This is Eva May, and I'm speaking to you for— from the Women's Radio Station for another in my series called Healing Image High. So during the series, I've spoken about many things to do with my own personal life as a survivor of historic childhood abuse, and I've also spoken to a number of guests who I feel extremely privileged to have the opportunity to speak to both personally and to do broadcasts that I hope that you will find interesting, where we can discuss subjects in their specialist field. Now, today I'm absolutely— I'm so happy and excited to always have this guest, Judge Rosemary Aquilina. Someone who deeply touched my life many years ago when she was involved with the trial in the US for the United States gymnastics team, um, for the abuse that was done to many of those girls by Dr. Larry Nesser. And, um, it, it touched me deeply. I didn't get to go to court. Um, I did go through a police investigation It's extremely difficult and hard, so I appreciated everything that those girls had done to get to that stage and to face their abuser. And then watching Judge Rosemary Aquilina actually, um, deal with the case, how she managed everybody and the outcome, and also the understanding that she has in so many capacities because she's does an awful lot in her life, um, has given great insight to me and many people in the world on what we can do to try and help people and stop these situations from repeating. So I'd like to welcome you, um, Judge Rosemary, and thank you again. As always, you're somebody that I absolutely love talking to, and quite often when I see, read, or hear things, I think, gosh, I'd really like to ask you about that. Um, and that's just on a, on a day-to-day basis when things come up. So you're someone that I, I would always like to talk to. So anyway, how are you? And welcome. Well, thank you for inviting me. It's always a pleasure to talk with you. And greetings from America. Yes. Um, if you're, um I'm in the UK, so I'm a little bit later in the day than you are. So, um, and I wanted to— I mean, I've stored up a little, a few little things that I'd really like to talk to you about. Um, and, and the first one was, um, something that I think exploded into— I think it was the second visit of this issue between a couple, which I would have thought was quite a personal thing between two people, and it became this really massive— certainly in the UK, you know, I couldn't go onto my internet without seeing reels and reels of put-together recordings and videos for really social media about the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial. So where cameras were invited into the courtroom. And I wanted to ask you what your thoughts were on that, because some of these, um, videos that are put together, um, and put out on social media platforms by people that we actually don't really know were getting like 9 billion views. Um, and there was a, you know, a Johnny and an Amber camp going on around the world while a 6-week trial was going on. And I wanted to ask your thoughts on that as a judge, because does it flag up sort of massive cons about inviting cameras into court? And if you, if you do invite cameras into court and then this sort of thing happens, can you, can you stop cameras partway, or once they're in, are they in? Well, first of all, I'm a believer that cameras should be in every courtroom because that's how you really find out what's going on in your community. The reporters in the newspapers, they don't report everything that we do, and I think the people have the right to know what's going on in their community, and the best way is to watch what's going on in the courtroom. Once you allow a camera in the courtroom, you have no control over what portion of it is played and what they do and the memes and all of that. What you do have to be mindful of is is the jury and the judge do not see all of those things during the trial because then it can skew the outcome. So there has to be some controls within the courtroom, but what happens outside of it, we don't have control over it. There are things that you can do with the jury. You can voir dire them, making inquiries every day about, "Did you see anything that might influence you?" And you can, And of course, consistently remind them, "Do not listen to or talk about the case except in deliberations, and that's only when I instruct you to." And every day you can ask, "Did you see anything? Did someone talk to you?" As for the judge, if the judge is the trier of fact, because here in America we have the jury, it's the trier of fact, and the judge decides the law, but sometimes I can sit as both the judge and jury because someone wants a bench trial, which is by judge alone. I'm very mindful of those kinds of issues, and I tend to set my newspapers aside and not watch those things so that I don't get those outside influences. But when judges do have those influences, we also know how to separate that out because that's not evidence. And the danger is that when something comes into the courtroom that doesn't comply with the rules of law, the court rules, the statutes, the case law, that can have a dangerous outcome. Now with the Depp-Hurd trial, you know, what's interesting about that is, um, people watched it, I think, more like a soap opera because it was a toxic relationship and they were all curious about these famous people and how they were living. And I think it was a really sad story. Um, I tended to not watch it because I see enough of that in my courtroom. And, you know, she had won a case, uh, on, I think, domestic violence, and then he wins this on most counts. She got a count, he got most of the counts. Um, what I honestly think about this case is that— what is it, $8.325 million or something— that, uh, somewhere around that number that she owes him, I think that He doesn't need the money. It will bankrupt her. And I think that it would really speak volumes if he just shook her hand and said, "Let's just go our separate ways. You don't owe me any money. We've both aired too much laundry. Let's call it even." The money doesn't mean anything