lot more

1:03:10

history, not less. And

1:03:12

particularly, I think ancient history is a

1:03:14

very good example here. It's because those

1:03:16

are the kind of skills we need

1:03:18

to make sense of our own world

1:03:20

too, actually. you know, History isn't easy.

1:03:22

Roman history is a long time ago,

1:03:24

but it's still not easy. And

1:03:29

finally, we thought we'd leave you on

1:03:32

one of the most important discussions

1:03:34

that we had on the podcast this

1:03:36

year, which is the politics of

1:03:38

the hotel breakfast buffet. Is it ethical

1:03:40

to pocket a sandwich from a

1:03:42

hotel breakfast buffet? Laurie Graham asked that

1:03:44

very question in the magazine back

1:03:47

in September. Specifically, she revealed the very

1:03:49

British habit of swiping food from

1:03:51

free breakfast to save for lunch later

1:03:53

in the day. Is this right?

1:03:55

Well, Laurie joined us along with Mark

1:03:57

Jenkins, a former hotel manager. who lived...

1:04:00

listeners may remember from the Channel from the

1:04:02

Channel 4 Hotel. The in the

1:04:04

magazine this week you wrestle you a

1:04:06

conundrum. Is it ever okay

1:04:08

to steal from the Hotel buffet? Buffet?

1:04:10

You somewhat remain on the fence in

1:04:12

your piece piece, wonder how you came

1:04:14

to landing on that position. position. Okay, well

1:04:16

on the table because obviously I've

1:04:18

given this a lot of thought of thought.

1:04:20

writing the piece and then and then

1:04:22

had reason to stay in a hotel

1:04:24

to since I wrote the piece and

1:04:26

had the opportunity piece and I noticed

1:04:28

you use the word steal. to I noticed you

1:04:30

use the word steal. Yeah, us within

1:04:33

the question. bias within the question. But

1:04:35

I've the fence still on

1:04:37

the in my head, in I think.

1:04:39

I think I've for breakfast.

1:04:41

breakfast I I can have whatever I want.

1:04:43

I want. And even if I'm not going to

1:04:46

eat it in the dining room. eat it So

1:04:48

that's what room. So I think, is the case.

1:04:50

I'm looking forward to hearing what Mark has

1:04:52

to say. case. I'm looking my heart, I

1:04:54

can't bring myself to do it. But

1:04:56

in my heart, I can't bring myself

1:04:58

to do it. Now, of the things I

1:05:00

fear is being challenged. one of the You

1:05:03

know. fear is being challenged, you

1:05:05

know. Madam, Do you have something

1:05:07

in your hand? in your hand? I

1:05:11

mean, I mean, I can't

1:05:13

think of any other rational

1:05:15

reason for it. a And

1:05:17

you say it's a peculiarly

1:05:19

British habit. When did

1:05:21

you notice that? Well, I was

1:05:23

travelling with of people, most a

1:05:26

group of people, most of whom were

1:05:28

all. And it was, I mean, this may

1:05:30

have been I mean, this may

1:05:32

have been coincidental. a feeling. But I

1:05:34

have a feeling it did talk about it

1:05:36

a little bit because I was very

1:05:38

shocked. shocked. what I I witnessed, and we talked

1:05:40

in the group about it. it And

1:05:43

they said, said you know, English people, we're

1:05:45

careful with with don't,

1:05:47

why waste the opportunity the buy

1:05:49

lunch out, lunch especially if

1:05:51

you're if you're be expensive. Why

1:05:53

not do it? why It's

1:05:55

never occurred to me. occurred to me

1:05:58

Mark as a As a hotel manager I think

1:06:00

we need to get your perspective on this question.

1:06:02

on this Are guests allowed to take

1:06:04

food from the hotel buffet or is it

1:06:06

an unwritten rule or is to? I mean,

1:06:09

rule not you no, take it. take it.

1:06:11

You know, I know, I think the

1:06:13

problem is, what you've just

1:06:15

been been about being a British thing.

1:06:17

thing, I think it's absolutely correct. correct. It's a

1:06:19

bit like drinking, you know, sort of, you

1:06:21

know, when we go abroad, we can't handle

1:06:23

it because we're not it up with it,

1:06:25

you know, on the continent, know, on from a

1:06:27

young age, know, glass of wine with the

1:06:30

meals with quite normal so people get used to

1:06:32

alcohol, you know, from a very young age.

1:06:34

from a very young age. you know, we go crazy when

1:06:36

there's too much alcohol. too much alcohol

1:06:38

and partly, I don't think it's about... it's about

1:06:40

saving money. It's the the same We're

1:06:42

not bought up with a We're not of up

1:06:44

with a table full of sharing food

1:06:46

like they are abroad. know, their family than

1:06:48

ours. are completely different than ours. There'll

1:06:50

be a table full of food and

1:06:53

people are talking share it of share it

1:06:55

around. of Brits, it's of what's been it's only

1:06:57

what's been sort of dished up on a

1:06:59

we're not so we're not used to it huge

1:07:01

huge buffet. you can you can just help

1:07:03

yourself and have as much as you want. want.