to him. It will certainly hurt her. I think he wanted it out in the public. He got it. They were both wrong. Toxic relationships. I think the greater story here is How do we recognize a toxic relationship? How do we get out of a toxic relationship? And that's really the lesson to be learned. Yeah, no, quite, I do agree. I mean, it certainly did look like a, you know, a toxic relationship and a very, very sad, you know, that's very sad for anyone to be in, but You know, to give it 6 weeks, that also built up— it's quite a lot of, um, you know, it was— I mean, it was being talked about an awful lot here, um, you know. And I mean, I don't know, is it usual to give something like that 6 weeks? Well, you have to give them enough time to do their— to present their evidence and do it properly. So sure, I mean, I've had cases take 2 days and I've had them take, you know, weeks and weeks. So, you know, this is really not different from the O.J. trial that was on. I remember for months and months and months we heard about, you know, O.J., uh, murdering his wife, and that trial went on and on and on. Of course, that was found not guilty, and then he was found guilty in a civil case. So we heard about that for not just months, I think it was years. But sure, there's no time limit on the courtroom The only time limit is, can each side effectively present their evidence? And that means direct and cross-examination, redirect. And then, you know, each side gets their time to present their evidence. So it has to be fair to both sides. And so we give each time, each case the time they need. Doesn't matter if it's that kind of case, a defamation case, a criminal case, a family court case. We have to allow everyone to present their case for there to be justice for both sides and for there to be a good decision by the jury or the judge. Yeah, so right, yeah, I mean, it's still— it is still being, um, it is still being talked about. And I suppose actually now it's not so much the social media, it's more the newspapers that are keeping this one going. And I think that, look, they're in the business of selling papers. Exactly, you're exactly right. That is, and it, I mean, it definitely sold papers. It really, really did. Yeah, very, very sad. But I did, I didn't, I personally did not like the way that it seemed acceptable in society to be able to have access to what's going on in court with the cameras. And that's right. I don't want to interrupt you, but let me turn that around. Okay. Yeah. Let's suppose we have a closed court system. If you have a closed court system on any kind of case, do you trust the system? And my answer is no. I'd rather have it be open and then the public devours whatever they want from it and keep a clean court. Because you have the court of public opinion, but then you also have the actual opinion in court based on law. Yeah. And sometimes they, they differ. And I think that's what you saw here. But I think flip it around and say, do you want all of this to go on behind closed doors? No, I prefer your open court system to our system, uh, because it— I think it's fairer, it's more informative. You can actually understand the process. Everybody, you know, get, you know, the, the professionalism of the judge, the roles of the jury. All those boundaries are set out in court. Well, we don't see— see, in the UK, what we get is newspaper reporters hanging around courts, and then if they hear or they think something is going to sell a newspaper, they'll dive in and record a report on that story, which, no, I don't agree with at all. I do really think that you're your system in the US of open court is much, uh, fairer to everybody. But in this instance, it's the first time that I've really seen that level. It seemed to reach a new level of, um, of social media, you know. It— to me, open court does not mean it suddenly gets played on a TikTok. That, that's not right. But As you say, people, people spend a lot of time on these platforms now. We just don't have control over what happens with it. Even if, even if you put something on Facebook, if some, if it's open and people can see it, they can copy it, make a TikTok out of it. There's very little control. I think we need to have some more laws because sometimes really harmful things are done. But ultimately, the only way to have trust in our government is to have it in the open. Yes. Yeah, no, I do totally agree. And I think, um, I don't know why we don't have an open court here. I, I really don't. Um, there's never any discussion about it. It's terribly interesting to me that you don't, because I've talked to a lot of people from your country. I get contacted all the time. I've done several interviews, and it's very interesting to me that you don't, because I've never met anyone from your country— not that I've met thousands of people— but I've never met anyone from your country who says we don't want open courts. Everyone says we want it open, we want to do and see what happens in America, we want it here in this country. And it's interesting to me that that has not happened. No, it has not happened at all, and there's never any discussion about it. I mean, we do have, um, So open parliament every day. I don't know how yours works, but honestly, they're like a bunch of people just trying to score points and be quite rude to each other. It's, um, yeah, it's something that I actually choose not to watch because, um, it's a very old-fashioned traditional system. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but it doesn't seem to me to be very productive. It's an awful lot of shouting and at times really disrespectful, and it's always, you know, like two parties who are trying to point score against each other, which I don't consider to be helping our country. Where you have a president and, I don't know, so when, when they're making decisions, is he still working with the opposition or is that a relationship that finishes when the polling's finished? So we have, we can watch the state legislature, we can watch the federal legislature. There's certain channels that cover that. We don't see, there's the, when the caucuses, when the Democratic caucuses are meeting with the president or the Republican caucuses are meeting with themselves or even with the president, we don't have access to those kinds of things. We do though have a lot of access to what happens in the open, on the open floor of the Senate and the House. And they do continue to work together. They fight a lot as well. Yeah. And they're at a standstill an awful lot. I've actually considered, you know, one of the things I've considered as I get all these offers of, you know, what am I going to do in my future? One of the things I've thought about recently and was approached about is, you know, maybe I'll run for the U.S. Senate. I have the background. I certainly have a voice. I'd like to get in the mix and make some real changes because I often find that the legislature is at a standstill for no good reason. And we, the public, are held hostage and we just keep paying higher taxes and nothing positive happens. Nothing that we want happens, you know? It is interesting, but we can't fix all the woes in the world in one conversation. But I think that these kinds of conversations need to happen so that people demand change and accountability. I think, yeah, that's how I feel. I, I'd like— I think we do need to change. And your example in the US with open court, I think, you know, it's obviously— I mean, how long have you been doing that? Has that always been the case? Always been the case. I've always let everybody speak. I've always let the media in whenever they want. I don't deny anyone. I've been a judge, a civilian judge, for 18 years. I was in the military for 20 years. We don't have you know, open hearings there like we do in, in the civil courts. Um, but, uh, yeah, for 18 years I've had open courts, and there's a lot of articles and film about what I do, and some people like it and some people don't, but I'm not going to stop because it's not my courtroom, it's the people's court, and they have the right to know what's going on. So I'm not going to ever change that view. No. Well, I hope that we take some steps towards that, but Yeah, it does. I mean, I don't know, I mean, the Johnny Depp and Amber thing, it was extremely sad. I don't know, I mean, emotionally for them, I guess you've got to keep away from saying things like that. If, you know, I was her, then, you know, the way that she was portrayed and the things that were done to those recordings extremely hurtful. Yeah, and I wouldn't like to see that happen to anybody. That personally, I mean, if that was me and then I looked on social media and saw, you know, how it had all been used, I'm not really sure I'd be equipped to cope with that. But I hope she gets some good advice around not seeing it. No, it was a massive thing for both of them to go through. In public. Um, and like you say, um, well, she, she's got— who's won? Nobody's won, really, have they? No, nobody's won. It's just terribly sad. You know, on the other hand, he did— I, I think he needed to, you know, air some of that because he was losing employment and had sort of this doubt cast upon him that was affecting people wanting to work with him. So in that regard, you know, he's going to make all his money back and he's got his dignity back. It's just sad that it was at the cost of her, um, I don't know, her credibility. It's— it was very sad. I think that both sides could have done better. I think this could have been negotiated outside of court, um, but I don't know because it's hard to second-guess any case. I think that it's an absolute example of listening to credible testimony and incredible testimony. And incredible testimony is testimony that is so extraordinary that it seems impossible. And then credible testimony is reliable testimony. It shows the accuracy of the witness's testimony and the ability to observe what happened and all of that. And I think that people made up their mind that he was credible and she was incredible, and they found certain inconsistencies, which is what they're supposed to do in court. The sad part is it does not account for the trauma that people go through and then how they act in court. I have seen people be traumatized for various reasons and they might even laugh, but that is not that they haven't been traumatized. That's just one of the very many reactions when people are traumatized. Um, I think her attorney maybe could have practiced with her, not told her what to say, but practiced with her about cross-examination. Cross-examination is just grueling, and I don't think she did a really good job on cross-examination, but it could have been because of the trauma that she's endured. We're never going to know. The jury did their job, the judge did their job. I think that their reputations are intact for whatever they are, and they really, really need to stay away from each other and say to the rest of the world, you know, we had that toxic relationship, split before it gets this far, and we've made amends and we're going our separate ways. And he needs to forgive the debt, and she needs to not mention him, and he needs to not mention her, and they just need to go forward. I don't know if they can. I think she's considering an appeal, and that's just really going to put salt in the wounds over and over and over again and not take this out of the public purview. So this could be talked about for years, which really, I think, stifles them in growing and developing away from each other into good relationships. And I hope they both get some, some good therapy because they've both been through a lot. Oh God, they've both certainly both been through a lot, and, and both of them have got, um, families, um, you know, he's got children, she's got, I think, one child, and that's really got to be their focus of moving on and looking after themselves. I think that that's more what worried me, was seeing all these things and thinking that this is actually quite harmful, which was already a nasty situation going on in court. So, yeah. The other thing we were talking about earlier, and obviously I thought of