1:07:05

I I mean, I blame the hotels really, you

1:07:07

know, because it makes it too tempting. When

1:07:10

I took over my hotels, I had

1:07:12

hotels, they used to

1:07:14

do buffet -service breakfast and the first

1:07:16

thing I did thing I them. stop

1:07:18

them. Would would you want hotel

1:07:20

staff to reprimand guests if they

1:07:22

catch them doing it? it? yes,

1:07:24

I mean, it is a, I a, I

1:07:26

understand what you're saying about being

1:07:28

a grey area, but it

1:07:30

is sort of... of... wrong, really. really. you

1:07:32

went to a mean, if you went to a

1:07:34

nice restaurant one evening a, was know, you know,

1:07:37

you went out somewhere and there was

1:07:39

a sort of a buffet, maybe a of a

1:07:41

salad bar. a help know it would be

1:07:43

wrong to steal the food and take

1:07:45

the food and lunch. home You know,

1:07:47

it's only for consumption You you're

1:07:49

there in the for consumption while Why is

1:07:51

it okay to do it in a hotel?

1:07:53

So why why is a breakfast buffet any

1:07:55

different? why is a it's more portable.

1:07:57

buffet any different? Well, it's where

1:07:59

I partly blame the hotels, you know,

1:08:02

because the problem is... It's what they're

1:08:04

giving for breakfast, you know, all these

1:08:06

sort of slices of cooked meats, various

1:08:09

cheeses, bread rolls, pastries, fresh root. When

1:08:11

was the last time you woke up

1:08:13

on holiday and said, I'm on holiday,

1:08:15

I'm going to treat myself, I really

1:08:18

fancy a cheese roll for breakfast. Never.

1:08:20

You know, I mean, no one's going

1:08:22

to tip a bowl of cornflakes in

1:08:25

one pocket and a rash of break

1:08:27

and a fried egg in the other

1:08:29

pocket, sneak it out the dining room

1:08:31

to eat for lunches, are they? So

1:08:34

the real problem is. Why are these

1:08:36

hotels serving pack lunch items or picnic

1:08:38

fair for breakfast in the first place?

1:08:41

Well I think, surely it's for foreign

1:08:43

tourists because a typical German breakfast for

1:08:45

instance would have slices of cheese, slices

1:08:47

of meat. So I guess big hotel

1:08:50

buffets are catering to that. And then

1:08:52

British people who want to save a

1:08:54

few quid think, oh well. I can

1:08:57

take a role and there's lunch. Laura

1:08:59

your article has sparked quite a lot

1:09:01

of debate in our office this week

1:09:03

and one of the arguments I've heard

1:09:06

being discussed is that it can be

1:09:08

embarrassing when you see a family member

1:09:10

taking food from the buffet. Would you

1:09:13

agree with that it could be quite

1:09:15

embarrassing if you're with someone who's sort

1:09:17

of pocketing lots of food? So the

1:09:19

hotel I stayed in recently where I

1:09:22

didn't take anything. by the way, from

1:09:24

the buffet. So I had one of

1:09:26

my daughters with me and I told

1:09:29

her what was on my mind and

1:09:31

she said, don't you dare. So I

1:09:33

do think there's an element of that.

1:09:35

And in the group, you know, when

1:09:38

this first rose, when I was in

1:09:40

Sweden and this whole thing first came

1:09:42

up for me, there were two sisters

1:09:44

who were traveling together and one of

1:09:47

them had really furnished their lunch from

1:09:49

the breakfast buffet. But the other sister

1:09:51

was disapproving. She's still at it, of

1:09:54

course. But on the whole she thought

1:09:56

it was just not... the thing. The

1:09:58

fact that people who do it when

1:10:00

you do this, you know, you wait

1:10:03

until other guests and certainly members of

1:10:05

staff that they're not watching you. You

1:10:07

do it secretly and the reason you

1:10:10

do it secretly and don't just do

1:10:12

it openly is because you know technically

1:10:14

what you're doing is wrong. I mean

1:10:16

it's no different than shoplifting or not

1:10:19

scanning something at a self-service checkout till.