you when I read it, was that this week— I mean, it's only like a few days ago— our press— I don't know how big newspapers are in the US because you do have open court, but our newspapers, it's a pretty massive thing. You know, a lot of them, a lot of people read them and buy them, and obviously there's very different different ones, but I think the reporting on this was fairly accurate, that there's been an investigation into British Olympic sport, and they found that, you know, there is a scandal within the gymnastics organization of abuse and violence, physical, emotional, and sexual trauma by sort of coaches and slapping children, sitting on them. Some of these children are as young as 7, and I think 40% of these children are under 12. They are fat-shamed, they are refused access to food, and not allowed to go to the toilet, and, um, yeah, made to stand on a bar for several hours and to perform while being really severely injured. And I was quite shocked that this— oh no, I don't know if I am shocked really, but you know, this, this goes on. Um, you had your— the case of the Nassar. I would have thought after that, that was such a wild thing that people, um, because it wasn't just about him, there were several, there were some documentaries done as well about, um the training and how parents were kept out of training camps and that children were not given food. And like, Nasser was the nice guy giving them sort of candy or sweets, you know. Yeah. Um, so yeah, I was kind of shocked that, that this still goes on. So we're talking about adults again harming children within an organization Um, and we're not talking about one person, we're talking about like an organization that has got this culture of harming very young children. And I just wanted to, to, to talk about that with you really, because, um, yeah, it's dreadfully sad. Well, first of all, those are criminal acts against the children. It's child abuse. And I don't know what you have in your country. We have, um, Child Protective Services, uh, agencies that come in and will remove the child. And there are countries where that happens and children die. And it's really a question of winning at all costs and using these children as a vehicle, not a human being, but as a vehicle to winning medals and gaining notoriety. And they are treated horribly. It's, it's criminal. It's child abuse. There's no other way to describe it. It can be murder. It can be assault, less than murder, but nonetheless, it is cruel and unusual punishment. It should not be allowed. And the first thing that any parent should think about when deciding, do I want to put my child in a sport, is can I have access to wherever the child goes? And if they cannot, then the child should not engage in that particular sport, with that coach, with that team. There's lots of options for sports. You should go where there's safety, where there isn't that win-at-all-costs mentality. And honestly, if you look statistically at winners, those teams that win have the kind of coach that is a good mentor, a positive role model, does not use threats, cruelty of any kind, does not keep food from a child, does not do all those things. They actually do positive things with the child. And then that child wants to even perform better because if you are whipping someone, you know, like a horse, you're whipping that horse to go, the horse will go, but it will be pained and it will not perform. But if you are giving them breaks and if you are exercising them properly and giving them food and water and talking to them nicely, that horse is gonna go more distance than you ever imagined. And that's also true of human beings. And there are studies, and by the way, children need extra food as they're developing and exercising. 'Cause otherwise you're ruining their muscles and their brain is not developed till they're 25. So you're killing parts of their brain as well. I mean, there's so much that science knows, and children need regular food, drink, water. They have to take breaks. Uh, they're— what, what you've described is criminal. Yes, but I don't understand why these adults, why there is— they might even think any of it in any small way was fine, um, because it's about money. It's about money. And you know, here's the thing, if all of you got together and said, okay, whether it's— I don't know what, what your famous designers are, or Pepsi-Cola, or whoever, you know, Coca-Cola, or whatever you have, McDonald's, or whatever you have there— if those sponsors of those sports said, clean this up or we won't sponsor you, it would be cleaned up in a week. I think you're right, it would definitely. Um, I mean, they've been— that's absolutely right. I mean, if these sponsors pulled out, we couldn't afford to fund it. I mean, that's, that's the big end-all of it. Yeah, because I'm not buying, you know, the skirt or a Coke or a hamburger of anybody who's supporting child abuse, and no one should do that. There should be an uprising saying clean this up. Or we don't support you. And there's not an advertiser in the world who isn't going to listen to that. No, you're absolutely right. I mean, it's just been— when you, when you look at it and you read the report, it— there are people who are apologizing. They just say, I'm sorry, and, and then they've obviously like left their roles. But it's like, that is not good enough. It's not acceptable because these kids now are going to have to to live realizing what's happened, and their parents are as well. And like you're saying, it's just to use them as a vehicle to win. And anybody who's not doing something about this, who is participating in it and not speaking up against it, is a co-conspirator to the crime. They cannot stand away and say you know, I didn't do it. Well, if they're not reporting it, if they're not changing it, if they're accepting it, they are a co-conspirator to anyone who's causing that pain on those children. Yeah, no, I, I do agree. I agree. I, I mean, we're going to have to wait and see what sort of, um, happens about this. You know, it was, um, they've taken 2 years to do this in the best investigation, and it has been an independent one. So I think, you know, it does have credibility and it is very thorough. And I'm— well, I just hope— I thought we would have learned from NASA and from what goes on in other countries. To have this going on here is— well, I was really shocked. I was totally shocked that this, this practice went on. But you're absolutely right, sponsors now pull out and we clean it up. But you have to clean this up. I don't understand how people don't realize when they harm children what damage is done. It's not like once the end of your coaching session is finished and I've stopped sitting on you and I've not given you any food that you're going to be fine, because that's not how it works. As, as like you and I both know, the, the damage is— it's so profound that I'm not sure how we can, um, get across to people what it does, what it actually does, um, to a human being. Yeah, I know, it's just Terribly sad. Um, and what do you think, you know, for these, these children that have been found in this inquiry, you know, how, how do they move on? How do they recover? I mean, what support for families? Because none of that is in place. They need— they absolutely need, um, trauma therapy. I suspect some of them have now such low self-esteem that there's suicidal ideation, probably some suicide attempts, uh, self-harm. There's probably a lot that's going on that, um, they don't even talk about, and it's not recognized. They may be doing things to gain control, like not eating because they can control what they eat, or overeating because that is self-soothing. There's so much psychology there I'm not trained to address, but each one of them needs to be evaluated and go— probably years of therapy, so that they realize that they matter, they have a voice, they have a choice, all of what happened to them was wrong, and that they did not participate in it willfully, that they did nothing wrong, and that they matter, and that this never should have happened, it was a crime against them. And they couldn't do anything to stop it because they were young, because they were told to follow their coach because their parents said it was okay. And possibly the parents didn't know what was going on, and if they did, shame on the parents, they need some family counseling then. And even if the parents say, well, I'm sorry, I didn't know, I think there's a mistrust that's built up, a wall between the parent and child, because the child says, well, you should have known, you didn't, you failed to keep me safe. So there needs to be family counseling. And I can tell you, after COVID in the United States, we are short therapists. We don't have enough therapists for all of the need on top of all the things that happen in the world regularly, then we have all the things that happened as a result of COVID And I know in your country, because I've heard from people who are in need of therapy saying, you know, they don't get it for— they're on a list and they get it 4 or 5 years too late. So I don't know. That's, again, I think that colleges, universities, high schools in your country should encourage students to not just go into medicine but to go into psychiatry, to go into psychology, Maybe have teachers take some of those classes to be able to recognize when children need help, because when you have self-harm, suicidal ideation, a lot of times this turns into addiction, it turns into death, it turns into depression. Depression causes death. I mean, there's nothing positive that comes from this kind of behavior. Those children need a therapist who's their secret keeper and who can tell them how valuable they are and give them coping mechanisms. Yes, you're quite right about the— I think, yeah, having a secret keeper, because it is very hard. And for somebody to suddenly need to address this when you're not prepared, it's out of the blue. I don't think in this country that we actually have a a culture of mental health support in the way that we need. And I don't think— I'm not sure it's really going to happen anytime soon. I'm now 50— I'm nearly 57, actually, but I'm— I've been in this system of therapy since I was 19, and I struggled when I was 19 in a lot of ways. But there wasn't help available. I didn't know where to get it, and I didn't know why it, it had come from when it happened to me as a child. So I, um, I, I went and paid to see somebody when I was 19. I was working, so I went to pay and see somebody and started talking about things that were troubling me, not the abuse. I hadn't disclosed at this point I didn't disclose for nearly 30 years after the events that happened. But I was so ashamed, Rosemary, that I was having therapy that I never told anybody, um, not any of my friends. I told work that I had a physiotherapy appointment, and it had this real connection to shame, to that I needed some help. I think we've moved on from that quite a lot. Um, we've got problems in the UK anyway. Um, you're right, people are having to wait now about 4 or 5 years for, for therapy, but there's not a lot of people who are wanting to go into it. My daughter is a doctor and she's on her first year rotation. Uh, rotation— the one that she finished recently was psychiatry, and of all the rotations and the hospital situations she's been in, it was her worst, most frightening, less supportive experience that she's ever had. So we need to change that because she's going to be an extremely good doctor in whatever field she goes into, but she will not be going into psychiatry. And nor did my son for the same reasons. Um, they— units and things that they were, um, going into did not have the right structure. They didn't have the right, um, They didn't have the right staff with the right training, so it's not going to encourage people to go into it. Our government now has said that after COVID and the fact that mental health has really started spiraling big time— it was before, but now they're actually acknowledging it— they're going to send in, um, mental health staff— they've not said what it is— to, uh, GPs, you know, like family doctors, surgery, so