1:10:21

Well, but hang on, is it really

1:10:23

exactly the same as that? Because, I

1:10:26

mean, you, as Lori says, you know,

1:10:28

you have paid for the breakfast. Well,

1:10:30

it's, people know, as I said, the

1:10:32

fact that if you're doing it, you're

1:10:35

frightened that somebody might see you and

1:10:37

that, that. is an admission of guilt,

1:10:39

that yes, it might be a buffet

1:10:42

breakfast, it might be an all you

1:10:44

can eat and you can go up

1:10:46

as many times as you want and

1:10:48

have as much as you want. But

1:10:51

the unwritten rule is it's for consumption

1:10:53

whilst you're in the dining room. I

1:10:55

would love to just finally Mark, I

1:10:58

love your opinion about other things that

1:11:00

people get in hotels because Lori has

1:11:02

I think an extremely interesting list of

1:11:04

some of the things that people... take

1:11:07

or don't take from their room. So,

1:11:09

you know, things such as, she writes

1:11:11

a pen, a notepad, tea bags, those

1:11:14

little bottles of shampoo, those even though

1:11:16

throwaway slippers, I mean, what's your opinion

1:11:18

about those sorts of things and whether

1:11:20

people should take those things home with

1:11:23

them? And what's perhaps the strangest thing

1:11:25

that someone has attempted to take from

1:11:27

one of the hotels that that you've

1:11:30

worked in? Well, I had a hotel,

1:11:32

one of the series I did, I

1:11:34

went to work at another hotel. And

1:11:36

they, apparently, they had a problem with

1:11:39

TV remote controls. So they kept, this

1:11:41

is true, this was on the TV

1:11:43

show. So they kept them all behind

1:11:46

reception and they were only handed out

1:11:48

when you checked in, they gave them

1:11:50

out with a room key and at

1:11:52

the end of your stay, you had

1:11:55

to. Remember to take

1:11:57

the the TV back

1:11:59

to reception and hand

1:12:01

it back in with

1:12:04

your room. room key. mean

1:12:06

that was unbelievable. The most

1:12:08

annoying thefts I had from my

1:12:10

hotels my hotels like the

1:12:12

batteries from the from the

1:12:14

remotes because often the housekeeping staff

1:12:16

didn't check the televisions

1:12:18

so So, know suddenly why would

1:12:20

people steal a batch? a battery? As far as

1:12:23

as toiletries, things like that. Nowadays

1:12:25

a lot lot more hotels because

1:12:27

of of of the whole of

1:12:29

thing thing. There's less of them there's

1:12:31

less of them having. A whole

1:12:33

array of different miniature toiletries just you

1:12:36

can just sort of up up

1:12:38

and take them all home A lot

1:12:40

of the thing now in a

1:12:42

lot of hotels of to have is

1:12:44

to have larger sort of soaps soaps and

1:12:46

things So there isn't so much

1:12:48

sort of wastage, but yeah, But it's... Things

1:12:51

like slippers, you you know, you definitely

1:12:53

can't take the dressing gowns. gowns. You know,

1:12:55

you know, the whole sort whole sort of joke

1:12:57

thing of, you know, I could

1:12:59

hardly close my suitcase the the towels

1:13:01

were so big and fluffy, you know,

1:13:03

you you shouldn't be stealing towels or

1:13:05

anything. or I think the worst thing

1:13:07

that ever happened to me personally me

1:13:09

personally was of my hotels, I just spent

1:13:11

quite a lot, of of pounds of pounds

1:13:13

all the rooms, changing all the bed

1:13:15

and all the curtains and I

1:13:17

had and bedrooms and all the curtains of

1:13:19

made to of made. to measure a lot of

1:13:21

me a lot of money to them all over and

1:13:23

them all over and they're all modern

1:13:26

and matching we we just finished swapping in the

1:13:28

rooms the that day day had a a we

1:13:30

call a family walk -in so they paid

1:13:32

cash for the room for some reason

1:13:34

we didn't get any details and there was

1:13:36

no any back then there was no CCTV this was

1:13:38

a family with three children a big

1:13:40

family room the following morning

1:13:42

the night porter saw them coming

1:13:45

out their room struggling coming out lots

1:13:47

of black bags with

1:13:49

he actually helped and he actually

1:13:51

helped them via a fire them to

1:13:53

the carry them to the car park. Now

1:13:55

when the went into the room

1:13:57

later. room later The curtains and

1:13:59

that big windows and all all

1:14:01

the bedspreads, the double and the

1:14:03

three single bedspreads, were all gone,

1:14:05

gone, they the whole lot. lot. Gosh. That was

1:14:08

the That was the worst theft

1:14:10

I ever had a a hotel room.

1:14:12

And it starts a a buffet buffet know

1:14:14

where you don't know where Exactly, that's where

1:14:16

it ends. that's where it ends. Well thank you

1:14:18

both very much indeed for joining

1:14:21

us, thank you. much indeed for joining

1:14:23

us. Thank you. And

1:14:30

And that's it for this podcast and for

1:14:32

this year this year. But as ever if you

1:14:34

enjoyed the podcast and are listening to us

1:14:36

on Spotify or Apple or click the follow

1:14:38

button to be notified when a new

1:14:40

episode is out. is out. I'm Laura Prendergast and

1:14:42

I'm William Moore, and we hope you join

1:14:44

us again us year. year.