that 2,000 surgeries in the UK to start with will have one person who's dedicated for mental health. When you think each surgery could be responsible for like 30,000 people, I do not understand how this is going to work. And when people are offered things on the NHS, they get— you get 5 or 6 sessions, which to me isn't really enough time to even work out what the diagnosis is and what a treatment plan would be. So I think we're heading for like a world crisis really, aren't we? I'm trying to, to put my bit out there. I would really like to have more people in the UK trained like the person that I'm seeing, because I have Dissociative Identity Disorder from repeated and complex trauma. But I'm only one of 50 people in the country who have access to this service, and my therapist has been trained in what you have, the American standards and the European standards. But we don't have that for trauma, and so it's not getting addressed and things are going on for long— for longer, and it is— it has become a real, real crisis. I think your country is in a better position than we are, um, and why we're not learning from you, I just don't know. Well, it takes time, but, um, I have to say it's disturbing. It's good that they're going— your country is allowing some therapy, but when you put 6 or 7 or 10 sessions, you're really putting a time limit on healing, and there is no time limit on healing. A lot of times, uh, people are just getting comfortable the first dozen times they meet with their therapist, and they're exploring all the issues, but you don't get to the bottom of it, and you don't get to all of the various treatment, um, aspects, uh, sometimes for years. So it's troubling that they would think, oh well, 6 or 7 sessions is enough. Um, that's disturbing. It is disturbing, but I think it's, it's more to do with resources. And, um, I don't know what it's like in, in the United States, but in our country you can, uh, be, be in the mental health as a worker at quite a young age. And I think it's the, uh, young— to be a consultant you can become a consultant pretty young if you want to be a consultant psychiatrist, which I'm not sure is necessarily a good thing because they need a lot more experience that comes with age. I'm actually, although what happened to me was terrible, I'm a fairly intelligent person, and I was, after years of funding privately my therapy because I came to America as well. And therapy is not cheap. If you go to a good rehab facility, which I went to in America, you're spending $1,000 a day. And if you need to be there for 70 days, you know, that's something that, you know, my family had to gather together on that one to fund it. But, you know, I've now got support that I need, but it's going to last 6 years. And the support that I get, we've had to fight for. Previous to that, the government provision was they sent a psychiatric nurse to my house. I can't remember, it's fairly regularly, not weekly. She dumped me me by text, um, without me even knowing that. Well, obviously I had no idea. She dumped me by text, and I was absolutely devastated. Uh, when you send someone a text anyway, you've no idea what mood they are, where they are, what frame of mind, or anything. So to get that from someone that I'd actually trusted to come into my house and to meet with my family. I always had my sessions when my kids or my husband were, were in the house to give an opportunity for them to talk if they wanted to, if they wanted to say something, because she's only hearing it one way from me. My, you know, my mental health impacts on my family in ways that only they can really talk about. So we had all this, you know, going on, and then just to receive a text and then to find out that my team, which would be my consultant psychotherapist— psychiatrist, had absolutely no idea. I think it highlights that we have got such a broken system that can't manage. It's overstretched. And from this, there was an inquiry into what had happened and to why, as to why a team meeting had not flagged up that I'd been dumped by text. And from that, they found so many things that have been done wrong. My psychiatrist had not— had completed paperwork and done things that he said, signed off things that he hadn't actually done. And I was— there were many more things. There were about 5 things, quite big things. So I was also— I also lost a psychiatrist too, because the investigation found that I could not be seen by that man again. So I lost everything again, and I don't quite know the person that dumped me by text, she was in her 20s. Now, I don't think she had the experience or the age-based experience to really understand what that meant to do to somebody who— I mean, the number of years that my abuse spanned was more years than she had actually lived. So I don't know what the answer is, but I'm lucky I got through this because it was, it was an absolutely massive thing. And since that day, I can't find a psychiatrist to help me review my medication because I was put on medication 8 years ago in the United States by trauma specialists. We don't have them here. And I can't get— no one, no one will review my meds. I'm on the same for 8 years. And I mean, that's just my problem, and I hope it's not a widespread issue, but maybe I'm just unlucky and I get to see the wrong people. But I don't think you're unlucky. I think that's a systemic problem, and I think that that woman committed malpractice, and I think that It's a problem that needs to be fixed. I find generally that when somebody has a problem, or when I find something wrong even in our system, I'm not the only one having it, or the person who came to me isn't the only one having it. It is a systemic problem, and I think you're experiencing a systemic problem that needs correcting. No, I think it is a stress— it is definitely a problem that needs correcting, and I'm very fortunate now that I had a fantastic family doctor, and I had to go through some pretty awful tests as well for the NHS to get to the funding for the— I go to the Centre for Dissociative Studies in the UK, but I'm only one of 50 people in the country because it just isn't recognized. So yeah, okay, it's a bad system, but the system needs to learn from countries like you that there's more to be done. We need more people trained in trauma because, you know, even since COVID we've had a load of people, you know, the trauma of COVID has been absolutely massive and there just aren't practitioners. The system is not set up, it's pretty fragmented. And then yesterday, or I don't know, a couple of days ago We talked about this earlier. There's, um, our Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, has now, um, set up some, um— well, she states, she's quoted, it's in this paper, that, um, addiction, self-harm, and suicide could be avoided in later life if children are taught to properly manage their emotions. And she has set up a Royal Foundation Centre for Early Childhood. Now, I don't actually quite know what this centre means, whether it's a research centre or it's a centre where people go to, or it's a training centre. But her statement saying that she thinks that, um, you know, just helping children to— if children are taught to properly manage their emotions— I think the word taught kind of got me, because how can you teach children from naught to 5 what emotions they're going to come across in life and which ones they're going to need to be able to manage. Because that would be— yeah. So here's my take on that statement. Um, it's very upsetting, first of all, but taught to manage emotions means shut up, don't talk about it, we don't want to hear about it, we're not going to help you. We don't believe you. So it's really a control mechanism so they don't have to acknowledge that there's mental illness and that there's people who need help. And what I would say to everybody who's listening is to Google an article, email it to her, mail it to her. If you've written a book, mail it to her. If you've read a good book on trauma, mail it to her. Flood her with information, because what she is putting out there is so misinformed and misguided, it is going to lead to mistreatment and misdiagnosis of children. I, I was— I'm actually so pleased that you, you have said that, because when, when I read it, I thought, you know, I'm wrong. You know, she's meeting with our Health Secretary, you know, who is given that position within our government. Who are elected. And here she is, somebody who's, you know, she, she did a history of art degree at university, she met a prince, um, you know, they had a relationship, broke up, got back, got 3 children. Um, you know, we see pretty much daily that she's out and about, you know, what she's wearing, who she's gone to see, what place she's opened, and all these sorts of things. So I actually cannot understand where she's got the time or experience to even say that with any, you know, background and being an expert on it. And I'm not an expert on it, but, you know, I've read a lot. I know there's a lot out there. I know that if each one of your listeners just Googles an article from the Mayo Clinic or from, from Psychology Today or from any of the famous people around who are actually trained in it and sends it to her, maybe we can help educate her because She is not properly addressing mental illness. And while I'm not an expert, I see what it does to people every single day. And it has to be addressed properly or you're killing people. And the more people are silenced, the more they die. They die emotionally, mentally, and physically. They end up addicted. They end up committing crimes. They end up doing self-harm. They end up with suicidal ideation or committing suicide. They end up harming others because they don't know what to do with whatever they're feeling. It's so wrong. You can't teach people to manage their emotions. I mean, should we teach people to not cry at a funeral? Is that how far she's gonna go? Should we teach people to not be upset that they've been raped or that someone burned them with cigarette butts? And had their way with them. I mean, I see it all, and that trauma— you can't manage your emotions. No, you can't. It's impossible. I'm, I'm absolutely astounded by it. I mean, this is the, you know, the person who was one of four with her husband, you know, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and then with Prince Harry, and then with the Duchess of Sussex. Meghan Markle, they set up this Heads Together. It was going to be this big mental health, you know, and I, when I heard that, my heart leapt. I thought this could be really positive, this could be absolutely really something, you know. People, the royal family are fairly pretty much popular here in, in, well, I don't know, I can only speak for myself, but Um, but this Heads Together with the four of them, we actually thought they would get access, people would listen, and we get something. Well, then, you know, obviously the, the family situation— there's not four of them together, they're not even all in the same country anymore, so that's gone. So now let's look at, let's look at, you know, all the things that you're saying. Let's look at that family. They don't have money problems. They can get access to healthcare whenever they want. If they have an emotional problem, I bet they get a therapist right away. They're not dealing with the same things that their subjects are dealing with. And then on top of that, you know, Princess Diana, who was in touch with the people, who got down and, and sat with the sick children and did all of that, Uh, they ousted her, and ultimately she died because of her— their treatment of her. And, you know, this is a family that is hiding their emotions. They're trained to hide their emotions, and they're asking their subjects to do the same, their people to do the same. And I say garbage. You know, we need more people like you talking out. We need more people to think about You know, how can I get help? How can I help others? How can I speak out? You know, how can I empower myself and my children? How can I deal with all of this? Where is the help? And ask them, where is the help? It's great, their foundation sounds great, but it sounds like window dressing to address the cries of their people. But then, you know, we're gonna have this great foundation, but then you better manage your emotions. I mean, that doesn't even make sense to me. This is window dressing, they've never experienced it. This, never. So how is it they're able to talk about this? Where are their experts? I want to see their experts. Yeah, I think it's right. Everybody— we— I mean, I wrote to her once and I got, uh, I didn't even get a reply from her. I got a reply from, um, one of her staff saying, uh, that I should, uh, write to Heads Together. Well, I had written to Heads Together and they, they responded to me. Well, you do it by email because because that's the way, and they were going to contact me within 2 weeks. Well, that's about 4 years ago and I didn't hear anything. Good job I wasn't hanging on for that one. But, you know, they're ineffective. It's just yet another idea that sounds really nice. I mean, she's also a person who thinks that going to a garden center is really therapeutic. I cannot— you will not find me in a garden center. And I know quite a few other people. She, she puts out all the time that how therapeutic gardening is for mental health. I really don't think she quite understands at any depth what mental health issues and problems are really about. If she seriously thinks that this is going to stop addiction, self-harm, and suicide, then you're right, it's, it's extremely dangerous. I mean, we've got, you know, Prince Andrew that's just given, um, someone he says he, he never, he never met for something he never did £12 million. They're an absolute— and if you look at his, uh, you're never going to learn any interview skills from him. He— I think it's something that they should back off. It's not their role. And this does anger me And as a teacher, my focus was early years, and it was also special educational needs. So I've been trained, and I was, you know, dealing with children's mental health issues. I've dealt with those for decades. And this is somebody who's just come in and set up some Royal Food— we've got the word royal in it. Then it's, uh, everybody stands around smiling and nobody wants to address the problem and, and, and question her, ask her like, why, where, what are these things? I mean, she certainly couldn't spend the time to talk to someone like me who, A, is a, an early years teacher with years and years of experience, and also somebody who was groomed and abused abused as a child and trafficked and drugged. And I've committed— tried to commit suicide because I have DID many, many times. And she just wrote— got someone to write me a letter. Um, this is not a woman that can deal with real problems. Well, the society, the Heads Together, has been out there since, what, 2016? And it's to talk about mental health and to address it. But what have they really done? I mean, in 6 years, they should have programs to train more psychiatrists, psychologists. They should have programs that include cognitive behavior and dialectical behavior and problem-solving therapy and animal therapy and all sorts of other things that, um, are pretty standard because two of them in California, they moved to— half of them moved to— rather than heads together, they went heads apart. One lot stayed here and the other lot went to, uh, to the United States. So it's hardly— there's no together in this at all, right? It's window dressing because it sounds good, raised a lot of money. Where did the money go? There should be an accounting, there should be accountability. And any money that remains should go into the system for the purpose for which it was intended and to help those who need it most. And, you know, without that, I think they lose a lot of credibility. You, you just can't manage emotions by setting up a foundation and making yourself look good. You have to actually talk to people, train them to speak out, and actually help them through whatever trauma they're going through and have trauma informed, trained therapists, and it doesn't sound like that's what they're doing. I don't know what they're doing, but I think that's an excellent idea to start sending her, um, the information, because I think this sort of thing is, is dangerous, and it's also quite insulting to people who, who are trained and who are trying to do their best to make their differences. And it's also insulting to to sort of people like me who, um, you know, even if we, we went back and I was a kid and her this sort of age and did what she said, it actually wouldn't have helped me at all in any way. It probably would have confused me. Uh, harmed you. I think it would have harmed you, not confused you. I think it would have been deadly to you. Yeah, I think so. I think you're absolutely right. I mean, I can't believe this now. Um, we've only got like a minute left. I just don't know where the time goes when we start talking. Um, so is there, you know, how, how would you like to finish up today? How would you like to summarize? I think that what we all need to do is to talk, take action, treat each other with kindness, and treat ourselves with kindness. And try to keep this conversation going in every way we can by voting, sending letters, writing, having conversations everywhere at the dinner table. Starts at the dinner table and then goes out into the community because one conversation leads to another and that can change the world. And we need accountability and conversation. I think, yeah, we definitely— I think that's why I'm so I so enjoy doing this, the radio station. I think it's such a great platform to talk to different people and for people to listen to conversation because it seems to be something that— okay, during COVID we couldn't talk like we all used to, and I think we need to get back up there to listening and to talking and to to, to learning, uh, more. And you're right about caring with each other. Yes, well, small traumas grow into large ones when they are left unattended, so attend to those traumas. And I thank you for inviting me again. Thank you.